This bill became law on Feb 9th, 2026.
Law, justice & rights
People challenging government decisions may have their case decided without an oral hearingA meeting where parties can speak to the tribunal. when the tribunal considers that fair and reasonable.
The government said the Administrative Review TribunalAn independent body that reconsiders federal government decisions., the independent body that reconsiders federal government decisions, needed faster and more flexible procedures. In 2024–25, student visa matters made up almost 40 per cent of new applications, nearly double the number in 2022–23. It argued that long waits hurt genuine applicants and encourage people without genuine claims to seek review so they can remain on a bridging visaTemporary permission to remain while a visa matter is decided. — temporary permission to stay while a visa matter is decided.
Australia’s federal merits-review system dates back to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, created in 1975 to independently check government decisions, and the Administrative Review TribunalAn independent body that reconsiders federal government decisions. (ART) replaced it on 14 October 2024 with jurisdiction spanning more than 400 Commonwealth Acts. For some temporary-visa reviews, oral hearings consumed significant time and resources even when material was limited, so Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill to enable paper decisions for student-visa refusals and prescribed temporary visas while preserving written participation rights; Parliament passed it on 5 February 2026 and Royal Assent followed on 9 February.
David Pocock (Independent) said almost half of reviewed student visa decisions were overturned, suggesting these cases were not always simple. He warned that young applicants and people without lawyers or strong English skills could lose the chance to explain misunderstandings aloud. Tammy Tyrrell (Independent) argued that written-only reviews would shift translation and paperwork onto already stretched migrant services and community legal centres. She also said allowing regulationsDetailed rules made under an Act and open to parliamentary rejection. to add visa categories would reduce parliamentary scrutiny. Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network) warned that the tribunal's wider power could be unfair in complex disability support, welfare and veterans' cases involving medical evidence.
Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 09 Feb 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
159 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
People challenging government decisions may have their case decided without an oral hearingA meeting where parties can speak to the tribunal. when the tribunal considers that fair and reasonable. The tribunal must first seek their views.
Temporary visa applicants in categories named by regulationsDetailed rules made under an Act and open to parliamentary rejection. must have their reviews decided from written material. Permanent and protection visaA visa for a person seeking Australia's protection. reviews cannot enter this process.
Visa applicants in the written-only process must be invited to provide written arguments and evidence about why their visa should be granted.
Visa applicants must generally be told about information that could count against them. They must be invited to respond in writing.
Visa applicants can ask the Department of Home Affairs, the department managing visas, for written material it gave the tribunal. Privacy and secrecy limits still apply.
Visa applicants who miss the deadline for their first written response must have their case dismissed. They have 28 days after notification to seek reinstatementRestoring a dismissed application so its review can continue..
Tribunal users can still have cases managed when its President is briefly absent. A non-judge Deputy President may act for up to three weeks and receive specified management powers.
(6) This subsection applies if it appears to the Tribunal that: (a) the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding; and (b) it is reasonable in the circumstances to make its decision in the proceeding without holding the hearing of the proceeding. (7) However, subsection (6) does not apply unless: (a) the Tribunal has given the parties to the proceeding (other than a non‑participating party to the proceeding) a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Tribunal in relation to the Tribunal making its decisiAdministrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
367C Scope of this Division (1) This Division applies in relation to an application to be reviewed on the papers. (2) An application made to the ART for review of a reviewable migration decision is an application to be reviewed on the papers if: (a) the decision is a decision relating to a temporary visa; and (b) the application is of a kind (if any) prescribed for the purposes of this subsection. Note: An application made to the ART for review of a reviewable protection decision cannot be an application to be reviewed on the papers (see paragraph 338(1)(b)). (3) However, an applicationAdministrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
367F ART must invite submissions and evidence on certain issues (1) The ART must, in relation to an application to be reviewed on the papers, invite the applicant to give the ART written submissions and evidence relating to the following issues (the relevant issues): (a) if the application is for review of a decision to refuse to grant a visa: (i) if the refusal was because the applicant did not satisfy a criterion for the visa—whether the applicant satisfies that criterion; and (ii) if the refusal was because a provision of this Act or the regulations prevented the grant of the visa—whethAdministrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
367G ART must give adverse information to applicant (1) The ART must: (a) give to the applicant clear particulars of any information that the ART considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review; and (b) ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why the information is relevant to the review, and the consequences of the information being relied on in affirming the decision that is under review; and (c) invite the applicant to comment on the information. Exception—certain kinds of information (2) SubseAdministrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
367J Applicant to have access to written material before Tribunal (1) An applicant may request that the Department provide access to any written material given or produced to the ART by the Department for the purposes of the review. (2) If the applicant makes a request under subsection (1), the Department must provide the applicant with access to the material (which may be by way of access to a copy of the material). (3) However, the Department does not need to provide the applicant with access to material to which the following apply: (a) section 375A (certain information only to be disclAdministrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
367M Dismissing applications to be reviewed on the papers (1) The ART must dismiss an application if the applicant does not respond to an invitation, in relation to the application, given by the ART under subsection 367F(1), within the response period mentioned in paragraph 367H(1)(d) for the invitation. (2) This section does not limit any other power of the ART to dismiss an application. Note 1: The ART may dismiss an application, for example, if the applicant fails to comply with an order of the ART in relation to the proceeding (see section 100 of the ART Act). Note 2: The ART must, undAdministrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
(2A) A person must not be appointed to act as the President in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) (absence, etc.) unless: (i) the person is qualified, as mentioned in subsection 205(3), to be appointed as the President; and (ii) the Minister has consulted the Chief Justice of the Federal Court; or (b) the person is a member who is a Non‑Judicial Deputy President. (2B) An appointment of a member who is a Non‑Judicial Deputy President to act as the President as mentioned in paragraph (2A)(b) must not be for a period of more than 3 weeks. 24 Subsection 212(7) Repeal the subsectAdministrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
Context
Australia’s federal merits-review system dates back to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, created in 1975 to independently check government decisions, and the Administrative Review TribunalAn independent body that reconsiders federal government decisions. (ART) replaced it on 14 October 2024 with jurisdiction spanning more than 400 Commonwealth Acts. For some temporary-visa reviews, oral hearings consumed significant time and resources even when material was limited, so Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill to enable paper decisions for student-visa refusals and prescribed temporary visas while preserving written participation rights; Parliament passed it on 5 February 2026 and Royal Assent followed on 9 February.
The AAT creates federal merits review
The Whitlam government established the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as an impartial institution for reviewing decisions by ministers and government departments.
Hansard ↗The ART replaces the AAT
The Administrative Review TribunalAn independent body that reconsiders federal government decisions. began operating as Australia’s federal merits-review body, replacing the AAT and reviewing government decisions under more than 400 Commonwealth Acts.
Hansard ↗Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduces the bill
The bill responded to the time and resources required for oral hearings by proposing written-paper decisions for student-visa refusals and prescribed temporary visas, while allowing applicants to submit material and address adverse informationInformation that could help the tribunal reject a person's case..
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House completed consideration in detail and agreed to the third reading, allowing the proposal to move to the Senate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed on the same text after the House dealt with Senate amendments, completing parliamentary passage.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent turns the bill into an Act
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, converting the bill into an Act.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (04/09/2025): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (06/11/2025)
Report tabled 06 Nov 2025
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Considered by scrutiny committee (29/10/2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 6 of 2025
Report 6 of 2025
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (29/10/2025): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025
Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 34 to 11.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 32 to 11.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form. The main amendments were: Observed added text: "Part 3—Other amendments Administrative Review TribunalAn independent body that reconsiders federal government decisions. Act 2024 22 Subsection 212(2) After “President” (first occurring…".
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
David Pocock (Independent) said almost half of reviewed student visa decisions were overturned, suggesting these cases were not always simple. He warned that young applicants and people without lawyers or strong English skills could lose the chance to explain misunderstandings aloud. Tammy Tyrrell (Independent) argued that written-only reviews would shift translation and paperwork onto already stretched migrant services and community legal centres. She also said allowing regulationsDetailed rules made under an Act and open to parliamentary rejection. to add visa categories would reduce parliamentary scrutiny. Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network) warned that the tribunal's wider power could be unfair in complex disability support, welfare and veterans' cases involving medical evidence.
The government said applicants in written-only visa reviews could provide unlimited written material, would see certain information that could count against them and could comment before a decision. For other tribunal cases, it said members could skip a hearing only when that was reasonable and after consulting the parties.
No discretion to hold a hearing
Mandatory paper-only reviews could disadvantage vulnerable applicants or people whose credibility, evidence or personal circumstances are difficult to assess in writing. Critics wanted the tribunal to retain discretion to hold an oral hearingA meeting where parties can speak to the tribunal. when fairness or complexity required it.
Expansion and review safeguards
The power to prescribe further temporary-visa matters for paper-only review could broaden the scheme without enough parliamentary scrutiny. Reservations also prompted calls for an independent review to test whether efficiency gains were coming at the expense of fairness.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 32 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 34 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and Jacqui Lambie Network.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
Senate
Passed 31 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate agreed to the changes, allowing the paper-only process to be extended through regulationsDetailed rules made under an Act and open to parliamentary rejection. rather than confining it expressly to student visa matters.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 14 to 29. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals.
The Senate rejected both safeguards, so the bill proceeded without this presidential exception and mandatory independent review.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 12 to 32. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals.
The Senate rejected the proposal, retaining the bill's capacity to extend paper-only reviews to other temporary visa matters through regulationsDetailed rules made under an Act and open to parliamentary rejection..
Did not vote: Liberal Party
The Senate approved the third government amendment on voices. It permits a non-judge Deputy President to act as President for up to three weeks and receive specified management powers.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 2 Government amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Rowland supports the bill, arguing it will let the tribunal resolve suitable cases efficiently through written materials while preserving procedural fairness and applicants' opportunity to present their case.
Read in Hansard ↗Shoebridge says the Greens will oppose the bill because removing oral hearings would deny migrants procedural fairness without fixing the real causes of tribunal delays: inadequate resourcing and poor decision-making by Home Affairs.
Read in Hansard ↗Tim Wilson supports the bill because it should reduce the tribunal's migration backlog and enable faster, fairer decisions, but argues that it is necessary only because Labor's earlier reforms failed.
Read in Hansard ↗Kate Chaney will support the bill because it should reduce tribunal backlogs and waiting times, but she will seek an amendment preserving the tribunal's discretion to hold oral hearings when fairness, complexity or individual circumstances require one.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
11 speakers · 14 contributions · 11 support
“This Bill further strengthens the Tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner, while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the Tribunal.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill delivers broad benefits across the administrative justice system. It will make the ART a more modern, capable and trusted institution. Firstly, it increases efficiency. Allowing matters to be determined on the papers means decisions can be made more quickly, reducing wait times for applicants. It frees up tribunal members and staff to focus on cases that require oral hearings. Secondly, it improves fairness and accessibility. Applicants will continue to have the opportunity to present their case and respond to any adverse information. Written procedures are often less intimidating, less costly and more convenient for applicants, especially those overseas. Thirdly, it strengthens integrity within the migration system. Faster and more proportionate decision-making discourages misuse of the appeals process and reduces the incentive for non-genuine applicants to exploit procedural delays. It also ensures that genuine applicants are not disadvantaged by those who seek to manipulate the system. Finally, the bill reinforces public confidence in Australia's administrative review system. It demonstrates that fairness and efficiency are not opposing goals but complementary ones.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation will improve the tribunal's efficiency. There are clear existing caseloads, and we need to address them. We need to reduce the likelihood of backlogs in the future, especially for migration matters. So the bill introduces a new, on-the-papers review process without an oral hearing, and that is just so common in lots of civil matters that are dealt with in our legal system. Student visa matters, like I said, take up two-thirds of the migration matters that the ART deals with. If you look at student visa matters as a percentage of the total number of people who engage with the ART, it is an enormous percentage. We're dealing with a really big problem that has been created courtesy of the Morrison government, and there is a need for us to address this. We're going to create a new discretion for the tribunal to decide not to hold a hearing if additional circumstances and specified criteria are met. These reforms are balanced and targeted. They will enable the tribunal to efficiently manage the caseload. Quick, efficient and informal merits review is a fundamental feature of our legal system. To say it's not is simply nonsense. It just doesn't bear fact. The fact is it is a feature of our legal system. This will improve government decision-making and help maintain public confidence in our institutions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The amendments proposed by this bill will provide additional flexibility in the tribunal's procedure in a way that is proportionate to maintaining public trust and confidence in the decision review process. Decisions can be made in a more efficient and timely manner, without compromising the critical right of the applicant to have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm very pleased with the way the ART was established, which allowed there to be ongoing improvement, and I would expect we will see more ongoing improvement as different issues arise and emerge—and the Albanese Labor government will respond to those as they occur. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Alice Jordan-Baird on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Jordan-Baird supports the bill because it will help the Administrative Review TribunalAn independent body that reconsiders federal government decisions. review migration decisions more efficiently and flexibly while strengthening the integrity of the migration system.
“I rise to speak in support of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, brought forward by the Attorney-General, and I commend her for doing so. Our country's history is one of migration. With the exception of our Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander Australians, every Australian is either a migrant or of migrant descent. I couldn't be prouder to stand in this chamber as a member of the Albanese Labor government, a government committed to strengthening the integrity of our migration system. This bill amends two pieces of legislation to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, can review migration decisions efficiently and flexibly.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Jordan-Baird supports the bill because it would reduce migration-review delays by allowing suitable cases to be decided on written materials, while preserving safeguards and hearings for complex or vulnerable applicants.
“The bill goes hand in hand with the migration reforms passed by the Albanese Labor government. The bill supports the government in ensuring our migration system can give Australia the skills we need. The bill protects our migration system, streamlining the review process and increasing flexibility and fairness. I want to see our migration system continue to deliver great outcomes for my electorate in Melbourne's western suburbs and for all our communities around Australia. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill is an example of responsive and responsible leadership by the Albanese Labor government. It will ensure a fit-for-purpose ART and provide greater efficiency and certainty for applicants. If we go back to 1975, when the AAT was created—by a Labor government—and look at the fundamental principles that sat behind the creation of the original tribunal, that is what this bill is about. The AAT was created to make sure that merits review was fair and that, when it came to decisions of government, people had a place to go to put their case forward for review. This bill upholds those fundamental principles and makes the ART fit for purpose so that we have fairness, transparency and a clear review process that deals with people's issues efficiently every single day. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Michelle Rowland on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Rowland supports the bill, arguing it will let the tribunal resolve suitable cases efficiently through written materials while preserving procedural fairness and applicants' opportunity to present their case.
“This bill further strengthens the tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner, while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Rowland supports the bill, saying it will help the tribunal reduce backlogs and decide straightforward cases more efficiently while preserving applicants' access to justice and a meaningful opportunity to present their case.
“I thank all members who have made a contribution to this debate, especially for bringing to light some of the experiences of their own constituents and circumstances that are very much about the human experience with the tribunal system. I was pleased to hear some of the contributions from the members for Sturt and Makin, who again highlighted the fact that there needs to be a balancing between the efficiency of the tribunal system and ensuring that access to justice is served. It is through consultation with impacted parties, the tribunal itself and relevant stakeholders that we have arrived at this position of being able to bring forward proposals to make the ART much more responsive and to ensure that we address those backlogs where they are occurring. Ultimately that is in the interests of all our constituents as well as of the rule of law and access to justice overall. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Consideration in detail speech
The speaker says the government will not support the proposed amendments and argues the bill’s regulation-making power is needed so the Administrative Review TribunalAn independent body that reconsiders federal government decisions. can respond flexibly to caseload changes. She adds that the regulation would still be subject to parliamentary disallowance and would not apply to protection visaA visa for a person seeking Australia's protection. matters.
“The government considers the regulation-making power necessary to ensure that the government can support the Administrative Review Tribunal to appropriately respond to changes in its case load in a more flexible way.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“There are other matters in this legislation that others have spoken of which I won't go into detail about. I see the minister is in the chamber right now, and she probably wants to sum up. In a nutshell, this is simply an improvement that is warranted and arises because, as things change, we need to change the laws of the land to ensure that they are still relevant and applicable to society today. I commend the legislation to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Administrative Review Tribunal has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions. This bill further strengthens the tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner while also ensuring that applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is bringing in balanced and targeted measures to ensure that the tribunal has the tools that it needs to manage its case load efficiently and fairly. While we further empower the tribunal to make efficient and timely decisions, we also ensure applicants have a meaningful opportunity to make their case to the tribunal. As the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and after hearing submissions and expert evidence, I strongly support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 4 support
“So, this legislation is designed as a backflip, acknowledging the simple reality that their legislation has failed. It isn't going to work for the Australian community, so they are having to fix up their administrative mess. Of course, as much as we don't want a backflip, because we'd rather that the law works, we welcome a decision of a backflip from the Labor Party, because it means we might actually see some improvement in decision-making and in the pathway for decision-making—simply to be able to allow the tribunal to make decisions on the papers for significant migration matters, starting with student visa refusals, and give it a broader discretion to decide other matters on written material. Applicants will still be invited to provide written submissions and respond to any adverse information before a decision is made. These reforms are designed to improve efficiency and reduce the record backlog and deliver faster, fairer outcomes.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As I said, the Liberal Party will back this bill. We will do so in the interest of all Australians, because we want to get matters moving, we want to reduce the backlogs and we want to restore a system that—just like when we were in government—actually works in practice.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“To conclude, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 is not revolutionary. It is belated recognition that the coalition was right all along. It concedes that fast-track, on-the-papers review works, it concedes that Labor's abolition of the AAT was unnecessary, and it concedes that efficiency and fairness can and must coexist. The coalition supports this bill because it is practical, proportionate and consistent with our long-held principles. We will continue to work through the Senate inquiry to ensure its implementation strengthens rather than weakens natural justice. Australians deserve a tribunal system that is fair, fast and functional. This bill is a small but important step towards that goal, and I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In relation to the provisions, I listened carefully to what Senator Shoebridge said. I am all for procedural fairness—absolutely—but we actually have a crisis in terms of dealing with this workload. It's actually a crisis. It's gone up from just over 2,000 cases to over 48,000. These cases need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved efficiently and effectively. So I want to make this point. In these cases, those seeking a review of their case will still have the right to put their case, and obviously they will. It's just that, in the vast majority of cases, the case will be resolved on the papers. So whoever is the decision-maker doesn't have to go through the administrative burden of having to get a hearing room and having to make appointments with all the representatives and then, if maybe one of them doesn't show up or there's an issue, having to do it all again. That all adds time. The main point is that we have a system which makes sure that people seeking for their case to be reviewed have an opportunity to put their case, and they will be able to put their case under this bill. That's important.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 oppose
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by David Shoebridge on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
David Shoebridge says the Greens will oppose the bill because it removes procedural rights from migrants and expands the government's power to restrict migration reviews. He argues the tribunal backlog should instead be addressed by properly resourcing the tribunal and fixing Home Affairs' approach to visa refusals.
“Unlike the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and One Nation, the Greens will be opposing the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I was on the review by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and I listened to multiple witnesses from a variety of different organisations who gave clear evidence about why this bill should not be supported, how it will take away important procedural rights, how it is unfairly targeted at migrants and how, potentially, it is going to give significantly expanded powers to the government of the day to remove even more rights from reviews in migration matters.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Shoebridge says the Greens will oppose the bill because removing oral hearings would deny migrants procedural fairness without fixing the real causes of tribunal delays: inadequate resourcing and poor decision-making by Home Affairs.
“I want to thank groups like the Migrant Workers Centre, the ASRC, National Legal Aid and others who pointed out that this bill is not the solution. That's why the Greens won't support it. You don't just punch down on migrants, you don't just take their rights away; you fix the problems. The problems here are a lack of resourcing the ART and the mess in Home Affairs.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
6 speakers · 8 contributions · 3 support · 1 oppose · 2 mixed
“I rise today to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The objective of this bill, to improve the efficiency of the tribunal, is one I broadly support, but I also harbour serious concerns about aspects of the government's approach. On balance, I intend to support the bill given the efficiency gains it promises, but I will be proposing an amendment to ensure those gains are not bought at the cost of fairness to international students and other migrants.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What are the consequences of these changes? The creation of the Administrative Review Tribunal was meant to embed fairness and accessibility, whilst balancing them with efficiency. I support this bill's intent, but I will move amendments, as I've said, to introduce a review period. We have to ensure that efficiency does not come at the expense of fairness and that we restore the discretion of the ART to hear cases in person if the case permits or where it is deemed appropriate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Allegra Spender on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Spender supports making tribunal visa reviews faster, but warns that mandatory paper-only decisions may deny vulnerable applicants a fair hearing and urges safeguards preserving tribunal discretion and parliamentary oversight.
“I conclude by saying that no-one disputes that lengthy delays in the tribunal process increase costs, reduce the effectiveness of our entire visa system and unnecessarily hold up genuine visa applicants. There is a human cost as well as a financial cost to the problems of this current system. I strongly urge the government to consider the consequences of such blunt instruments and caution the government, and, indeed, future governments, against using the powers enabled in this bill to bring in other visa classes. I urge the government to accept the amendments made in good faith by members of the crossbench. They are very moderate amendments that will add to the protections in the bill without taking away from the overall purpose and, hopefully, impact of the bill on people's processing times.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Consideration in detail speech
Spender accepts there are good grounds for more efficient ART processes, including deciding some student visa matters on the papers, but argues the bill is too broad because it could let regulationsDetailed rules made under an Act and open to parliamentary rejection. extend that paper-only model to other visa classes. She moves amendments to confine those changes to primary legislation.
“These reasons and those arguments made by the Law Council have driven me to draft these amendments, which would remove the minister's ability to expand this requirement to other temporary visa classes, instead requiring further changes to be made in primary legislation as recommended by the Law Council.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Consideration in detail speech
Ms Spender raises concerns about the legislation's regulation-making power, saying it could exclude entire classes of ART applicants and deny vulnerable Australians a hearing. She questions why the government is using regulationsDetailed rules made under an Act and open to parliamentary rejection. instead of coming to Parliament to make its case.
“The fact is that the government has given itself the ability to do this via a regulation to exclude entire classes and to include other groups of applicants who would no longer be able to ever be heard in front of the ART themselves.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“These amendments are not radical proposals. They do not undermine the purpose of the bill. I believe they strengthen it. They recognise that good policy is adaptive, evidence based and accountable, and I encourage colleagues to support these changes. Ultimately, this debate is not about being for or against efficiency. It is about recognising that administrative justice is not just a processing function. The speed of decisions must be improved and backlogs must be reduced, but, if we hollow out fairness in the name of speed, then we erode trust, not just in the tribunal but in government itself. I hope the government will engage constructively with these amendments, which they have seen in the House. There is an opportunity to improve the functioning of the tribunal without risking the principles it was created to uphold.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Again, I have no problem with clearing a backlog, but this bill, in its current form, has the ability to remove natural justice from the applicants. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills stated:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want to focus on one group who will be disproportionately affected by this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, and that is migrants who speak English as a second or additional language. There is no question that improving the efficiency of government processes is important. A system that works faster and uses public resources wisely benefits everyone. But efficiency cannot come at the cost of fairness, nor can it come at the cost of transparency and accountability. A review system that is faster but inaccessible or that shifts responsibility onto others is not efficiency; it's a failure. This bill proposes the removal of oral hearings, replacing them with reviews conducted largely on the papers. We are told this is about streamlining process, yet, for many migrants navigating the system in a second language, written-only processes are not faster; they are inaccessible. Oral hearings matter. They allow individuals to explain their circumstances in their own voice with interpreters present and give decision-makers the opportunity to ask questions and clarify misunderstandings. Limiting that safeguard may save time on paper, but it risks unjust outcomes. Efficiency must not replace fairness.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 11.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 32 to 11.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report tabled 06 Nov 2025
Referred to Committee (4 Sept 2025): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (6 Nov 2025)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report 6 of 2025
Considered by scrutiny committee (29 Oct 2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 6 of 2025
APH bill page notesSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025
Considered by scrutiny committee (29 Oct 2025): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025
APH bill page notes
