Loss of hearing discretion
Critics said the Act could force paper-only review in some visa cases even where fairness or complexity may justify an oral hearing.
Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment
Current status
This bill became law on Feb 9th, 2026.
Policy area
Law, justice & rights
What does this bill do?
The Act gives the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. a wider power to decide some cases without an oral hearing, but only where the issues can be dealt with properly on the written material and the parties have had a chance to comment.
Why was it introduced?
After the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions.'s first year and a surge in temporary-visa reviews, many applications were still at an early stage, making consistent and efficient handling harder. The Act lets the Tribunal decide suitable cases on written material without an oral hearing and extends that process, with transition rules, to some existing applications that had not yet been assigned to a Tribunal member.
Broader context
The Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. began in October 2024 as the new federal body reviewing government decisions after replacing the old AAT, but its usual process still expected oral hearings in almost all matters. As migration review applications piled up and visa cases became slow and resource-heavy, this Act let more cases be decided on written material alone and made some migration reviews paper-only, with those main changes starting later by proclamation or after six months if not proclaimed.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the Act goes too far by making some reviews paper-only and allowing that model to be extended by regulation, which could reduce tribunal discretion and procedural fairness in cases that are not truly straightforward. These concerns were raised mainly by crossbench members and parliamentary scrutiny committees, and much of the criticism was conditional because many critics still supported the efficiency aim if the scheme were narrowed or reviewed.
Who supported it?
The Labor government introduced this bill. In the recorded Senate second-reading vote, support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, some crossbench members; opposition came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, Australia's Voice.
Introduced in House 03 Sept 2025
Passed House 03 Nov 2025
Passed Senate 05 Feb 2026
Became law 09 Feb 2026
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 09 Feb 2026
Final passage
No counted final vote
1 recorded vote on the bill was found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.
Passage speed
155 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The Act gives the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. a wider power to decide some cases without an oral hearing, but only where the issues can be dealt with properly on the written material and the parties have had a chance to comment.
-
For migration cases, the Act creates a mandatory "on the papersDecided using written material only, without an oral hearing." process for certain reviews. As passed, this applies to prescribed reviewsReviews specified by regulations as covered by particular legal rules. of temporary-visa decisions generally, not just student visa refusals; permanent-visa and protection decision reviews cannot be put into this category.
-
These migration reviews use a special written-only process. The applicant can put their case and any new information in writing, and the Tribunal decides without an oral hearing or other Tribunal case event.
-
The new paper-based migration process can also apply to some cases already lodged before the law starts, if the Tribunal has not yet been constitutedFormally set up with the member or members assigned to hear a case. for that review.
Show source excerpts
-
the Tribunal has given the parties to the proceeding (other than a non‑participating party) a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Tribunal in relation to the Tribunal making its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding, and the Tribunal has taken into account any submissions received.
Explanatory memorandum -
The new requirement would apply in relation to properly made applications for review of decisions to refuse a student visa. The requirement would also apply in relation to properly made applications for review of decisions relating to a temporary visa of a kind prescribed in regulations. This provides flexibility for the Migration Regulations 1994 (Regulations) to prescribe additional kinds of applications relating to temporary visas as being subject to the new requirement for review to be conducted on the papers. It would not be possible for reviews of decisions relating to permanent visas, or ‘reviewable protection decisions’ (within the meaning of the Migration Act), to be subject to the requirement.
Explanatory memorandum -
Applications which are required to be reviewed on the papers would be subject to a new, bespoke review procedure. The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials, without the Tribunal holding an oral hearing or any other Tribunal case event. The applicant would be given an opportunity to present their case to the Tribunal, and would be able to provide new information to the Tribunal, in writing only.
Explanatory memorandum -
The new requirement would apply to applications which have been made to the Tribunal before the commencement of the amendments, where the Tribunal has not yet been constituted for the purposes of the proceeding. The new requirement would also apply to applications made on or after the commencement of the amendments.
Explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
The Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. began in October 2024 as the new federal body reviewing government decisions after replacing the old AAT, but its usual process still expected oral hearings in almost all matters. As migration review applications piled up and visa cases became slow and resource-heavy, this Act let more cases be decided on written material alone and made some migration reviews paper-only, with those main changes starting later by proclamation or after six months if not proclaimed.
- 14 Oct 2024
Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. replaces the AAT
The new tribunal took over federal merits reviewA fresh look at a decision's facts, law and fairness. work across many Commonwealth decisions.
Explanatory Memorandum ↗ - 03 Sept 2025
High migration caseload made oral hearings a bottleneck
Because hearings were generally expected, large numbers of migration cases could be slower and more resource-intensive to deal with.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 03 Sept 2025
Bill introduced to shift some visa reviews onto paperwork
The proposal required written-only decisions for certain migration applications, including some student visa refusals, and broadened paper decisions more generally.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 05 Feb 2026
Parliament passes faster paper-review changes
Both Houses agreed on the same text on 5 February 2026 after the House accepted Senate amendments.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 09 Feb 2026
Act becomes law, with main hearing changes starting later
Sections 1 to 3 started on assent on 9 February 2026, while Schedule 1 starts by proclamation or automatically after six months if that does not happen.
Royal assent ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 03 Sept 2025
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 03 Sept 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Human Rights review 01 Oct 2025
It examined whether the bill could affect fair hearing rights and the removal of non-citizens from Australia, and asked the minister for more information.
Deferred in published report
Report 5 of 2025Second reading debate 27 Oct 2025
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Human Rights review 28 Oct 2025
It returned to the same concerns about fair hearing rights and the removal of non-citizens from Australia, and again sought the minister's response.
Considered in published report
Report 6 of 2025Scrutiny of Bills review: raised delegated-legislation concerns 28 Oct 2025
It questioned whether the bill gave enough protection for personal rights and review rights, and whether ministers could later change parts of the law through regulations instead of another Act. It asked the minister for a response.
Considered in published report
Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025Second reading debate 30 Oct 2025
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House second reading agreed 30 Oct 2025
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
Consideration in detail debate 03 Nov 2025
House third reading agreed 03 Nov 2025
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
Introduced 03 Nov 2025
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 03 Nov 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Legal and Constitutional Affairs report 06 Nov 2025
It looked at whether the bill would help the Tribunal handle its large migration workload while still being fair. It supported passing the bill, but said the government should consider changes to improve efficiency without weakening fairness and access to justice, especially for student visa refusal reviews decided only on written material.
Referred; report published
Committee report (6 Nov 2025)Scrutiny of Bills review: raised delegated-legislation concerns 25 Nov 2025
It revisited those concerns about personal rights, review safeguards, and allowing later changes through regulations instead of another Act.
Considered in published report
Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2025Human Rights review 10 Dec 2025
It considered the same concerns about fair hearing rights and the removal of non-citizens from Australia, including preliminary human rights advice.
Considered in published report
Report 8 of 2025Second reading debate 03 Feb 2026
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Second reading debate 04 Feb 2026
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Senate second reading agreed Aye 34 No 11 04 Feb 2026
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
Senate agreed to amendment packages 04 Feb 2026
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause. Amendment: 3 Government agreed to.
Committee of the Whole debate
Detailed Senate review 05 Feb 2026
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause.
Committee of the Whole debate
Senate third reading agreed 05 Feb 2026
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
House agreed to Senate amendments on Senate review 05 Feb 2026
The House agreed to the Senate's amendments, so the bill could proceed in the amended form. The main amendments were: The final Act broadened the new on-the-papers migration review process from student visa refusals and some other prescribed decisions to prescribed reviewsReviews specified by regulations as covered by particular legal rules. of temporary-visa decisions generally. It also added changes to the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. Act 2024 about who may act as President and who may receive certain presidential delegationsFormal authorisations letting another person exercise certain powers., including a 3-week cap for a Non-Judicial Deputy PresidentA deputy head of the Tribunal who is not a judge. acting as President in absence cases.
Consideration of Senate message
Finally passed both Houses 05 Feb 2026
After the final message exchange, both Houses had agreed on the same text of the bill and it was ready for assent.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main criticism was that the Act goes too far by making some reviews paper-only and allowing that model to be extended by regulation, which could reduce tribunal discretion and procedural fairness in cases that are not truly straightforward. These concerns were raised mainly by crossbench members and parliamentary scrutiny committees, and much of the criticism was conditional because many critics still supported the efficiency aim if the scheme were narrowed or reviewed.
Most criticism accepted the backlog problem and focused on safeguards, discretion and limits rather than rejecting paper decisions altogether.
Expansion by regulation
A key concern was that the scope of paper-only decisions could later be widened through regulations instead of another Act of Parliament.
Risk to natural justice
It was argued that the drafting was too broad and could undermine natural justice if used beyond simple, high-volume matters.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
Passed House passed the bill
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
House passed the bill
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 Senate passed the bill
Senate 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
Senate passed the bill
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.
Carried Senate cleared second reading
Passed 34 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and Australia's Voice.
Carried
Senate cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 24 / 0
Greens 0 / 9
Liberal 4 / 0
Nationals 3 / 0
Independent 2 / 0
One Nation 1 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 0 / 1
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Amendments at a glance
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Carried Prescribe temporary visa paper reviews
Passed 31 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Prescribe temporary visa paper reviews
Carried; the government amendments were added.
Party Aye / No
Labor 22 / 0
Greens 0 / 9
Liberal 3 / 0
Nationals 3 / 0
Independent 1 / 2
One Nation 2 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 0 / 1
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Defeated Add review and hearing discretion
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 14 to 29. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals.
Defeated
Add review and hearing discretion
Defeated; the extra review and hearing-discretion safeguards were not added.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 23
Greens 9 / 0
Independent 3 / 0
Liberal 0 / 3
Nationals 0 / 3
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Michelle Rowland
The Attorney-General moves the second reading of the bill, arguing it will make Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. procedures more efficient and proportionate by expanding the tribunal’s ability to decide some migration reviews on written materials.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
David Shoebridge
Senator Shoebridge argues the bill would strip oral hearings and procedural fairness from migration review matters, while the real problems are under-resourcing the ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. and poor Home Affairs decision-making.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Tim Wilson
Wilson explicitly says he supports the bill and later welcomes the government's "backflip" to fix the tribunal's problems.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Mixed
Kate Chaney
Kate Chaney broadly supports the bill’s aim of reducing ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. backlogs and says she intends to support it on balance because of the efficiency gains.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
11 speakers · 14 contributions · 11 support
Labor
11 speakers · 14 contributions · 11 support
-
Ayres Senator Ayres said the amendments would establish an efficient and proportionate review method while still giving applicants a meaningful opportunity to present their case in writing.
“These amendments would establish an efficient and proportionate method of review, while ensuring that applicants are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the Tribunal in writing.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Ng Mr Ng strongly supports the bill, arguing it will restore trust in the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. by improving efficiency, fairness and integrity through on-the-papers reviews for straightforward and student visa matters.
“For these reasons, I commend the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Neumann Neumann supports the bill, arguing it will make the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. more efficient and flexible, especially in migration and student visa matters, while preserving fair and just merits reviewA fresh look at a decision's facts, law and fairness..
“This bill gives the tribunal additional flexibility, and it enhances the powers and procedures of the tribunal to ensure that it achieves the objective we want: resolving matters as expeditiously yet as justly as possible.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Templeman Templeman supports the bill, arguing it will help the ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. process student visa and other review matters more efficiently on the papersDecided using written material only, without an oral hearing. while preserving safeguards.
“I commend this bill to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Clutterham Claire Clutterham supports the bill, arguing it will make tribunal reviews more efficient and proportionate while preserving safeguards and the applicant’s opportunity to be heard.
“I rise today to speak in support of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jordan-Baird 2 contributions The speaker argues the bill will streamline ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. migration reviews, especially for lower-complexity matters like student visas, while preserving fairness and safeguards.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jordan-Baird on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Alice Jordan-Baird said she was speaking in support of the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and praised the Attorney-General for bringing it forward. She said the bill would help the ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. review migration decisions efficiently and flexibly.
“Ms JORDAN-BAIRD (Gorton) (19:29): 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.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗BILLS - Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 - Second Reading
The speaker argues the bill will streamline ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. migration reviews, especially for lower-complexity matters like student visas, while preserving fairness and safeguards. She concludes by commending the bill to the House.
“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 ↗ -
Campbell Campbell supports the bill, saying it will make the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. more flexible and efficient, especially for temporary and student visa reviews, while preserving procedural fairness.
“I commend the bill to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Rowland ★ 3 contributions The Attorney-General moves the second reading of the bill, arguing it will make Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. procedures more efficient and proportionate by expanding the tribunal’s ability to decide some migration reviews on written materials.
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Rowland on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 - Second Reading
The Attorney-General moves the second reading of the bill, arguing it will make Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. procedures more efficient and proportionate by expanding the tribunal’s ability to decide some migration reviews on written materials. She says the changes will provide a meaningful written opportunity for applicants while improving speed and reducing delays.
“The bill would give the tribunal additional flexibility and ensure that review procedures are proportionate to the circumstances of the case.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗BILLS - Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 - Second Reading
The speaker argues the bill will make tribunal review more efficient and proportionate while preserving fairness and access to justice. She explicitly commends the bill to the House.
“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 ↗BILLS;Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025;Consideration in Detail - 03 Nov 2025
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 TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain 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 visa 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 ↗ -
Zappia Tony Zappia argues the bill will improve the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. by streamlining reviews, reducing delays, and letting applicants make submissions without attending in person.
“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 ↗ -
Green Senator Green supports the bill, arguing it will strengthen the Administrative Review TribunalThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. by improving efficiency and timeliness while still giving applicants a meaningful chance to present their case.
“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 ↗ -
Stewart Senator Stewart strongly supports the bill, describing it as balanced and targeted reform that will help the tribunal manage its caseload more efficiently and fairly while preserving applicants’ opportunity to present their case.
“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 ↗
Coalition
4 speakers · 4 support
Coalition
4 speakers · 4 support
-
Wilson ★ Wilson explicitly says he supports the bill and later welcomes the government's "backflip" to fix the tribunal's problems.
“I speak as somebody who supports this legislation because there is no legislation in this parliament that has ever been put forward by the member for Isaacs that has not needed improvement.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Cash Senator Cash says the Liberal Party will support the bill because Australians deserve faster decisions, fewer backlogs, and a review system that works in practice.
“Upfront, the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Birrell Birrell says the coalition supports the bill because it will speed up tribunal decision-making, reduce backlogs, and preserve natural justice safeguards.
“The coalition support this bill because it is practical, proportionate and consistent with our long-held principles.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Scarr Scarr argues the bill's safeguards are important because they let applicants put their case while the ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. deals with a massive backlog.
“So there are safeguards in relation to the process under the bill, and I support those safeguards.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 oppose
Greens
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 oppose
-
Shoebridge ★ 2 contributions Senator Shoebridge argues the bill would strip oral hearings and procedural fairness from migration review matters, while the real problems are under-resourcing the ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. and poor Home Affairs decision-making.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Shoebridge on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Senator Shoebridge says the Greens will oppose the bill, arguing it strips procedural rights, unfairly targets migrants, and expands government power over migration reviews. He says the ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. backlog should be fixed by properly resourcing the tribunal and addressing Home Affairs' refusal practices instead.
“Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (13:26): 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.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗BILLS - Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Senator Shoebridge argues the bill would strip oral hearings and procedural fairness from migration review matters, while the real problems are under-resourcing the ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. and poor Home Affairs decision-making. He says the Greens will not support the bill.
“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 ↗
Minor parties and independents
6 speakers · 8 contributions · 1 oppose · 5 mixed
Minor parties and independents
6 speakers · 8 contributions · 1 oppose · 5 mixed
-
Chaney ★ Kate Chaney broadly supports the bill’s aim of reducing ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. backlogs and says she intends to support it on balance because of the efficiency gains.
“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 ↗ -
Steggall Steggall says she supports the bill's intent but will seek amendments to add a review period and restore tribunal discretion for in-person hearings.
“I support this bill's intent, but I will move amendments, as I've said, to introduce a review period.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Spender 3 contributions Spender says the tribunal should work more efficiently and supports greater use of paper-based reviews, but she warns against blanket rules that remove hearings and let the minister expand the regime by regulation.
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Spender on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Spender says the tribunal should work more efficiently and supports greater use of paper-based reviews, but she warns against blanket rules that remove hearings and let the minister expand the regime by regulation. She urges the government to accept crossbench amendments so the bill keeps its purpose while preserving discretion and parliamentary oversight.
“There are some amendments to this particular bill that I urge the government to accept.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗BILLS;Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025;Consideration in Detail - 03 Nov 2025
Spender accepts there are good grounds for more efficient ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. processes, including deciding some student visa matters on the papersDecided using written material only, without an oral hearing., but argues the bill is too broad because it could let regulations 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 ↗BILLS;Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025;Consideration in Detail - 03 Nov 2025
Ms Spender raises concerns about the legislation's regulation-making power, saying it could exclude entire classes of ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. applicants and deny vulnerable Australians a hearing. She questions why the government is using regulations 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 ↗ -
Pocock Senator Pocock welcomes the bill's aim of reducing tribunal backlogs and improving efficiency, but says the paper-based decision-making changes risk fairness and executive overreach.
“These amendments are not radical proposals. They do not undermine the purpose of the bill. I believe they strengthen it, and I encourage colleagues to support these changes.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Lambie Senator Lambie said she had no problem with the bill's aim of clearing the ARTThe federal tribunal that independently reviews certain government decisions. backlog and using paper-based reviews for straightforward matters, but she objected to extending that approach to complex cases.
“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.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Tyrrell Senator Tyrrell opposes the bill as drafted, arguing that paper-based reviews would disadvantage migrants with limited English and shift burdens onto community organisations.
“I urge the government to reconsider these measures and to ensure that any efficiencies achieved do not come at the expense of fairness, transparency or the integrity of the review process.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Act title
- Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
- Act number
- Act No. 3, 2026
- Became law
- 09 Feb 2026
- Takes effect
-
- sections 1 to 3 and anything else not separately listed 09 Feb 2026
- Schedule 1 A day or days to be fixed by Proclamation. Schedule 1 A day or days to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if any of the provisions do not commence within the period of 6 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the day a...
- Registered
- 10 Feb 2026
- Administered by
- Attorney-General's Department
- No instruments are listed on the Act’s official Authorises tab at the time of generation.
- Introduction to passage
- 155 calendar days -- Introduced on 03 Sep 2025 and passed both Houses on 05 Feb 2026.
- Introduction to assent
- 159 calendar days -- Royal assent followed on 09 February 2026.
- Recorded divisions found
- 3 -- Recorded divisions were found in Senate.
- Second-reading speech summaries captured
- House of Representatives, Senate
- Same-day passage through both Houses
- Yes -- The bill cleared the House on 05 Feb 2026 and the Senate on 05 Feb 2026.
- 03 Sept 2025
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.
- 03 Sept 2025
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.
- 27 Oct 2025
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 30 Oct 2025
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 30 Oct 2025
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.
- 03 Nov 2025
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail debate
- 03 Nov 2025
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 03 Nov 2025
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.
- 03 Nov 2025
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.
- 03 Feb 2026
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 04 Feb 2026
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 04 Feb 2026
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.
- 04 Feb 2026
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Detailed Senate review
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause. Amendment: 3 Government agreed to.
- 05 Feb 2026
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Detailed Senate review
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause.
- 05 Feb 2026
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 05 Feb 2026
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House agreed to the Senate's amendments, so the bill could proceed in the amended form.
- 05 Feb 2026
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Finally passed both Houses
After the final message exchange, both Houses had agreed on the same text of the bill and it was ready for assent.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Referred; report published
It looked at whether the bill would help the Tribunal handle its large migration workload while still being fair. It supported passing the bill, but said the government should consider changes to improve efficiency without weakening fairness and access to justice, especially for student visa refusal reviews decided only on written material.
Referred to Committee (4 Sept 2025): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (6 Nov 2025)
Committee report (6 Nov 2025)Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Deferred in published report
It examined whether the bill could affect fair hearing rights and the removal of non-citizens from Australia, and asked the minister for more information.
Report 5 of 2025; Defer
Report 5 of 2025Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
It returned to the same concerns about fair hearing rights and the removal of non-citizens from Australia, and again sought the minister's response.
Report 6 of 2025; Ministerial Response Required
Report 6 of 2025Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
It questioned whether the bill gave enough protection for personal rights and review rights, and whether ministers could later change parts of the law through regulations instead of another Act. It asked the minister for a response.
Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025; Ministerial Response Required
Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
It revisited those concerns about personal rights, review safeguards, and allowing later changes through regulations instead of another Act.
Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2025; Concluded
Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2025Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
It considered the same concerns about fair hearing rights and the removal of non-citizens from Australia, including preliminary human rights advice.
Report 8 of 2025; Concluded
Report 8 of 2025