This bill is currently before Parliament.
Law, justice & rights
People challenging government decisions could hear the tribunal’s reasons orally.
The government said the Administrative Review TribunalA body that independently reconsiders government decisions., the body that independently reconsiders government decisions, needed more flexible processes to manage growing workloads and reduce delays. By 31 May 2026, it had received more than 77,000 applications that reporting year and had more than 131,000 still on hand. Only 43 per cent were being finished within 12 months. The government also said identity checks would discourage applications lodged without a person’s knowledge and help staff focus on genuine cases.
Australia replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with the Administrative Review TribunalA body that independently reconsiders government decisions. (ART) on 14 October 2024, after the replacement plan faced parliamentary resistance over how members would be appointed. As the new tribunal handled a large and increasing caseload—described in August 2026 as more than 131,000 matters, particularly in migration—the government introduced this bill through Michelle Rowland MP on 1 July 2026 to streamline reviews, strengthen case-management powers and protect sensitive material, and the House passed it on 20 August 2026.
Monique Ryan (Independent) argued that the bill could trade fairness for speed. She said only about half of the tribunal’s 112 registrars held a law degree or similar qualification, yet authorised registrars could dismiss cases they considered unable to succeed. She warned that oral reasons could disadvantage people using interpreters or representing themselves. She also said mandatory identity checks could exclude stateless or undocumented protection applicants because the detailed rules had not yet been written. Kate Chaney (Independent) similarly argued that these changes could weaken transparency and place new burdens on vulnerable applicants.
Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor, Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
97 days
Updated 06 Oct 2026.
Meaning
People challenging government decisions could hear the tribunal’s reasons orally. They could request written reasonsA document explaining why a decision was made., while certain welfare and care reviews would always receive them.
People whose applications appear unable to succeed could have them dismissed by authorised tribunal registrars. Registrars could also restore some dismissed applications.
Migration and protection applicants would have to use an approved form, giving the tribunal required information when they apply.
Some migration and protection applicants would have to prove their identity. The tribunal would dismiss an application if the person did not comply.
People challenging migration decisions in court would need the court’s permission to continue if they failed an identity check. Judges could waive or extend the requirement.
Government agencies supplying tribunal documents would not count 24 December to 14 January towards certain deadlines. One visa-cancellation category would be excluded.
Taxpayers challenging a refusal of extra time would have 28 days to ask the tribunal for a review.
The Bill would amend the ART Act to enhance Tribunal processes, create efficiencies, and improve the operation of provisions. These amendments would provide the Tribunal with greater flexibility to manage its caseload and support members of the Tribunal. Amendments include: enabling the Tribunal to give reasons for decision orally, with written statements of reasons to be given at the request of an applicant, in all reviews except for reviews relating to social security, veterans’ entitlements, aged care or the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or other reviews that may be prescribed by rAdministrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
The Bill would amend the ART Act to enhance Tribunal processes, create efficiencies, and improve the operation of provisions. These amendments would provide the Tribunal with greater flexibility to manage its caseload and support members of the Tribunal. Amendments include: enabling the Tribunal to give reasons for decision orally, with written statements of reasons to be given at the request of an applicant, in all reviews except for reviews relating to social security, veterans’ entitlements, aged care or the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or other reviews that may be prescribed by rAdministrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
In response to significant Tribunal caseload pressures, the Bill would also amend the Migration Act to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the migration review framework. The amendments would: enable the Tribunal to give reasons for reviewable migration decision and reviewable protection decision to applications orally, with written statements of reasons to be given at the request of an applicant require an application for review of a reviewable migration decision or reviewable protection decision to the Tribunal to be made using an approved formAdministrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
create a requirement for the verification of the identity of an applicant for review of a prescribed reviewable migration decision or a prescribed reviewable protection decision. Failure to comply with the identity verification requirement would result in the Tribunal being required to dismiss the matter.Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
The Bill would also amend the Migration Act to create a requirement for the verification of the identity of an applicant for judicial review of a migration decision at the FCFCOA (Division 2). Failure to satisfy the identity verification requirement would result in being prevented from continuing the proceeding without leave of the Court for relevant FCFCOA (Division 2) proceedings.Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
excluding the period between 24 December to 14 January from the calculation of time for an original decision-maker to provide certain documents, except in relation to decisions under subsection 500(6L) of the Migration Act relating to the cancellation of a person’s visaAdministrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
The Bill would amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to prescribe a standardised timeframe for the making of an application to the Tribunal for review of an extension of time refusal decision made by the Commissioner for Taxation. The Bill would make amendments to prescribe a standardised timeframe of 28 days for making an application to the Tribunal for review of an extension of time refusal decision made by the Commissioner for Taxation. These amendments would provide clarity to parties on timeframes for applying for a review, without requiring a Tribunal member to consider whether anAdministrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with the Administrative Review TribunalA body that independently reconsiders government decisions. (ART) on 14 October 2024, after the replacement plan faced parliamentary resistance over how members would be appointed. As the new tribunal handled a large and increasing caseload—described in August 2026 as more than 131,000 matters, particularly in migration—the government introduced this bill through Michelle Rowland MP on 1 July 2026 to streamline reviews, strengthen case-management powers and protect sensitive material, and the House passed it on 20 August 2026.
Replacement tribunal plan faces Senate resistance
ABC reported that the proposal to replace the AAT faced early parliamentary resistance over the proposed merit-based appointment process.
ABC News ↗Administrative Review TribunalA body that independently reconsiders government decisions. replaces the AAT
The ART began operating as Australia’s primary federal administrative review body, taking over the AAT’s role across a wide range of Commonwealth laws.
Department of Infrastructure ↗Michelle Rowland MP introduces the bill to manage growing review caseloads
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to help the ART and Federal Circuit and Family Court respond to significant and increasing caseloads, especially in migration matters.
Hansard ↗Tribunal caseload exceeds 131,000 matters
A second-reading speech said the ART was carrying more than 131,000 matters less than two years after it began, underscoring the workload pressure behind the amendments.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the bill at third reading after it had passed second reading and been reported from the Federation Chamber.
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 (02/07/2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (07/08/2026)
Report tabled 07 Aug 2026
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (12/08/2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 9 of 2026
Report 9 of 2026
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (12/08/2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2026
Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2026
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The 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 bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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
Key criticism
Monique Ryan (Independent) argued that the bill could trade fairness for speed. She said only about half of the tribunal’s 112 registrars held a law degree or similar qualification, yet authorised registrars could dismiss cases they considered unable to succeed. She warned that oral reasons could disadvantage people using interpreters or representing themselves. She also said mandatory identity checks could exclude stateless or undocumented protection applicants because the detailed rules had not yet been written. Kate Chaney (Independent) similarly argued that these changes could weaken transparency and place new burdens on vulnerable applicants.
Ryan accepted that the tribunal and court faced serious pressure and supported several administrative changes. The government said dismissed applications could be restored, written reasonsA document explaining why a decision was made. remained available on request, and Parliament could reject the later identity-check regulationsDetailed rules made under an Act..
Procedural fairness for vulnerable applicants
Oral reasons and registrarA tribunal official who manages cases. powers to dismiss applications could reduce transparency and prevent migration or protection applicants from properly understanding or pursuing their cases without stronger safeguards.
Identity checks could block genuine cases
Mandatory identity checks could disproportionately harm vulnerable applicants who have genuine reasons for being unable to comply, potentially leading to dismissal or another barrier to review.
Reporting and accountability
The bill did not provide the stronger annual reporting the Coalition considered necessary to monitor the tribunal and the performance of the new review system.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Rowland supports the bill, saying it will help the tribunal and federal court manage growing caseloads, reduce delays and protect the integrity of migration and protection reviews while retaining safeguards for applicants.
Read in Hansard ↗Leeser says the coalition will support the bill because its practical changes should make administrative and migration reviews more efficient, while criticising Labor for creating the tribunal's backlog and foreshadowing a Senate amendment for stronger annual reporting.
Read in Hansard ↗Ryan supports giving the bill a second reading but seeks amendments to protect procedural fairness, including safeguards for protection visa applicants facing oral reasons, dismissal by registrars and mandatory identity checks.
Read in Hansard ↗Tom French supports the bill because it would reduce administrative backlogs and improve the efficiency and integrity of tribunal and migration reviews while retaining safeguards for genuine and vulnerable applicants.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
8 speakers · 9 contributions · 8 support
“The standard should be straightforward. Government decisions need to be capable of review. Genuine applicants must receive procedural fairness. Decision-makers must be independent and qualified. Our system should not waste months doing work that adds nothing to the quality of the result. This is what this bill advances. It strengthens the tribunal we created, it protects the integrity of migration review and it helps ensure Australians who need administrative review receive something that every good justice system should aim to provide: a fair decision from an independent decision-maker within a reasonable time period. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want to thank the government for this particular piece of legislation. I think it's absolutely necessary, and it's got integrity. (Time expired)”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in support of the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. The heart of this bill is about a simple commitment: when government makes a decision that affects someone's life, there should be a fair and independent way to review that decision. That principle is central to a healthy democracy. Australians expect government decisions to be made fairly according to law and subject to independent review when they are challenged. Strengthening the way government decisions are reviewed is one of the ways we make government better. It helps identify mistakes, improve decision-making and strengthen trust that the government is working in the interests of the people it serves. People should know there is an independent body that can step in and consider whether a decision has been made correctly.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For many of them, the idea of a tribunal is pretty scary and intimidating enough without wondering whether the person deciding their case got there on merit or on mateship. That is the trust this bill is trying to rebuild one practical measure at a time. It's the same trust that sits at the heart of good government generally: the belief that decisions are made properly and that when they're not there's somewhere to go. I have stood in those rooms. I've watched people's faces when a decision goes against them, and I've watched the relief when a process, however slow, finally treats them fairly. That experience is why I support this bill without reservation. It is not a perfect or a final answer. No single piece of legislation ever is. But it is a genuine, considered step towards a review system Australians can actually rely on.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill strengthens the Administrative Review Tribunal. It improves efficiency, protects integrity, ensures that our review systems continue to serve the Australian people with fairness, transparency and accountability. Our government is in the process of continuous improvement of merits review and is committed to ensuring that our institutions work well for the people who rely on them. These amendments are a practical step towards that goal.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As a collective, this bill and the reforms therein are directed at facilitating a more effective, efficient and sustainable merits and judicial review framework by deterring vexatious and frivolous applications at the same time as promoting engagement with genuine applicants and ensuring they receive a timely and effective decision. It does this by seeking to address the significant case loads, and previous contributions from members have indicated that these case loads are in the tens of thousands and growing. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Taken together, these reforms will support a more efficient, effective and robust review framework by encouraging active participation in the process, and dissuading frivolous applications—while ensuring appropriate balances are in place.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 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, saying it will help the tribunal and federal court manage growing caseloads, reduce delays and protect the integrity of migration and protection reviews while retaining safeguards for applicants.
“Taken together, these reforms will support a more efficient, effective and robust review framework by encouraging active participation in the process, and dissuading frivolous applications—while ensuring appropriate balances are in place.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Rowland supports the bill, arguing that its targeted procedural changes will help the Administrative Review TribunalA body that independently reconsiders government decisions. and federal court manage growing caseloads, reduce delays and make timely decisions while retaining appropriate safeguards.
“The bill reflects the ongoing commitment of this government to ensuring the tribunal and Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) procedures and operations are robust and can effectively respond to significant caseload pressures. The measures in the bill will enhance tribunal efficiency, avoid delay and ensure that decisions can be made in an effective and timely manner.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“Those are the tests that the Albanese government must now meet. The coalition will support this bill because Australians deserve a tribunal that works. We will support the clean-up, but Labor should not expect us to pretend there was no mess to clean up in the first place. The former Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, created all this. Taxpayers have paid for it and, once again, the parliament is being asked to fix it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will support this bill because it contains some sensible measures to improve the operation of the Administrative Review Tribunal and help address significant pressure in our migration review system. Where legislation improves efficiency, removes duplication and allows appropriately qualified people to get on with the job, we'll support it. But Labor should not pretend this bill has appeared in some sort of vacuum. The former attorney-general abolished the AAT, committed a billion dollars to establishing its replacement and dealing with associated pressures in the migration system and told Australians the new system would be better. Australians were entitled to expect that, after spending that sort of money, this government would get it right. Instead, parliament is here yet again being asked to clean up this mess.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I know the coalition supports this bill. I appreciate that there has been an amendment put forward by the member for Kooyong. But, as the minister said in the second reading speech:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 1 support · 2 mixed
“I accept that action is needed to improve the timeliness and efficiency of our migration processes. The current situation, in which the ART is swamped by tens of thousands of applications that it can't service, is not sustainable. But our reforms should be guided by the principles of efficiency and fairness together. A system which is fair but takes years to deliver decisions is failing, but so is the system that is fast but denies people meaningful opportunities to be heard. Australians deserve an administrative review system which is efficient, fair and properly resourced. If this parliament is serious about administrative justice, we have to ensure that all three objectives are achieved, not just the first. For those reasons, I move the amendment circulated in my name:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm pleased to second the second reading amendment moved by the member for Kooyong. It doesn't decline the bill a second reading. It asks this House to notice three things about this bill, and it asks the government to fix them. The first concerns a matter of consistency. This parliament has already accepted that oral reasons are not always appropriate in every jurisdictional area. The bill itself carves out—from the oral reasons discretion—social security matters, veterans entitlements matters, aged-care matters and NDIS matters. Protection visa matters are not carved out. So we've arrived at a position where the parliament considers a written statement of reasons indispensable when the question is a person's aged-care package but dispensable when the question is whether a person is returned to a country where they may face persecution. I cannot reconcile those two propositions, and I don't believe the government can either. The amendment asks that protection matters be exempt from the oral reasons provision in part 10, consistent with those for other jurisdictional areas.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government should improve this bill before pushing it through. In its present form, several measures risk reducing procedural fairness, shifting pressure downstream to the courts and falling most heavily on the people who are least able to navigate a complicated system, by creating yet another technical hurdle.”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 · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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 · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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 Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report tabled 07 Aug 2026
Referred to Committee (2 July 2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (7 Aug 2026)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report 9 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (12 Aug 2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 9 of 2026
APH bill page notesSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (12 Aug 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2026
APH bill page notes
