Opened the debate
Rowland argued that the bill was necessary to equip the Administrative Review Tribunal with tools to deliver efficient and high-quality merits review. Rowland stated that the current requirement for oral hearings in all proceedings was rigid and resource-intensive, creating incentives for non-genuine applicants to delay decisions. The proposed amendments would allow the tribunal to decide certain migration cases, such as student visa refusals, based on written materials alone. Rowland emphasised that permanent and protection visas were excluded from this regime due to their complexity and the vulnerability of applicants. Rowland maintained that the changes would balance efficiency with procedural fairness, ensuring applicants could still present their cases fully in writing.