Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading

Spender acknowledged the need for efficiency but expressed concern over mandating on-the-papers reviews for all student visa cases, noting that nearly 50 per cent of such refusals were previously overturned. Spender argued that removing oral hearings for entire visa classes should be determined by primary legislation rather than regulation, citing the Law Council of Australia. Spender supported amendments to introduce a three-year review clause and to maintain tribunal discretion for holding hearings if sufficient reason existed. Spender urged the government to accept crossbench amendments to protect procedural fairness.

Ng supported the bill, drawing on his experience as a former public servant to highlight the inefficiencies and political stacking of the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Ng argued that the new tribunal required flexibility to handle straightforward cases, such as student visa refusals, which rely on documentary evidence. Ng stated that long wait times incentivised migration syndicates to exploit the system, harming genuine applicants. Ng emphasised that the reforms would streamline processes while maintaining safeguards, such as allowing written submissions and excluding complex protection visa cases from on-the-papers reviews.

Steggall expressed concern that the bill undermined the fairness and accessibility objectives of the Administrative Review Tribunal. Steggall argued that requiring on-the-papers reviews for student visas removed necessary discretion and could disadvantage applicants lacking the linguistic ability or means to submit intricate matters in written form. Steggall noted that immigration should not be used as a political wedge issue and that delays were structural problems requiring long-term solutions. Steggall intended to move an amendment to introduce an independent review of the changes after five years to ensure accountability.

Neumann argued that the bill addressed significant backlogs caused by the previous government's management of student visas and the pandemic-era policy changes. Neumann stated that migration matters constituted the majority of the tribunal's workload, with student visas being a significant portion. Neumann emphasised that efficient review procedures were critical to preventing non-genuine applicants from extending their stays through delayed reviews. Neumann supported the on-the-papers process as a common and fair method in the legal system that would reduce delays for genuine applicants.

Clutterham supported the bill, stating it equipped the tribunal with tools to deliver efficient and effective reviews across its wide jurisdiction. Clutterham explained that the amendments would allow the tribunal to dispense with oral hearings when issues could be adequately determined in the absence of parties, subject to safeguards. Clutterham argued that on-the-papers reviews for student visa refusals were appropriate given the low complexity and temporary nature of these visas. Clutterham noted that the reforms would reduce incentives for non-genuine applicants to delay decisions, thereby improving access to justice for genuine applicants.

Zappia supported the bill, arguing that the review process needed to adapt to societal changes and ensure timely outcomes for applicants. Zappia noted that long waiting times caused significant distress and that the new on-the-papers process would allow applicants to present their cases in writing, reducing anxiety associated with oral hearings. Zappia stated that this streamlined approach would help eliminate delaying tactics used by non-genuine applicants. Zappia commended the legislation for improving the relevance and applicability of the tribunal's procedures.