Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Consideration in Detail

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail

House of Representatives · Monday 3 November 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate focused on amendments moved by Allegra Spender to restrict the government's power to determine which visa classes are reviewed solely on the papers by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Spender argued that mandating paper-only reviews for student visas and allowing regulations to extend this to other visa types was a disproportionate response that denied vulnerable applicants a fair hearing. The Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, opposed the amendments, stating that regulation-making powers were necessary for flexibility in managing case loads, while noting protection visas were excluded. Spender questioned the appropriateness of using regulations rather than primary legislation to remove hearing rights. The amendments were negated, and the bill was agreed to.

Outcome

The amendments were negated and the bill was agreed to.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Allegra Spender (Wentworth) (Independent) Ind

Spender moved two amendments to remove the minister's ability to use regulations to expand the requirement for paper-only reviews to visa classes beyond student visas. Spender argued that while efficiencies were needed, the blanket refusal of oral hearings was a disproportionate response highlighted by the Law Council of Australia. Spender noted that fifty per cent of student visa refusals were overturned, indicating significant contention, and warned that extending paper-only reviews to provisional partner, bridging, and employer-sponsored visas via regulation would deny vulnerable self-represented applicants a fair hearing. Spender contended that such fundamental changes to tribunal operations should be determined by parliament through primary legislation rather than delegated legislation.

Government response

Michelle Rowland (Attorney-General) ALP Greenway

Rowland stated that the government would not support the amendments, arguing that regulation-making powers were necessary to allow the Administrative Review Tribunal to respond flexibly to changes in case loads. Rowland emphasised that any regulations made under this power would be subject to disallowance by parliament. Rowland clarified that the ability to apply paper-only reviews to other visa types was limited to reviewable migration decisions and expressly excluded protection visa matters due to their complexity.