Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026; Second Reading

Chaney opposed three main provisions: the requirement for spoken explanations, the authority to remove registrars, and checks on identity. Chaney argued these changes risked undermining procedural fairness for vulnerable protection visa applicants who often lacked legal representation. Chaney seconded an amendment seeking exemptions for protection matters from spoken explanations and stricter qualifications for registrars exercising removal authority. Chaney warned that the bill repeated past mistakes by stripping safeguards in the name of speed.

Thistlethwaite supported the bill, citing a 19 per cent increase in tribunal applications, with migration matters comprising 88 per cent of the caseload. Thistlethwaite argued that long wait times incentivised unmeritorious applications and clogged the system. Thistlethwaite stated that oral reasons and identity verification were practical measures to improve efficiency without compromising access to justice. Thistlethwaite noted that social security and other complex matters were excluded from the oral reasons provision.

Steggall opposed the bill, arguing it created two tiers of justice by excluding protection visa matters from automatic written reasons. Steggall warned that oral reasons placed unfair burdens on unrepresented applicants facing tight judicial review deadlines. Steggall criticised the identity verification regime for lacking evidence of proportionality and failing to accommodate stateless or undocumented refugees. Steggall urged the government to exempt protection matters from oral reasons to ensure procedural fairness.