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

Continued the debate

Shoebridge opposed the bill, arguing it reheated failed coalition policies that stripped migrants of basic rights and procedural fairness. Shoebridge contended that removing oral hearings would negatively impact marginalised applicants who often lack legal representation and face cultural barriers. Shoebridge attributed the tribunal's backlog to government under-resourcing, noting a shortfall of approximately 200 members, and to poor decision-making by the Department of Home Affairs, which refused thousands of student visas for minor documentation errors. Shoebridge cited evidence that nearly half of student visa refusals were overturned, suggesting systemic issues in primary decision-making rather than a need to remove hearings.

Government response

Green supported the bill, stating it enabled efficient and high-quality reviews while maintaining procedural fairness through written submissions and evidence. Green explained that the government would amend the legislation to restrict paper-only reviews to temporary visa decisions prescribed in regulations, starting with student visa refusals, in line with committee recommendations. Green highlighted that the tribunal would retain discretion to hold oral hearings where appropriate and that safeguards would ensure applicants could comment on adverse information. Green also noted plans to empower non-judicial deputy presidents to assist with tribunal management and member performance.

Opposition response

Scarr supported the bill, describing the current system as broken due to an explosion in student visa appeals, which rose from 2,278 cases in 2022 to over 48,000 by late 2025. Scarr argued that applicants were using the tribunal to rectify incomplete initial applications, leading to unsustainable wait times and a surge in bridging visas. Scarr maintained that the bill preserved the right to present cases but allowed for efficient resolution on the papers, with safeguards ensuring applicants received adverse information. Scarr emphasised that the changes would not apply to protection or permanent visas, targeting only temporary visa categories to reduce the backlog.