Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

A Summary of Key Amendments and Their Implications

The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 passed both Houses of the Australian Parliament on 5 February 2026. The amendments will commence on a day fixed by Proclamation, or automatically six months after receiving Royal Assent.

The Bill amends two Acts: the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) and the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act). Its overarching purpose is to expand the circumstances in which the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) may resolve matters without holding an oral hearing, and in certain migration cases, to require that review be conducted entirely on the papers.

The reforms are designed to improve the speed and efficiency of the review process while maintaining procedural fairness.

‍

Changes to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act

Under existing law, the ART is generally required to hold an oral hearing before making a decision. Section 106 of the ART Act provides a limited set of circumstances in which the Tribunal may decide a matter without a hearing, such as where all parties consent or where a party fails to appear.

The Bill inserts an additional and broader circumstance into section 106, giving the Tribunal a new discretion to dispense with an oral hearing where three conditions are met: it appears that the issues for determination can be adequately resolved without the parties being present; it appears reasonable in the circumstances to proceed without a hearing; and the Tribunal has given the participating parties a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions on whether a hearing should be held, and has taken those submissions into account.

This new discretion is accompanied by important safeguards. Consistent with section 55 of the ART Act, the Tribunal must ensure that each party has been given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, access any information or documents the Tribunal proposes to rely on, and make submissions and provide evidence.

The Tribunal is not required to obtain the parties’ agreement before exercising the discretion, but must genuinely consider any submissions received. The discretion is expected to be most appropriately used where proceedings involve straightforward facts, objective criteria, or issues that can be properly resolved on the basis of documentary evidence alone.

Notably, the amendments to the ART Act apply retroactively to already-lodged applications in which the Tribunal has not yet made its final decision — meaning the new discretion can be used in a wide range of existing matters that are still in progress.

This is a broader transitional threshold than the one used for the Migration Act amendments, which only apply to existing cases where the Tribunal has not yet been formally constituted for the proceeding (a narrower and earlier stage). The procedural fairness safeguards in section 55 continue to protect applicants whose ART Act cases transition to the new process.

‍

Changes to the Migration Act

The Migration Act amendments go further by mandating, rather than merely permitting, that certain review applications be decided entirely on the papers. The new requirement applies to applications for review of decisions to refuse a student visa, and to applications for review of decisions relating to temporary visas of a kind prescribed in the Migration Regulations.

This regulatory prescription mechanism provides flexibility for additional temporary visa categories to be brought within the on-the-papers process in the future without requiring primary legislation. Critically, permanent visa matters and reviewable protection decisions cannot be subject to this requirement and will continue to be reviewed under the existing procedures, retaining the possibility of an oral hearing.

The rationale for applying mandatory on-the-papers review to student visa refusals reflects the nature of such cases: the issues under review are generally straightforward, the volume of written material is low, and student visas are temporary and short-term. Efficient resolution benefits both applicants — who may remain in Australia on a bridging visa during the review process — and the broader integrity of the migration system. Two exceptions exist: applications referred by the President to the Tribunal’s guidance and appeals panel under section 122 of the ART Act automatically revert to standard procedures; and regulations may specify additional exemptions.

The Government has already signalled its intention to exclude, by regulation, applications involving certain public interest criteria set out in Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations, on the basis that such issues are better suited to an oral hearing. For cases already in progress that transition into the new on-the-papers process, the legislation includes deeming provisions so that steps already taken — such as prior notices to an applicant — are counted as if they had been taken under the new procedure, avoiding unnecessary duplication.

‍

The New Division 4A Review Procedure

Applications subject to the mandatory on-the-papers process are governed by a new Division 4A inserted into Part 5 of the Migration Act, which operates instead of the existing Division 4. The review is conducted entirely in writing, with no oral hearing or other Tribunal case event of any kind.

The Tribunal must invite the applicant to provide written submissions and evidence on the relevant issues — chiefly, whether the applicant satisfies the visa criterion they were found not to have met, or whether the provision that prevented the visa grant continues to apply. This invitation covers the relevant criterion broadly, not merely the specific aspect identified in the original refusal decision.

Where the Tribunal has information it considers would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review, it must give the applicant clear particulars of that information, explain its relevance, and invite written comment. Applicants may also request access to written material provided to the Tribunal by the Department. Importantly, if an applicant fails to respond to the Tribunal’s written invitation within the specified response period, the Tribunal is required to dismiss the application.

However, the applicant may seek reinstatement within 28 days of receiving notice of the dismissal. A key structural point for those familiar with the ART Act: the normal obligation in section 55 to give parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case is switched off for Division 4A applications.

It is replaced entirely by Division 4A’s own codified process, which becomes the complete and self-contained statement of what fairness requires in these proceedings. This gives both applicants and the Tribunal a clear and predictable framework, without needing to look to general common law principles.

‍

Human Rights Compatibility and Conclusion

The Bill is stated to be compatible with human rights, engaging the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair hearing under Articles 2(3) and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government’s position is that the reforms promote these rights by enabling faster resolution of matters and reducing unnecessary delays, while the written-only process still affords applicants a meaningful opportunity to present their case. Any limitation on the right to an oral hearing is characterised as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate objective of efficient and proportionate review.

The Bill has no financial impact. Taken together, the amendments represent a significant recalibration of the ART’s procedures, particularly for migration matters, prioritising efficiency and timeliness while maintaining a clear and codified framework of procedural fairness.

‍

This page was last updated on 20 February 2026.