Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Ms CLUTTERHAM (Sturt) (18:27): I rise today to speak in support of the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. Replacing the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Review Tribunal commenced operation on 14 October 2024 and operates as Australia's federal merits-review body in that it provides an independent review of decisions made by Australian government agencies, departments and ministers.

Its jurisdiction is incredibly wide, providing a review mechanism for decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts. That being the case, it needs to be equipped with the right tools to deliver efficient and effective reviews, to deliver high-quality reviews and to deliver accurate and sustainable reviews of government decisions that are tailored to the decisions being reviewed—recognising, of course, that not every review is the same.

In fact, every review needs to be determined on its own merits. The system of reviewing the decisions of agencies, departments and ministers provides the Australian public with trust and confidence in our institutions, and this review mechanism is critical to our system of government. Now, it is indeed the job of the Administrative Review Tribunal to consider each case on its merits by taking a fresh and objective look at the facts, law and policy relating to the original decision and also by considering new information as applicable.

In applying this fresh lens, the tribunal can agree with the original decision, change the original decision or make a new decision. None of this is changing with this bill. Overall, however, the objectives of the tribunal, as set out in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, are to provide an independent mechanism of review that is fair and just and ensures that applications to the tribunal are resolved as quickly as possible and with as little formality and expense as a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permits.

It also seeks to ensure that it is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs, including language needs, of the parties to proceedings, that it improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making and, importantly, that it promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal. The 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments the tribunal can review decisions in relation to cover a very broad range of topics.

The relevant act, regulation or other legislative instrument must state that the tribunal can review the decision. There is no general power of review. The most common types of decisions the tribunal reviews are visas, including migration and refugee visas; Centrelink payments, including family assistance, paid parental leave and student assistance; decisions in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme; decisions in relation to child support; taxation; Commonwealth workers' compensation; and veterans' entitlements.

In addition, the tribunal's review jurisdiction includes decisions relating to Australian citizenship, bankruptcy, civil aviation, corporations and financial services regulation, customs, freedom of information, passports and security assessments by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. That is a huge workload, so, given the breadth of this jurisdiction, the Administrative Review Tribunal must be empowered to operate efficiently and effectively to ensure that fair and just reviews of complex and, in some cases, life-changing decisions for the applicants are delivered promptly and accurately.

This is particularly important given the tribunal was established to make sure that community members have an available avenue to seek review of government decisions, and that avenue needs to operate effectively, efficiently and fairly. Equally, the Administrative Review Tribunal requires two important features: firstly, flexibility, because the individual underlying facts leading to an individual review will always be different; and, secondly, proportionality.

This means that, because of the breadth of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Review Tribunal, the time and resources expended to determine a matter should reflect the complexity of the issues, which will be different in every case, and the objective importance of what is at stake. Again, it is different in every case. This really is directed at reducing delays and recognising genuine applicants and providing them with timely and effective decisions.

This bill is squarely directed at that goal in that it seeks to support the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to more effectively deal with their already significant but ever-increasing case loads, particularly relevant to migration and protection decisions made under the Migration Act 1958. It does this at the same time as preserving fairness.

It shouldn't be characterised any other way, or as a shortcut or an effort to mask a lack of resources, although a properly resourced Administrative Review Tribunal is, of course, critical. What does the bill do? It facilitates the tribunal to give oral reasons for a decision, with written statements of reasons to be given at the request of an applicant in all reviews except for reviews relating to social security, veterans' entitlements, aged care or the NDIS, or other reviews that might be prescribed by regulations.

An oral decision is still a properly reasoned decision. It still requires a proper consideration of the facts of the relevant legislation and of each case on its merits. An oral decision is not somehow of less value than a written decision in circumstances where a proper consideration of the merits is given by those making the decision.

The bill also authorises registrars to exercise additional powers, including to reinstate applications in certain circumstances and to dismiss applications if satisfied that the application has no reasonable prospects of success. Some applications genuinely fall into that category. It also permits members and other authorised persons to correct obvious errors in registrar issued orders, and it expands the class of decisions treated as intelligence and security decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act to include in the definition of exempt security record decisions those decisions relating to documents that are claimed to be exempt security documents, as well as those that have already been found to be such documents.

This bill engages with the right to a fair trial as identified under article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the right to an effective remedy pursuant to article 2(3) of that same covenant. With respect to the latter right, the bill will operate to protect the right to an effective remedy by overarchingly supporting the operation of an administrative review tribunal that conducts prompt and efficient tribunal review with as little formality and expense as a proper consideration of the matter requires.

We heard from the previous member that many applicants are unrepresented and in relatively difficult financial circumstances, so a system that has as little formality and expense as possible and is as quick as reasonably practicable while still maintaining fairness is incredibly important to applicants falling within that category who do not have the resources for a prolonged merits review.

This reflects the flexibility and proportionality aspects that are necessary to achieve an efficient and effective administrative review tribunal. With respect to the former human right, article 14(1) prescribes that every person in the determination of rights and obligations in a suit at law is entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Its application to administrative review proceedings is not completely settled, as there are questions over whether these types of proceedings constitute a suit of law. However, to the extent that there is any limitation, it's reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the objects of the bill and the objects of the Administrative Review Tribunal. As a collective, this bill and the reforms therein are directed at facilitating a more effective, efficient and sustainable merits and judicial review framework by deterring vexatious and frivolous applications at the same time as promoting engagement with genuine applicants and ensuring they receive a timely and effective decision.

It does this by seeking to address the significant case loads, and previous contributions from members have indicated that these case loads are in the tens of thousands and growing. I commend the bill to the House.