Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) (11:37): The foundation of any good democracy is the right of citizens to have reviewed government decisions and decisions of government departments. It's been a hallmark of the Australian system of government for the past century—that Australian citizens have the right to have decisions of government departments and, indeed, of government officials, including ministers, reviewed by an independent body.

That is why our government established the Administrative Review Tribunal, to ensure that members of the community have an avenue to seek review of government decisions in a way that is effective, efficient and fair. The Federal Circuit and Family Court also plays a critical role in hearing and determining judicial review applications of certain administrative decisions.

But the scale of demand on these systems has grown dramatically. As at 30 June 2026, the Administrative Review Tribunal had 133,749 applications on hand. That's a 19 per cent increase on the previous financial year.

In 2024-25, the tribunal had 112,591 cases on hand, which itself represented a 54 per cent increase from the year before and was higher than any reporting year under the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Of the 133,749 matters currently on hand, 118,358 of these matters are migration and protection reviews. That's 88 per cent of the entire caseload of the Administrative Review Tribunal taken up by one specific element of administrative review.

That's a 19 per cent increase on the previous year, when the tribunal had 99,462 migration and protection matters on hand. Again, at that time it represented 88 per cent of the caseload of the tribunal. So that's a huge increase in the number of migration and protection applications that are being assessed by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Basically, all the work of the commissioners and reviewers is concentrated on migration matters, and that surge has downstream consequences. In the Federal Circuit and Family Court, there were 7,503 lodgements of migration matters in 2024-25—a 116 per cent increase on 2022-23. These numbers aren't abstract.

They reflect real pressure on the review system. The migration and protection case load is not only large; it is structurally challenging. When applicants seek merits or judicial review of a visa decision, they're entitled to a bridging visa that allows them to remain in Australia until proceedings are completed.

Long wait times for review of protection and migration decisions can therefore incentivise unmeritorious applications lodged not to challenge a decision but to extend a stay. As an example, it's not uncommon for someone to come to Australia on a visitor's visa. The validity of the visitor's visa might be six months, but they get here, they claim protection under the system and it might take 18 months to two years for the department to review that protection claim.

The protection claim is rejected, and then the person may seek review in the Administrative Review Tribunal. It can take another three to four years before a decision is made in the ART, so the person has, by then, been here for up to six years. After a denial in the Administrative Review Tribunal, the person is entitled to go to the Federal Court, and all the way to the High Court, if they wish—again, taking years.

That can take it up to 10, 11 or 12 years. So someone that was meant to be here for six months ends up being here for 10 years, and that is clogging up the system. There needs to be a way to quickly deal with matters in the Administrative Review Tribunal, particularly in the migration and protection space, to ensure that all Australians get access to justice—and to review, when it's needed.

The data on those migration and protection applications is quite stark. Around 85 per cent of protection visa applications are refused at the primary stage—that is, by the department. When a person makes a claim for protection, it's assessed by the department in accordance with the legislation.

Eighty-five per cent of those are rejected. Of those who seek merits review—who go to the ART—90 per cent are unsuccessful. And, in the 2024-25 financial year, less than three per cent of judicial review appeals of protection decisions were allowed by the courts.

That is a system that is under pressure, and that is a system that we cannot ignore as a government if we are going to ensure that all Australians get access, in a timely and efficient way, to the review of administrative decisions and to justice. It's a system that must be strengthened to ensure that it remains fair, efficient and credible—and that's exactly what this bill seeks to do.

This bill, the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill, contains a number of practical, balanced measures to improve the efficiency of the Administrative Review Tribunal. It will allow the tribunal to give reasons for a decision orally, rather than always requiring written reasons. Parties will still be able to request written reasons if they need them.

But the ability for a member of the ART to issue an oral reason, particularly quickly—in some cases even on the spot—having heard the evidence and the submissions, will be a great help in speeding up the deciding of matters in the ART. It's a straightforward change that ensures members spend their time drafting written reasons only where they are genuinely required.

These changes will principally apply to matters in the migration case load, and that's because migration is the tribunal's largest on-hand case load, and significant efficiencies can be achieved by permitting oral reasons in these matters. Importantly, the review of social security matters has been purposely excluded. Social security matters relating to people's pensions and other government payments will not be the subject of this fast-tracked process with oral decisions.

These matters already have unique review processes, and the reconstituted Administrative Review Council is considering social security review processes. It's appropriate to allow that work to continue. National Disability Insurance Scheme matters, veterans entitlements and aged-care matters have also been excluded from that process of oral reasons, recognising that they often involve complex assessments of fact or other materials.

Other areas of review may also be excluded by regulation. This is balanced reform. Applicants who disagree with the decision will still be able to seek written reasons as they consider their appeal options.

The bill also requires applications for reviewable migration and protection decisions to be made through a prescribed form. This ensures that applicants provide all the information the tribunal needs up front, avoiding unnecessary chasing of information when the tribunal could be dedicating its efforts to managing cases. There are also several minor efficiency amendments, including clarifying when documents need to be provided and assigning the president to every jurisdictional area, all aimed at ensuring the tribunal can operate smoothly and consistently.

These are sensible, practical measures that provide support for a more efficient tribunal without compromising access to justice and fairness. A key part of strengthening the integrity of our review system is ensuring that people engaging with it are who they say they are. This bill introduces a new requirement for identity verification for applicants seeking merits or judicial review of certain migration and protection decisions.

The details of how this verification will operate, the timing, the process and the practical steps involved will be set out in regulations made under the Migration Act. That means that the parliament will have full visibility of those regulations. They'll be subject to scrutiny and disallowable if they don't operate as intended.

If an applicant doesn't complete the identity verification step in an ART matter, the tribunal will be required to dismiss the application. But, importantly, the existing reinstatement powers remain in place. If a matter was dismissed when it shouldn't have been—for example, because of a genuine personal circumstance—the tribunal can reinstate it and make further orders to ensure the applicant has a fair opportunity to complete the verification process.

For matters before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the approach is different. Applicants who fail to meet the identity verification requirement would need leave of the court to continue their proceedings. If leave is not granted, the court may dismiss the matter.

The court also retains the ability to reinstate proceedings that have been dismissed. This difference in approach reflects the constitutional position of the court as a chapter III body exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Courts must retain discretion in how they manage proceedings.

That is why the court will also be able to extend the time for completing identity verification or dispense with the requirement entirely where appropriate. Taken together, these reforms create a clear and mandatory engagement point between applicants and the review system. They ensure that people seeking review understand what they are doing and that the ART and the court can have confidence that an applicant is genuinely participating in the process.

This is a practical integrity measure and a straightforward expectation that supports a more robust merits and judicial review framework while preserving the safeguards and discretion that must exist within our legal system. This bill strengthens the Administrative Review Tribunal. It improves efficiency, protects integrity, ensures that our review systems continue to serve the Australian people with fairness, transparency and accountability.

Our government is in the process of continuous improvement of merits review and is committed to ensuring that our institutions work well for the people who rely on them. These amendments are a practical step towards that goal.