Key points

• The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (the Bill) amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) and the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act) regarding certain decisions which may be made without holding an oral hearing.
• The Bill amends the ART Act to expand the circumstances in which the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) may make a decision based on written materials and without holding an oral hearing.
• The Bill amends the Migration Act to require that the Tribunal make certain decisions regarding reviewable migration decisions ‘on the papers’ instead of conducting an oral hearing. For this purpose, the Bill specifies reviews of decisions to refuse to grant a student visa, and provides that regulations may prescribe reviews of decisions relating to other kinds of temporary visa, whether refusals to grant or to cancel a visa.
• The requirement for the Tribunal to make certain decisions on the papers will not apply to  decisions regarding permanent visas and reviewable protection decisions. However, the Tribunal will retain  discretion to dispense with oral hearings for these matters, including in expanded circumstances set out in the Bill.
• Proposed Division 4A of Part 5 of the Migration Act provides for a new process for the conduct of applications to be reviewed on the papers. The process includes requirements that the Tribunal must invite the applicant to provide written submissions concerning their case.
• The Bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025.

Introductory Info

Date of introduction: 3 September 2025
House introduced in: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Attorney-General
Commencement: Schedule 1 commences on the earlier of proclamation or 6 months after Royal Assent.

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (the Bill) is to:

• amend the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) to expand the circumstances in which the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) may make a decision based on written materials without holding an oral hearing (Part 1, Schedule 1).
• amend the Migration Act 1958 to require that the Tribunal make certain decisions regarding reviewable migration decisions ‘on the papers’ instead of conducting an oral hearing. For this purpose, the Bill specifies reviews of decisions to refuse to grant a student visa and provides that regulations may prescribe reviews of decisions relating to other kinds of temporary visa, whether refusals to grant or to cancel a visa (Part 2, Schedule 1).

Background

Administrative Review Tribunal

The Administrative Review Tribunal was established by the ART Act and commenced on 14 October 2024. It replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) as Australia’s federal review body.

The jurisdiction of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which is the same as the former AAT, reviews decisions made under a wide range of Commonwealth Acts and instruments, including in areas of child support, workers’ compensation, social security, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), migration and refugee visas, taxation, security and veterans’ entitlements.

The Tribunal’s standard powers and procedures relating to the conduct of review are set out in the ART Act. However, other Acts or instruments may modify these powers and procedures to suit the needs or features of particular caseloads (ART Act, section 5).

The Tribunal is required to pursue the objective of providing an independent mechanism of review that:

• is fair and just
• resolves applications in a timely manner, with as little formality and expense as proper consideration of matters before the Tribunal permits
• is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties
• improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making, and
• promotes public trust and confidence in the Tribunal (section 9, ART Act).

When conducting merits review, the Tribunal considers the relevant facts, law and policy to make its decision. The Tribunal must make a decision to either affirm, vary, or set aside the reviewable decision. If it sets aside the decision, it must either substitute a new decision or remit the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration (ART Act section 105; Migration Act section 349).

A major reason for the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal by the Albanese Government was to replace a merits review system which, in the view of a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Report, had become largely dysfunctional – being failed by a tribunal which no longer functioned ‘effectively, efficiently or transparently’ (paragraph 7.33). Amongst its many challenges, the AAT was beset by resourcing pressures with a corresponding dramatic rise in matters to be reviewed resulting in enormous backlogs preventing timely and final resolution of matters. For further background, including a history of the AAT, stakeholder commentary and key issues, see the Bills Digest for the ART Bill and associated Bills.

The Bill makes amendments to the ART Act and the Migration Act that are intended to further improve the efficiency of the new Tribunal’s procedures by expanding the Tribunal’s ability to determine matters without conducting the hearing of the proceedings. The Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, in her second reading speech argues these amendments will support the tailoring of the Tribunal’s procedures in a way that is proportionate to the matters and issues before the Tribunal. She states:

The Administrative Review Tribunal has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions.

[…]

This bill further strengthens the tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner, while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.

Reviewable migration decisions

The Migration Act contains provisions which modify or disapply provisions of the ART Act for its purposes (under section 5 of the ART Act). The kinds of visa and migration decisions the Tribunal can review are set in the Migration Act (section 338 for a ‘reviewable migration decision’ and section 338A for a ‘reviewable protection decision’).

Section 338 specifies a range of decisions which are reviewable migration decisions, including decisions to refuse to grant certain visas and decisions to cancel certain visas. Relevantly for the Bill, a decision to refuse a visa is a reviewable migration decision if the applicant applied for the visa from, and is in, Australia. Usually, decisions regarding temporary visas, such as student visas, are not reviewable migration decisions if the applicant is outside Australia. (In certain circumstances, a refusal decision regarding a temporary visa may be a reviewable migration decision if the applicant is outside Australia, such as if there are family or visa sponsorship considerations.) Certain visa cancellation decisions may also be reviewable migration decisions, but not, for example, where the Minister has exercised a relevant personal power under the Migration Act to cancel the visa (notably paragraphs 338(3)(c) and (d)).

The Tribunal has information on its webpage regarding how to make an application for review of migration and refugee decisions.

Student visas

Student visas are temporary visas allowing international students to stay in Australia to undertake a course of study, which may be in various education sectors including higher education, vocational education and training, or English language courses. There has been a rapid and substantial increase in the number of student visa applicants applying for review of a refusal decision in the last few years. Statistics from the Administrative Review Tribunal and former AAT migration caseload reports show that the number of ‘study visa’ refusal cases active as at 30 June 2023 was 2,100. For 30 June 2024, the figure was 10,977, increasing to 39,195 by 31 July 2025 (latest available). (Figures include small numbers of Student Guardian (subclass 590) visas, which are not defined as student visas under migration legislation; see below.)

The Attorney-General’s second reading speech acknowledges that ‘Since early 2024, the tribunal has experienced a significant surge in applications for review of decisions to refuse student visas’ (p. 12). However, the speech goes on to state that:

… the bill is not a reaction to the current migration case load facing the tribunal. That case load is a symptom of the inflexibility of the current framework, a policy issue that this bill seeks to cure. (p. 13)

The high caseload numbers could be due to a range of factors. The re-opening of Australia’s borders after the COVID-19 pandemic saw a rebound in international student demand and increased numbers of student visa applications and enrolments. In the context of public debate on elevated post-pandemic migration levels, the Government brought in a number of measures intended to help manage the number of international students in Australia and address other issues in the student visa program such as fraud and integrity. Higher education expert Andrew Norton provides context and background on student visa policy in an ANU brief published in 2024; see also the Department of Home Affairs report on The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programs (14th edition, pp. 11–14).

The recent Government measures included preventing holders of certain temporary visas from applying for a student visa while in Australia and introducing a new ‘genuine student’ requirement to replace the ‘genuine temporary entrant’ requirement for student visas. These measures may have led to higher visa refusal rates and, along with the simple fact of larger numbers of international students in Australia, more people contesting visa refusals (The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programs, pp. 11–12).

The Nixon Review

In 2023, the Government initiated a review into exploitation in Australia’s visa system. The report of the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia’s Visa System (Nixon Review) found that ‘Protracted processing times for some visa subclasses and merits review processes are motivating abuse of Australia’s visa system’ (finding 6, p. 24) and recommended that:

For visit / tourism and study streams, merits review should be conducted ‘on the papers’ without a hearing, and within a set period of time. New information should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. (Recommendation 32, p. 28)

The Government response did not immediately agree to this recommendation, but noted it was:

… considering a range of tools that could be provided to the federal administrative review body that will replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to allow the new body to review matters more quickly where appropriate. (p. 9)

The Bill would respond to the recommendation to conduct reviews of applications on the papers with regard to decisions to refuse (but not in the first instance to cancel) student visas. The Bill leaves open the possibility of implementing reviews on the papers for other types of visa (whether refusal or cancellation).

Policy position of non-government parties/independents and key stakeholders

At the time of writing this Digest, there has been little commentary on the Bill from non‑government parties, independents, or key stakeholders. Some migration law firms have welcomed the Bill’s intention to improve efficiency, though some have also raised the importance that applicants may place on having access to an oral hearing at which to put their case.

There has been some media reporting of the backlog of student visa reviews in the Tribunal.

The Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill states that the Attorney-General’s Department ‘undertook targeted consultation on the proposed policy approach to the Bill with key civil society stakeholders in August 2025’ (paragraph 10).

Key issues and provisions

Administrative Review Tribunal Act

Part 4 of the ART Act deals with the process the Tribunal follows when an application is made for review and contains the standard provisions for tribunal proceedings. Currently, the Tribunal holds oral hearings for most matters. However, section 106 sets out limited circumstances where the Tribunal, when reviewing a decision, may dispense with an oral hearing and make a decision based only on written submissions and papers, also referred to as a hearing ‘on the papers’. These circumstances for dispensing with an oral hearing include where:

• all the parties consent to it
•  the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party and
  • the decision is wholly in favour of the applicant or
  • the applicant requests the Tribunal make its decision without holding a hearing
• a party fails to comply with the ART Act or a Tribunal order.

Before dispensing with the hearing in these circumstances, the Tribunal must consider the documents and things given to it in relation to the proceeding, and it must consider that the issues can be adequately determined in the parties’ absence.

Item 3 amends section 106 to broaden the Tribunal’s discretion by setting out additional circumstances where the Tribunal may choose to make a decision based on written materials and without holding an oral hearing. The Tribunal would be able to do this where it appears that:

• the issues can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties, and
• it would be reasonable in the circumstances to make a decision without holding a hearing.

Before dispensing with the oral hearing, the Tribunal must give the parties the opportunity to make submissions on whether it should hold a hearing and the Tribunal must take account of those submissions. While required to consider the views of the parties, the Tribunal is not required to obtain the agreement of the parties to dispense with an oral hearing.

The Explanatory Memorandum states that it is expected this new power would be most appropriately exercised by the Tribunal in circumstances such as where a proceeding involves straightforward facts and issues, or objective criteria, suited to being considered on the basis of written materials (paragraph 41).

Item 2 inserts a note to section 106 confirming that this provision regarding Tribunal discretion to review on the papers does not apply to review of certain decisions under the Migration Act which are required to be reviewed on the papers.

Migration Act

Part 5 of the Migration Act concerns the review of reviewable migration decisions and reviewable protection decisions by the Tribunal. Division 4 of Part 5 currently provides for the conduct of such reviews by the Tribunal. The Bill amends the Migration Act to insert proposed Division 4A of Part 5 (item 16).

Proposed Division 4A establishes a new process with regard to Tribunal decisions on applications for review to be determined on the papers. The process would require the Tribunal to make decisions on the papers without conducting an oral hearing when reviewing certain reviewable migration decisions.

Applications to be reviewed on the papers

Proposed Division 4A sets out a definition of an application to be reviewed on the papers and provides for the requirements in relation to such reviews.

Proposed subsection 367C(2) provides that an application to be reviewed on the papers means an application to the Tribunal for review of:

• a decision to refuse to grant a student visa (proposed paragraph 367C(2)(a)) or
• other decisions relating to temporary visas as prescribed by regulations (proposed paragraph 367C(2)(b)).

Proposed paragraph 367C(2)(b) is not limited to decisions to refuse to grant a visa, but may also apply to decisions to cancel a visa, if so prescribed by the regulations.

Most subclasses of visa are set out in the Migration Regulations 1994 rather than the Migration Act (some kinds and classes of visas, including protection visas, are provided for in the Act; see Division 3 of Part 2). Student visas are defined in the Migration Regulations as visa subclasses 500 (the current Student visa) and 570–576 (previous visas now closed to new applications) (regulation 1.03, as provided for in subsection 5(1) of the Migration Act).

Temporary visas are defined in subsection 30(2) of the Migration Act (as provided for in subsection 5(1)) as kinds of visa allowing a person to remain in Australia during a specified period, until a specified event happens, or while the holder has a specified status. This is in contrast to a permanent visa, which allows a holder to remain in Australia indefinitely (subsection 30(1)).

The note to proposed subsection 367C(2) refers to paragraph 338(1)(b) regarding the meaning of a reviewable migration decision, which states that a reviewable protection decision is not a reviewable migration decision. Proposed subsection 367C(2) applies only to reviewable migration decisions.

Decisions regarding permanent visas and protection visas will therefore not be required to be reviewed on the papers under proposed Division 4A. However, section 106 of the ART Act regarding circumstances in which the Tribunal may make a decision without a hearing will still apply, meaning that the Tribunal may exercise its (expanded) discretion to decide these cases on the papers (item 3 as detailed above.

Exceptions

Proposed subsection 367C(3) provides that exceptions to proposed subsection 367C(2) may be made. First, an application is not, or ceases to be, an application to be reviewed on the papers where the President of the Tribunal refers the application to the guidance and appeals panel under section 122 of the ART Act. Section 122 enables the President to refer an application if satisfied the application raises an issue of significance to administrative decision‑making and it is appropriate in the interests of justice (proposed paragraph 367C(3)(a)).

If the application is no longer considered to be an application to be reviewed on the papers, it will be assessed under Division 4 of the Migration Act rather than proposed Division 4A.

In addition, proposed paragraph 367C(3)(b) provides that additional circumstances where an application is not, or ceases to be, an application to be reviewed on the papers may be prescribed by regulations. The Explanatory Memorandum states that:

… it is the Government’s intention that applications for review of decisions in which certain public interest criteria (set out in Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations) are in issue would not be reviewed on the papers, as it would be more appropriate for the Tribunal to consider issues relating to those criteria in the context of an oral hearing. (paragraph 80)

Public interest criteria are criteria which may apply as per the visa requirements in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations which must be satisfied for the grant of the visa. Public interest criteria in Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations include requirements relating to matters such as character, health and security checks, integrity (fraud) and the values statement. 

Interaction with the ART Act

Proposed section 367D provides that certain provisions of the ART Act do not apply to applications to be reviewed on the papers, primarily provisions which relate to oral hearings. New provisions under proposed Division 4A would apply instead of the provisions of Division 4. Proposed paragraph 367D(h) provides that the regulations may specify that other provisions of the ART Act also do not apply. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government anticipates that ‘regulations would be made for this purpose only to address any unanticipated interactions between new Division 4A of the Migration Act and the ART Act’ (paragraph 92).

Natural justice requirements

Proposed section 367E is similar to existing section 357A in Division 4, to provide that the relevant provisions – proposed Division 4A and sections 374, 375, 375A and 376 and Division 7 in so far as they relate to proposed Division 4A – are taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the matters they deal with. These matters concern the procedures for reviewing applications to be reviewed on the papers and procedural requirements concerning the giving of certain information and documents.

Notably, proposed section 367E does not include an equivalent provision to existing subsection 357A(3) of Division 4 that states ‘In applying this Division, the ART must act in a way that is fair and just’. The Explanatory Memorandum does not appear to note this.

The Tribunal must invite submissions

Proposed section 367F sets out that the Tribunal must invite an applicant to provide written evidence with regard to certain issues concerning their application to be reviewed on the papers. Proposed subsection 367F(1) provides that ‘relevant issues’ are:

• whether an applicant has satisfied a criterion for the grant of a visa (proposed subparagraph 367F(1)(a)(i))
• whether the Migration Act or regulations prevent the grant of a visa (proposed subparagraph 367F(1)(a)(ii)) or
• any other issues prescribed by the regulations (proposed paragraph 367F(1)(b)).

Providing for the regulations to set ‘relevant issues’ would allow particular visa criteria in the Migration Regulations to be specified, which the Explanatory Memorandum states would therefore enable the Tribunal:

… to draw an applicant’s attention to those additional matters, and ensure the Tribunal receives written submissions and evidence on those additional matters, efficiently and as a matter of course. (paragraph 105)

An example of how the proposed provisions are intended to work with regard to a student visa applicant is given in paragraph 110 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

Adverse information

Proposed section 367G is similar to existing section 359A in Division 4, and is intended to operate in a similar way for proposed Division 4A (Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 114). That is, the Tribunal must inform an applicant of adverse information regarding the application, namely information or reasons it expects would affirm the original decision, and invite the applicant to comment on it (proposed subsection 367G(1)).

Proposed subsections 367G(2)–(3) provide exceptions where the Tribunal does not have to inform the applicant of information in certain cases, such as where the applicant has already provided the information in the course of the application or review, the information has already been provided to the applicant, the information is more general in nature, or the information is non-disclosable.

Proposed section 367M requires the Tribunal to dismiss an application to be reviewed on the papers if an applicant does not respond to an invitation to submit information regarding their application under proposed subsection 367F(1) within the specified response period. The Explanatory Memorandum states that this would promote efficient use of resources where an applicant does not engage with the application review process (paragraph 131).

Tribunal decisions without a hearing

Proposed section 367N contains settings for how the Tribunal must make decisions with regard to applications to be reviewed on the papers:

• the Tribunal must make its decision without a hearing and on the basis of the material before it (proposed subsection 367N(1))
• there is no provision or entitlement for the applicant to appear before the Tribunal (proposed subsection 367N(2))
• the Tribunal may only make its decision after the end of any applicable response periods (proposed subsection 367N(3)).

Application of the Migration Act amendments

The proposed amendments would apply to all new applications made on or after commencement, and to applications made before commencement but before the Tribunal had begun its proceedings (item 21). This means that applications which would fall within the scope of proposed Division 4A for review on the papers but where the Tribunal had constituted the tribunal for the proceeding would continue to be assessed under Division 4.

The Explanatory Memorandum notes that these provisions constitute retroactive application of amendments, but that the Government considers this appropriate to ensure a smooth transition to the new process and that:

It would be undesirable from an operational perspective if the Tribunal were required to apply different case management and review procedures to applications of the same kind on hand based on when the application was made. (paragraph 145)