Before ParliamentCrime & Courts Introduced in the House of Representatives, 01 Jul 2026

Tribunal staff could throw out weak appeals

The Administrative Review Tribunal has over 131,000 cases waiting. This bill would change how it works. The biggest changes fall on people who challenge visa decisions.

Official name: Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Who it affects

• People challenging a visa or refugee decision: They would need an official form, could be asked to prove who they are, and might only hear reasons out loud.
• Anyone challenging a government decision at the tribunal: A registrar could throw out their case if it seems to have no real chance. Reasons could be given out loud.
• People on Centrelink, veterans' payments, aged care or the disability support scheme: They would still get written reasons every time.
• Taxpayers refused more time to object by the Tax Office: They would have a clear 28 days to ask the tribunal to look at that refusal.
• Tribunal members: They could switch between full-time and part-time work without applying for the job again.

A tribunal with 131,000 cases

The Administrative Review Tribunal takes a fresh look at government decisions. A tribunal is like a court but less formal. People go there to challenge decisions about visas, Centrelink payments, tax, disability support and more. It replaced the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024.

The tribunal is swamped. The Parliamentary Library works for all MPs and takes no side. It says the tribunal had 131,419 cases waiting at 31 May 2026. Five years earlier the number was 65,374. The usual time to finish a case has grown by 22 weeks since 2020 to 2021.

Much of this comes from visa cases. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is also busy. That is the court that hears most legal challenges about visas.

The Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, brought in this bill to speed things up. The Attorney-General is the minister in charge of the law. The bill has one main part split into 12 sections. Each one is explained below.

Weak appeals thrown out

Registrars are senior tribunal staff. They are not tribunal members, who are the people who decide cases. Today registrars mostly handle paperwork.

Section 1 would let the tribunal's President give registrars more power. They could throw out a case if they are sure it has no real chance of winning. They could also order that a person needs permission before making more cases of a certain kind.

Registrars could also bring back a case that was thrown out. This only works if a registrar was allowed to throw it out in the first place.

Christmas pause for departments

When you appeal, the agency that made the decision must send the tribunal its papers. It has 28 days to do this.

Section 2 would stop the clock between 24 December and 14 January. Many agencies and law firms close or slow down then. The government says this will cut the number of requests for more time.

The same pause would apply to the official who handles child support decisions. It would not apply to some decisions about cancelling a person's visa because of their character, such as a criminal record.

Typing mistakes fixed

Section 3 deals with plain mistakes. A typo is one example. Another is when an order and its reasons say different things. Today, someone else can only fix a registrar's order if that registrar is not around.

The change would let a tribunal member or another registrar fix a plain mistake in a registrar's order straight away. Mistakes in choices made by members would still go back to that member if they are around.

President works across areas

The tribunal is split into eight areas, such as visas or welfare payments. Section 4 would say that the President belongs to all of them. The government says this was always the plan. It says the change removes doubt.

The bill also makes clear that a decision still counts if a member decides a case outside their usual area.

Reappointing tribunal members

Section 5 is about tribunal members who are not judges. Before giving one a new term, the Minister now only asks the President how well the person did.

The Minister would also have to ask whether the tribunal needs them and can afford them. The President would also advise on the mix of senior and junior members. They would also advise on how the person behaved during their term.

Some members are full-time on a salary. Others are paid for each session they work. Switching between the two now needs a whole new application. The Governor-General could instead change the current job, with the same end date. The Governor-General stands in for the King.

National security documents

People can ask for government papers under Freedom of Information laws. Some papers are kept secret. This is because they affect national security, defence or ties with other countries.

Section 6 changes what happens next. Once someone claims a paper is secret for these reasons, any appeal goes straight to the tribunal's Intelligence and Security area. That area has extra rules to protect secrets. Today this only happens once the information watchdog agrees the paper is secret.

Deadline for some tax appeals

Say you miss the deadline to object to a tax decision. You can ask the head of the Tax Office for more time. If they say no, you can appeal that refusal.

Before the new tribunal began, you had 28 days to do that. When the tribunal started, this deadline was left out by mistake. Section 7 would put the 28-day limit back.

Official migration appeal forms

Section 8 would make anyone challenging a visa or refugee decision use an approved form. The tribunal says many people now make appeals with missing details. Many do not pay the fee.

A form would show people what they need to include from the start. The government says this would help both the tribunal and the person appealing.

Questioning migration witnesses

In visa cases, nobody has a right to cross-examine a witness at a hearing. To cross-examine means to ask the other side's witness tough questions. It tests their story.

Section 9 would make clear the tribunal can still allow it. Someone must ask, and the tribunal must agree. The government says this is already what happens.

Reasons given out loud

Section 10 would let the tribunal give its decision and reasons out loud in more cases. You would only get written reasons if you ask. The decision itself would still be written down.

This would not apply to cases about welfare payments, veterans' payments, aged care or the disability support scheme. Those people would still get written reasons. The government could add more kinds of cases to that list.

For most cases, you would have 28 days to ask for written reasons. The tribunal would then have 28 days to give them. In visa cases, both deadlines would be 14 days. Detailed rules the government writes could make them longer.

There is a 35-day limit to take a visa case to court. It would start from the day the decision is given out loud. It would not wait for written reasons.

Fewer letters to Home Affairs

When the tribunal throws out a visa appeal, the person has 28 days to ask for it back. Today the tribunal writes to the head of the Department of Home Affairs twice. That is the department that runs visas and borders. It writes once when the case is first thrown out. It writes again at the final result.

Section 11 would mean the tribunal only writes once, when the result is final. The person appealing still gets every letter they get now.

Proving who you are

Section 12 would make some people challenging a visa or refugee decision prove who they are. This would apply to people who are not locked up in immigration detention. That means being held by the government because of their visa situation. The government would choose which kinds of decisions are covered.

The tribunal would send a letter saying what to do. If the person does not do it, the tribunal must throw out the case. The person can ask for it back. The tribunal must bring it back if it thinks that is right.

The same idea would apply in the Federal Circuit and Family Court. That is where people take visa cases to court. If they do not prove who they are, they would need the court's permission to keep going. The court could also give more time or drop the rule.

The government says this would stop weak appeals. It would also stop appeals made by other people without the person knowing. Most of the details would be set later in detailed rules the government writes without a new vote. This only applies to new cases.

Waiting in the Senate

Sections 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 would start the day after the bill became law. The form and identity rules would start on a day the government sets. At the latest, they would start six months after it became law.

The bill was brought into the House of Representatives, the lower house of Parliament, on 1 July 2026. A group of senators was asked to report on it by 7 August 2026. The House passed it on 20 August 2026.

It was brought into the Senate, the upper house, the same day. The Senate now has to debate it and vote. If it passes with no changes, it goes to the Governor-General to sign into law.

Its journey through Parliament

Official sources

• Bill page on aph.gov.au
• Text of the bill
• Explanatory memorandum
• Bills Digest

Open the full interactive page