Australia’s parliament is set to pass new legislation that advocacy groups say could quietly reshape how government decisions are challenged, with people seeking asylum likely to feel the sharpest effects.
The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 is expected to clear parliament with opposition support. While the government argues the changes will help address backlogs and delays, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has warned the Bill reduces access to justice by expanding the tribunal’s power to decide cases without holding oral hearings.
At the centre of the debate is a shift towards paper-based decision-making. Under the Bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal would have broader discretion to determine matters without hearing directly from applicants. Amendments circulated by the government further extend the minister’s authority to require that certain temporary visa decisions be made without an oral hearing at all.
Supporters of the changes point to efficiency. The tribunal system has struggled with long delays and heavy caseloads, and the government says faster decisions will benefit applicants and the system alike. Critics, however, argue that speed comes at a cost, particularly when decisions affect a person’s safety, freedom, or right to remain in the country.
The ASRC says evidence from existing review processes shows that decisions made solely on written material carry a higher risk of error. Those mistakes often resurface later through court challenges, shifting delays and costs rather than removing them. Court proceedings are slower, more complex, and far less accessible for most applicants.
For people seeking asylum, the implications can be profound. Many applicants face language barriers, limited access to legal support, and the effects of trauma that make it difficult to present their experiences clearly in writing. Oral hearings allow decision-makers to ask questions, resolve misunderstandings, and hear explanations in a person’s own words, something written submissions often fail to capture.
The tribunal system was designed as a safeguard against administrative error. It recognises that initial decisions can be wrong or based on incomplete information, and that everyday people need a practical way to challenge those outcomes. Advocates argue that removing hearings weakens that safeguard, particularly for applicants who are unfamiliar with legal processes or unable to prepare detailed written arguments.
Jana Favero, Deputy Chief Executive of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, said the changes risk silencing people at the moment their voice matters most. “Removing the right to an oral hearing makes it easier for life-altering decisions to be made without ever giving the person the right to be heard,” she said. “For people seeking asylum, if the tribunal decides not to give them a hearing, it might mean they never have the opportunity to explain why they are not safe.”
She added that paper-based processes do not reflect the reality many applicants face. “Many people seeking asylum cannot meaningfully tell their story on paper alone, such as women fleeing family violence and LGBTQIA people. Trauma, language barriers and lack of legal support mean hearings are essential to fairness.”
The government maintains that tribunal members will still have discretion to hold hearings where appropriate, and that the reforms are aimed at improving efficiency rather than stripping rights. Yet critics say discretion is not the same as a guaranteed opportunity to be heard, particularly when ministers can designate entire visa categories as hearing-free.
Rather than changing how cases are decided, the ASRC argues the focus should be on resourcing. Chronic underfunding and staff shortages have driven delays across the tribunal system for years. Advocates say proper investment in decision-making capacity would address backlogs without narrowing access to justice.
As the Bill moves towards passage, the broader impact may not be immediately visible. The concern raised by advocates is that, over time, fewer hearings will become the norm, increasing the risk of errors in cases where the consequences are irreversible. For people seeking asylum, the difference between speaking and staying silent may decide far more than the speed of a process.
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
