A key feature of our administrative law review system is that applicants can introduce new evidence at the review stage. Home Affairs made clear that, in many student visa cases, the issue is not that documents existed but weren’t attached. Rather, applicants often simply did not have the required documents—such as proof of enrolment—at the time they lodged their visa application. They lodge anyway, get refused, then proceed to the ART. Once there, they take advantage of the lengthy review backlog—now averaging one year and three months—to obtain the missing documents. The matter then returns to Home Affairs.
So we have a system where an applicant can lodge an incomplete or non‑compliant student visa application, be refused, and then gain an extra year or more to assemble the evidence they needed in the first place. The system cannot function effectively under those conditions. And the numbers illustrate this starkly.
Just two and a half years ago, there were 2,278 student‑visa refusal or cancellation cases before the tribunal. As at 30 November, that figure has exploded to 48,826. It is extraordinary—an increase from just over 2,000 to nearly 49,000 cases in two and a half years.
In Senate Estimates, the Registrar advised that as at 31 October 2025, there were 46,590 such cases. I checked the updated figures yesterday: within a single month, the caseload increased by 2,236 cases. That is an entire two‑and‑a‑half‑years‑ago caseload added in one month. At this rate, it would not surprise me if the number exceeds 50,000 by the time we appear before Estimates again next week.
These cases are arriving far faster than they can be resolved. And, as Senator Shoebridge noted, this is exacerbated by significant vacancies in the ART—perhaps over 100. Some highly capable former AAT members lost their positions in the transition to the ART, in some cases quite unfairly, and those lost positions could have helped address the caseload.
This crisis has wider consequences. The ART handles reviews not just in migration but in the NDIS, social security, and veterans’ matters. Access to timely review is essential for Australians—sometimes, as Senator Lambie pointed out, literally a matter of life and death.
Two and a half years ago, student visa appeals made up 3% of the ART’s caseload. They now make up 38.4%. That is crowding out other Australians awaiting decisions on NDIS plans, veterans’ claims, social security, taxation matters, and other migration issues such as skills‑in‑demand visas. The system is overwhelmed.
The current average wait time for student visa appeals is 66 weeks—one year and three months—and rising fast. During that period, applicants receive a bridging visa. Bridging visas are intended as short-term measures while migration status is resolved, not a long-term substitute for it. Yet at 30 June 2019 there were 180,000 people on bridging visas; today there are 402,000. Nearly half a million people. That is simply not sustainable.
This has become so significant that it is affecting national population forecasting. The Centre for Population’s latest 2025 Population Statement notes that lower departure rates among temporary visa holders—driven in part by unresolved visa appeals—are creating “considerable uncertainty” in estimating net overseas migration. When bridging visa numbers balloon from 180,000 to 402,000 and ART caseloads blow out past 48,000, it becomes extremely difficult to project year‑to‑year migration numbers accurately.
Turning to the bill before us: I listened carefully to Senator Shoebridge. I, too, support procedural fairness. But we cannot ignore the reality of a system in crisis. This legislation still preserves the applicant’s right to put their case. It simply means that, in the vast majority of matters, the case can be decided on the papers, relieving the administrative burden of scheduling hearings that may be repeatedly delayed or unattended.
Safeguards remain. The ART must invite submissions and evidence, must provide adverse information to applicants, and applicants retain access to all written material relied upon in their case. Importantly, on‑the‑papers review does not apply to protection visas, humanitarian visas, or permanent visas—where vulnerability concerns are particularly acute. The bill primarily concerns student visas and certain temporary visa categories.
Finally, on the broader ART reform process: I argued that abolishing the AAT was unnecessary and that substantial reform could have been achieved without dismantling it. When the AAT was abolished, there were 67,000 cases on hand. As at 30 November 2025, the new ART has 126,658. The workload has doubled.
