The New ART Bill: What Changes for Visa Review Applicants

A bill now before Parliament would change how the Administrative Review Tribunal handles visa review applications. The Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 would let the Tribunal give its reasons orally rather than always in writing, hand registrars the power to dismiss applications with no reasonable prospects of success, require review applications to be made on an approved form, and introduce a new identity verification step where failing to comply means your application must be dismissed. This is a bill, not law yet, so nothing below has commenced. But if you are heading to the ART, it tells you where the process is going.

What is this bill, and has it passed?

The Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 was introduced in the House of Representatives by the Attorney-General. It amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and the Migration Act, with the stated aim of improving the efficiency and responsiveness of the migration review framework and helping the Tribunal manage its caseload, particularly in migration matters.

It has not passed. Until it does and commences, the current rules continue to apply. This article covers the Tribunal (merits review) changes only. The bill also contains changes affecting judicial review in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, which we have not covered here.

When would the changes start?

Commencement is staged, and it is tied to Royal Assent rather than a fixed calendar date:

Identity verification: the change that can end your review

This is the one to understand properly, because the consequence of getting it wrong is mandatory dismissal.

The bill would introduce a new requirement for applicants who are not in immigration detention and who apply to the Tribunal for review of prescribed reviewable migration decisions or reviewable protection decisions to verify their identity. The Tribunal would give you a written notice telling you that you are subject to the requirement and how to satisfy it. If you fail to satisfy the requirement in accordance with that notice, the Tribunal must dismiss your application.

There is a safeguard. You can apply for reinstatement of an application dismissed on this ground, and the Tribunal would be required to reinstate it if it considers it appropriate to do so. The detail of how identity is verified would be set out in regulations, which are not made yet.

Two points of scope matter. First, the requirement would only apply to applications made on or after commencement, so it would not apply to the Tribunal's existing on-hand caseload. Second, the explanatory memorandum is candid about the purpose: it is meant to make applicants actively progress their matter early, and to discourage unmeritorious applications and applications lodged by third parties without the applicant's knowledge or consent.

One further legal point worth flagging, because it affects your rights if something goes wrong. These provisions and the regulations made under them would form part of an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule for the matters they cover. In practice, that narrows the room to argue that the Tribunal owed you some additional common law procedural fairness on those specific matters.

Oral reasons instead of written reasons

At present you expect a written statement of reasons. Under the bill, the Tribunal could give its reasons for decision orally, with a written statement provided at the applicant's request. This would apply across the Tribunal's caseload, including reviewable migration and protection decisions, but not to reviews relating to social security, veterans' entitlements, aged care or the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or other reviews prescribed by regulations.

The practical implication for anyone considering what comes after an ART decision: if reasons are delivered orally, you need to ask for the written statement, and you need to do it promptly, because written reasons are usually essential to assess your options.

More power for registrars

The bill would authorise registrars to exercise additional powers, including reinstating applications in certain circumstances and dismissing an application if satisfied it has no reasonable prospects of success. It would also let any member, or another authorised person, correct an obvious error in an order issued by a registrar.

A dismissal power exercised at registrar level is a meaningful shift. It means a weak or unprepared application can be disposed of without reaching a member, which raises the value of getting your material in order early.

Forms, cross-examination and dismissal notices

Three further migration-specific changes are worth knowing:

An application for review of a reviewable migration decision or reviewable protection decision would have to be made using an approved form. Filing something that is not the approved form would be a problem, so check the form before you lodge.

The bill would clarify that section 366D of the Migration Act does not prohibit examination or cross-examination of a person appearing to give evidence before the Tribunal. This confirms that witnesses can be questioned in the Tribunal setting.

Where the Tribunal dismisses an application, it would no longer have to notify the Secretary of the Department twice about the same matter. Notice would be given only once the dismissal has been finally determined.

Timeframes and housekeeping

The period from 24 December to 14 January would be excluded from the calculation of time for an original decision-maker to provide certain documents. There is a carve-out: this exclusion would not apply to decisions under section 500(6L) of the Migration Act, which relate to visa cancellation on character grounds.

The bill also makes governance and technical changes to the Tribunal, including clarifying that the President is assigned to every jurisdictional area, adding matters to be considered when the Minister consults on re-appointing a non-judicial member, allowing the Governor-General to vary a non-judicial member's appointment between salaried and sessional without a fresh merit process, and widening the definition of exempt security record decisions to include documents claimed to be exempt security documents, not only those already found to be. Separately, the bill would set a standardised 28-day timeframe for applying to the Tribunal for review of an extension of time refusal by the Commissioner of Taxation.

What should you do now?

Nothing in this bill is law yet, and none of it changes your current review rights or deadlines. If you have a matter at the Tribunal now, the existing rules and the existing 28-day review deadline still govern it.

Looking forward, the changes reward being organised and responsive. If the identity verification measure commences, any notice from the Tribunal will need immediate attention, because the penalty for ignoring it is dismissal rather than a reminder. Keep your contact details current with the Tribunal, open everything it sends you, and be ready to act quickly. And if a decision is delivered orally, ask for the written reasons straight away.

FAQ

Has the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 passed?

‍No. It is a bill before Parliament. Until it passes and commences, the current ART rules continue to apply.

What is the new identity verification requirement?

‍For applicants not in immigration detention who apply to the ART for review of prescribed migration or protection decisions, the Tribunal would notify them that they must verify their identity. If they fail to satisfy the requirement in accordance with that notice, the Tribunal must dismiss the application. The detail would be set out in regulations.

Can a dismissed application be reinstated?

‍Yes. An applicant can apply for reinstatement, and the Tribunal would be required to reinstate the application if it considers it appropriate to do so.

Would identity verification apply to applications already lodged?

‍No. It would apply only to applications made on or after commencement, and not to the Tribunal's existing on-hand caseload.

Will the ART stop giving written reasons?

‍Not automatically. The Tribunal could give reasons orally, with a written statement provided at the applicant's request. Social security, veterans' entitlements, aged care and NDIS reviews are excluded from the oral reasons measure.

Have a matter before the Tribunal, or considering a review? Book a consultation and we will work through your options and deadlines under the current rules.