ART review bill 2026: what the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill would change for a Bridging visa E review

Status checked: 3 October 2026

The Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is a bill, not law: it passed the House on 20 August 2026 and is before the Senate.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’s report describes proposed review changes; today’s Migration Act 1958 deadlines remain unchanged.

The committee’s report describes approved-form applications, identity verification for prescribed applicants outside immigration detention, and oral decisions with written records.

These are proposals, not requirements introduced by this bill as at 3 October 2026.

Under section 347 of the Migration Act 1958, the review deadline is generally 28 days after notification, or 14 days for detention cases.

Check the review rights and notification date in your refusal notice before waiting for any proposed change.

The site’s enquiry form is a disabled preview and cannot send details yet. If a deadline is approaching, contact an Australian migration lawyer directly. Read about the Bridging visa E enquiry.

Viewing the preview does not lodge an Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) application or preserve a deadline.

Bill status

The Australian Parliament’s bill page supplies the parliamentary dates and status; the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’s report supplies the proposed changes. The existing deadlines come from section 347 of the Migration Act 1958.

The committee report’s identity-verification proposal concerns prescribed applicants, not necessarily everyone outside immigration detention. The Migration Act 1958 deadline figures concern reviewable decisions, with detention assessed on the notification day. The card summarises proposals; it does not reproduce enacted statutory text.

Existing review deadline — for a reviewable migration or protection decision

Under section 347(3)–(5) of the Migration Act 1958, apply within 14 days after notification if detained on the notification day, otherwise within 28 days; the ART cannot extend this deadline.

Is the ART review bill law yet?

No. The Australian Parliament’s bill page lists the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 as before the Senate on 3 October 2026.

Passing the House of Representatives is not enactment. At the reference date, this bill had not changed the operative review rules in the Migration Act 1958. No new ART or migration-review law was found in the government sources checked for 1 August to 3 October 2026.

There is no verified commencement date in the material available for this guide. This dated account does not predict Senate passage, Royal Assent or commencement.

What would the ART review bill change?

The ART review bill would change five review procedures, according to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’s report.

The following is an attributed summary of the committee report dated 7 August 2026. The bill text, explanatory memorandum and Bills Digest were not available for direct checking for this guide.

1. Approved-form applications. The committee report describes a requirement to use the approved form for applications concerning reviewable migration and protection decisions.

2. Examining witnesses. The committee report describes removing the right to examine or cross-examine witnesses in Part 5 reviews. The ART could still give leave — meaning the Tribunal’s permission — to question witnesses. Questioning would not be completely prohibited.

3. Oral decisions and written records. According to the committee report, proposed section 368AA would allow oral decisions and reasons. A written record would be supplied to the applicant and Secretary within 14 days. Written reasons would be available if requested within 14 days. Dismissals would be excluded from oral decisions.

   These are two separate proposed periods: one for supplying the written record, and one for requesting written reasons. Neither is the existing 14-day deadline for lodging review when detained on the notification day under section 347 of the Migration Act 1958.

4. Dismissal administration. The committee report describes notifying the Secretary only of confirmed dismissals.

   Separately, the report describes proposed ART Act changes allowing the President to authorise registrars to dismiss applications with no reasonable prospects of success. This would be an authorised power, not automatic dismissal by a registrar.

5. Identity verification outside immigration detention. The committee report describes identity verification for prescribed applicants not in immigration detention. Non-compliance would require dismissal, with possible reinstatement under section 368C. The requirements would depend on regulations.

Identity checks for applicants not in immigration detention

Identity checks for applicants not in immigration detention are proposed verification requirements for prescribed applicants, according to the Senate committee’s report. “Prescribed applicants” means applicants identified by the eventual regulatory requirements, not necessarily every person outside detention. The committee summary describes dismissal for failure to verify identity and possible reinstatement under section 368C.

On the committee report’s description, the proposed identity-check requirement would not reach a detention bridging-visa review under section 338(4) of the Migration Act 1958. That distinction does not exclude detention reviews from every proposal in the bill. The required identity documents, verification method and implementing requirements are not established by the material available for this guide.

What the bill would mean for a Bridging visa E review

For a Bridging visa E review, the committee’s proposals concern both a refused BVE and a substantive-visa refusal being reviewed by a BVE holder.

1. Review of a refused BVE outside detention. The proposed procedures described in the committee report would be relevant where the refusal is reviewable under section 338(2) of the Migration Act 1958. This application to BVE refusals is a reading of the existing Act and committee summary, not a new review right created by the bill. Check your refusal notice for whether review is available. For the current process, read how to ask the ART to review a refused BVE.

2. Review of the underlying substantive-visa refusal. A BVE holder awaiting ART review of a substantive-visa refusal would also need to distinguish proposed procedures from current requirements. The committee report describes approved-form applications, identity verification where applicable, and oral decisions as proposals. Its exclusion for applicants in immigration detention concerns the proposed identity checks, not the whole bill.

What applies today

Today’s review rules remain those in the Migration Act 1958, not the proposed bill, as checked on 3 October 2026.

This historical account uses the Migration Act 1958 compilation in force from 4 June 2026. The Migration Act 1958 on the Federal Register of Legislation links to the latest text, which may change after this guide’s reference date.

1. Check whether review is available. Under section 66(2)(d) of the Migration Act 1958, the refusal notice identifies review availability, the time limit, who can apply and where. This guide reads a non-detention BVE refusal as falling within section 338(2), subject to its conditions. Section 338(4) provides the route for a bridging-visa refusal where the person is in immigration detention because of that refusal. Do not assume every refusal carries review rights.

2. Use the existing deadline. For a reviewable migration or protection decision, section 347 of the Migration Act 1958 requires an application within 28 days after notification, or 14 days if the applicant was in immigration detention on the notification day. The ART cannot extend that period. The bill had not changed this deadline as at 3 October 2026. For the broader refusal pathway, read when to ask the ART to review a refused visa.

Which identity documents would be required?

The Senate committee’s summary leaves identity-verification requirements to regulations. This guide does not have verified requirements for particular documents or a verification method.

Would written reasons still be available after an oral decision?

Yes, under the proposal described in the Senate committee’s report, an applicant could request written reasons within 14 days. That proposed request period is separate from the existing deadline to lodge review under section 347 of the Migration Act 1958.

Would the bill affect a review already lodged?

The available committee summary does not settle how the proposals would apply to reviews already lodged. Do not assume an existing review would be included or excluded.

Following the bill

Follow the bill’s parliamentary status and any commencement arrangements separately from your current review deadline. As checked on 3 October 2026, the bill had not changed the section 347 deadline in the Migration Act 1958.

1. Check parliamentary status. The Australian Parliament’s bill page records the bill’s parliamentary progress. This guide’s status was checked on 3 October 2026 and needs updating on passage, lapse or another material status change.

   The dated register of Bridging visa E changes separates operative changes from proposals.

2. Check the rules that apply to the individual decision. Return to your refusal notice for review availability and notification details. Use the existing deadline under section 347 of the Migration Act 1958, rather than waiting for a predicted change to the bill. For the wider visa context, return to the Bridging Visa E Guide.

This guide is an information publisher, not a law firm or government site. The site’s enquiry form is a disabled preview and cannot send details yet.

Before lodgement, an Australian migration lawyer can check whether the refusal is reviewable under the Migration Act 1958, confirm the notification date and check the section 347 deadline. That check can distinguish the section 338(2) and section 338(4) review contexts without assuming the bill changes today’s requirements.