Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 23 to 32), omit paragraph 84B(2)(b), substitute:

(b) if the event or circumstance had occurred, or had been occurring, at the time non-citizens of a kind to whom the determination is to apply were to make an application for a temporary visa, the visa may not have been granted; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection 84B(13).

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of section 84B, add:

(14) In this section:

event or circumstance means a conflict, natural disaster or significant emergency which increases or is likely to increase the risk that certain classes of temporary visa holders will not depart Australia when their visas cease to be in effect.

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 6), after "de facto partner", insert ", parent, sibling or step equivalent".

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 18 to 21), omit subsection 84D(8).

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 21 and 22), omit "at a particular time during the visa period for the visa if, at that time", substitute "if".

(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 28), after subsection 84E(2), insert:

(2A) If a temporary visa held by a non-citizen comes into effect again because of subsection (2), the visa is extended by a period equal to the period for which it ceased to be in effect under subsection (1).

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill. I acknowledge the intent behind it. We all want a migration system that's sustainable, responsive to global events and respectful of human rights. But, while the objective may be sound, the drafting of this bill has been rushed, has avoided scrutiny and carries a real risk of unintended consequences. Powers of this magnitude need careful calibration, not sweeping discretions that may undermine fairness or trust in the system. In the 24 hours since I first saw this bill, I've prepared a series of amendments to tighten safeguards and improve accountability, and I'll address each of these in turn.

Firstly, as drafted, the bill allows the minister to restrict arrivals based on nothing more than a risk that a visa holder might overstay. This is an extremely low bar. Almost any unpredictable overseas development could be framed as an overstay risk, creating the potential for travel bans with little concrete evidence. My amendment removes this speculative limb and retains only the stronger, more principled threshold: would the visa have been granted had the current circumstances been known at the time? This is a more defensible standard. It ensures the power is used in genuine cases where the event is significant enough to change our temporary visa decisions. Broad overstay risk predictions are notoriously unreliable and can easily become a pretext for restricting travel from particular regions. A higher bar protects against this.

Secondly, the bill removes parliamentary disallowance for arrival control determinations. This means parliament would have no capacity to overturn an instrument that effectively suspends the rights of thousands of visa holders. That represents a profound concentration of executive power. These determinations operate as legislative instruments with the full force of the law. The idea that such decisions should be entirely insulated from parliamentary scrutiny is inconsistent with the basic principles of responsible government. My amendment restores disallowance. This does not impede swift action. Determinations take effect immediately, but it ensures parliament retains the ability to review and, if necessary, overturn them after the fact. That's entirely appropriate for powers of this scale.

Thirdly, the phrase 'event or circumstance' is the legal trigger for one of the most coercive powers in the migration system—the power to suspend visas on a broad class basis—yet the bill offers no definition of this phrase. As drafted, the trigger could encompass almost anything: diplomatic tensions, economic instability or foreign policy shifts. This is far too open ended. My amendment narrows the definition to the scenarios the provision is plainly designed for: conflicts, natural disasters and major global events that genuinely threaten the integrity of Australia's migration system. This introduces a necessary and proportionate boundary, ensuring the power is not invoked on an excessively broad or subjective basis.

Fourthly, the bill exempts spouses, de facto partners and dependent children from arrival control determinations but stops there. This creates a troubling gap. Consider a person whose elderly parent depends on them for care, or an adult sibling who is the sole remaining family connection in a crisis situation. Under the bill as drafted, these people are not exempt, and their visas can be suspended, stranding them abroad despite being part of an applicant's immediate family structure. My amendment expands the exemption to parents, siblings and step equivalents, aligning it with family definitions used in refugee, humanitarian and protection visa pathways, where we recognise that families are not always confined to the nuclear model.

Fifthly, section 84D(8) is an extraordinary provision. It states explicitly that the minister has no duty to even consider whether to issue a permitted travel certificate, even when someone has formally applied. This doesn't merely preserve discretion; it nullifies the right to apply altogether. My amendment removes this clause. It does not limit the minister's ability to refuse a certificate; it simply requires the minister to turn their mind to a request when one is formally made. This is a basic requirement of procedural fairness in the rule of law.

Lastly, under the bill, when a determination is lifted a visa comes back into effect, yet it may already have expired during the suspension period. My amendment would effectively pause the visa clock for the duration of the determination.

In closing, these amendments do not undermine the purpose of the bill. They strengthen it by ensuring that any extraordinary powers are exercised with fairness. I urge the government to adopt these improvements.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do appreciate the intent, but the government won't be supporting the amendments, and I'll touch on a few of the reasons in summary form. The change to the threshold that you outlined at the start would, in the government's view, render the provision practically unworkable. And I'd make the point that the entire visa system—every day, the judgements that the Department of Home Affairs make when issuing temporary visas or refusing them—rests on risk based judgements. You can never know things with certainty in advance. That's the operation of the entire visa system.

With respect to the question of safeguards, the government's view remains that the safeguards that are provided for in the bill are appropriate. I'd restate that the bill doesn't affect or restrict the ability of a permanent visa holder of any kind to travel to Australia. It exempts very explicitly people who are already in Australia within the migration zone, their immediate family and any holder of a temporary humanitarian visa or a bridging visa associated with those temporary humanitarian visa classes. There are additional safeguards such that the exercise of the power by way of legislative instrument requires the written agreement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister and therefore the involvement and scrutiny of their officials in those ministries. It also requires, with respect to parliamentary scrutiny, that the instrument and the associated reasons be tabled in both houses of parliament, which provides, in the government's view—given that this is a rarely used power for significant events—the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. It provides for a maximum of six months, following which there is the ability to remake but not to extend or vary a previously made determination, and it would need to be remade at the point in time based on new facts and circumstances. It also provides the power for the minister to exempt individuals from the arrival control determination.

Finally, with respect to the definition of families, the bill's definition of immediate family members aligns with common and well-established practice in such situations. It provides for the spouse or de facto partner and their dependent children or for the parents where the children may be Australians but the children are under 18. So, they are well-established definitions. Those you mentioned—the broader definitions—are not considered immediate family under the well-established rules; they're close family or extended family members. So these are the very common practices. The final point I'd make is that extending visas in the way proposed would undermine the integrity of the visa system.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the safeguards the minister has put forward, I don't think the safeguards listed address any of the issues I've raised. A number of them relate to a different class of people, people who are in Australia. We're talking about people who are actually not in Australia and safeguards for that group. You mentioned that the determination should be tabled, but it's not disallowable, so there's no actual scrutiny that comes with its being tabled. Requiring that the order be remade after six months is effectively the same as extending it. And saying that exemptions may be made for individuals because there is a provision in there that says the minister doesn't have to consider any applications for those exemptions doesn't create a right or a safeguard. So I would say that none of these safeguards listed affect the class of people we're concerned about in this case.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 23), omit "one or".

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "may", substitute "would".

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "would".

The crossbench received this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, five minutes before the government briefed us yesterday morning—five minutes! The government introduced this legislation to the House one hour later. Members of the crossbench sought the call during the second reading to raise our significant concerns about it, but the government denied us the opportunity to speak. This bill was drafted for introduction only 10 days after the war began in Iran. The explanatory memorandum claims that this bill is designed to maintain the integrity of our migration system. Integrity requires proper consultation, transparency and debate, none of which have occurred on this bill. If the government is serious about integrity, it should start by upholding the integrity of this parliament and of our legislative processes.

This bill seeks to introduce significant changes to Australia's migration regime. It empowers the minister to suspend classes of temporary visas held by people offshore through so-called arrival control determinations. This is a sweeping power, one which could affect thousands of people who have already followed our migration rules in good faith and who have already obtained temporary visas in good faith. The amendments I have circulated in my name seek to strengthen the test for making these arrival control determinations to ensure that the minister will satisfy a higher and more proportionate threshold before exercising this extraordinary power. My amendments will ensure that determinations meet both limbs of the test under section 84B, ensuring that there is a reasonable probability that a controlled determination is actually necessary.

There are still significant issues with the drafting of this legislation. I'm concerned that the government's arrival control determinations are not disallowable instruments; they should be. They will not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; they should be. I'm concerned that the minister can re-issue control determinations seemingly indefinitely. That is wrong. There is no upper limit on the number of times a class of temporary visitors might have their visas suspended. That shows contempt to people who have legally obtained temporary visas to visit this country. It means that those offshore who already have a valid visa may be deprived of any possibility of ever entering this country. Just think about the individuals affected by that. And there's no sunset clause on this bill, which would be a very appropriate parliamentary safeguard for legislation which has been rushed through to this extent.

We know what has prompted this legislation. Today there are more than 7,000 Iranians holding visitor visas. Many of them cannot safely return or remain home due to ongoing conflict and instability in their country—conflict and instability to which we are potentially contributing. Under this bill, their temporary visas, which they have obtained validly, often at considerable personal cost, could be suspended overnight. These are people who have already spent years waiting for the chance to visit family or to reunite with their loved ones, yet this temporary visa subclass 449 followed by a temporary humanitarian concern visa subclass 786 approach has removed the dignity and integrity from our migration regime.

Instead, today, thousands of people who are overseas face the prospect that their already granted visas may be rendered unusable overnight, sometimes in circumstances where they don't feel that they can safely return home. If the government is committed to integrity in our migration regime, it should commit to special migration arrangements to those who are affected by this bill.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just address the new issues raised, because some of it goes to matters which I've addressed on the previous amendment, and we don't want to become the goldfish going round in the bowl, repeating ourselves all morning. I'll just address one procedural point. I wrote down the words; I think I got them right. The member indicated that the crossbench had been 'denied the call' yesterday. I'll just make the point that I don't think that's fair or accurate. There was none of the crossbench in the chamber when the bill was debated. No-one was denied the call; it moved on.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I make the point: we could've moved the third reading yesterday, and the bill would've been in the Senate by now. We're here debating it in good faith, but I just need to correct the record: no-one was denied the call. You were not in the chamber.

I do appreciate the genuine concern and intent, and I'll just address the new issue raised. The first amendment would require the minister to be reasonably satisfied of both criteria in b(i) and b(ii). By itself, that would require the minister to be reasonably satisfied both that a noncitizen of the kind specified and an instrument may overstay and, if the event had been occurring when the visa application was made, the visa may not have been granted. But, when coupled with the next two amendments, it would render the provision practically and likely unworkable. Changing 'may' to 'would' in (i) and (ii) would lift the threshold for the test to a definitive view—that is, the noncitizen would overstay and the visa would not have been granted. At the very best you could say that would require a high degree of fact finding and evidence re individuals to be put to the minister. But, in practical terms, as I made the point in the previous amendment commentary, that's a threshold which is rarely if ever passed in any visa grant. Every visa that the Department of Home Affairs grants—literally millions and millions a year for people to come and go in a globalised economy and society—relies on a risk based judgement about the likelihood of someone overstaying.

I'll finish on this point. Despite some of the hyperbole in the media commentary by others outside this chamber, this bill is a sensible step. It's necessary to maintain the integrity of the visa system. It's not a radical proposition. It's core to the entire operation of the migration system that, when someone is granted a temporary visa to Australia and they come to Australia on a temporary visa, the Australian community is confident that they intend a temporary visit. A temporary visa means a temporary visit. In circumstances where it becomes manifestly obvious that large numbers of people would not or may not intend a temporary visit, then the government needs the ability to respond, and currently the minister has the power to respond visa by visa, individually reviewing or cancelling individual visas. The government maintains that this is a sensible, necessary measure and, frankly, it avoids the cancellation en masse of large numbers of visas by simply suspending the ability of the visa holder to enter Australia.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Clark.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure the minister wasn't deliberately misleading the House, but I just would remind the minister that I was present for the debate yesterday.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have to really ask the question, as we're debating this migration amendment bill: who is really benefiting from the war in Iran? It's not you or me or working Australians. It's not the Australian military personnel who will be deployed to the UAE. And it's certainly not the people of Iran. It's indefensible that Australia will help extend this war by sending military personnel and weapons of war to the Middle East, while simultaneously closing the door to anyone left stranded as a result.

While the young women from the Iranian soccer team are safe and will be able to stay in Australia, any other Iranian who currently holds a visa to enter Australia will now be denied access. That is the effect of this bill that is being rammed through this House with barely hours' notice, with the two major parties teaming up for cruelty. These are folks who've already been vetted, and approved to travel to Australia for a range of reasons: for work, for weddings, for funerals. Many of these people are on their way right now, only to be turned back at the airport when they land.

My heart goes out to the Australian military personnel who'll be deployed in the UAE. My heart goes out to every person left stranded, and abandoned, by the Australian government. And my heart goes out to the people of Iran, who are paying the cost of this war. If you thought this war was about protecting the people of Iran, here is the clearest example that that is a lie. Labor is actively working against the safety of people from Iran. The cost of this war is not borne by the people who started it. It's not borne by politicians. It's not borne by corporations, billionaires and weapons manufacturers, who will actually profit from it. It's borne by everyday working people.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 35), after section 84E, insert:

84EA Issue of additional humanitarian visas

(1) Each year, the Minister must issue an additional number of humanitarian visas that is equal to the number of visas affected by an arrival control determination in the previous year.

(2) In this section, humanitarian visa means:

(a) a global special humanitarian visa (subclass 202); or

(b) a refugee visa (subclass 200, 201, 203 or 204).

Here we are again, debating an urgent bill that this government wants to introduce and pass through this place the day after introducing it. This government's track record on ramming migration amendments through parliament with no proper debate and no parliamentary scrutiny is very disappointing. It's true that sometimes there are circumstances which require urgent action. This is not one of them. Passing legislation in haste with no consultation, a curtailment of debate and a complete lack of committee scrutiny makes a mockery of our parliamentary, and therefore our democratic, processes.

My amendment to this bill does something very simple. It responds to the basic intent of the bill, which is to suspend temporary visas already issued to people from certain identified inconvenient locations. My amendment requires that, once the immigration minister takes that step, the same number of additional humanitarian visas be issued the following year as the number cancelled the previous year—that is, humanitarian visas additional to the usual number issued annually in a number corresponding to the number suspended under this bill. For this purpose, in my amendment, 'humanitarian visa' means a global special humanitarian visa, subclass 202, or a refugee visa, subclass 200, 201, 203 or 204.

Since 1947, in the aftermath of World War II, Australia has a mostly proud history of accepting refugees in times of crisis. It would behove this government to reflect on the achievement of the Chifley Labor government after World War I when, over two years, we welcomed 82,532 refugees—and that at a time when our population was a mere 7.5 million people. Compare that to the average intake in the decade prior to 2022 of 18,000 a year. Numbers of humanitarian arrivals also increased substantially after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Warsaw Pact countries' invasion of then-Czechoslovakia in 1968.

In the two decades following the Vietnam War, Australia resettled more than 100,000 Vietnamese refugees from various Asian countries—for the Hansard, I'm giving a nod right now to the member for Fowler in recognition of that. Following the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, Prime Minister Bob Hawke effectively gave 25,000 people—students who were already here, along with their spouses and dependents—permanent residency in Australia. That was on top of any humanitarian intake.

But these are just numbers. There is absolutely no doubt that the one million refugees that we have welcomed to this country since the end of World War II have made an enormous positive contribution. If you think hard enough about it, it's probably true to say that almost every Australian would know, has gone to school with, has worked with or is neighbours with a refugee. We know from experience that they are hardworking, kind, loyal, decent, wonderful contributors to this country. We are all better for knowing them, and Australia is a better place for having welcomed them.

But this government this week—the same week that it has announced that Australia will join the war by sending an E-7A Wedgetail aircraft, medium-range air-to-air missiles and 85 precious souls to the UAE—has introduced to this place not legislation to help people impacted by the illegal war in the Middle East but legislation to block people coming here who have already been granted a temporary visa to this country. The changes that the government is making today are allegedly intended not to manage national security but to safeguard the humanitarian program. But there's another way of sorting that out, and it doesn't have to be a demand response; it can be a supply one. Make no change to those who currently have temporary visas to enter Australian territories, and then, still within the law, allow these people to apply for protections as they would if they found themselves unable to return to their place of origin. In this time, more than likely, that will be Iran or other targeted places.

If we are going to stop people already approved to come to Australia from making that trip, we should make a corresponding increase to the number of humanitarian visas we offer and approve. There is a geopolitical and humanitarian crisis facing the world, and Australia must respond commensurate with the challenge that that is. I know many in my electorate of Bradfield would feel pride in our nation for standing unwaveringly alongside the people of Iran, who are vulnerable to an oppressive regime. Australia needs to play its fair share in this.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment is well intentioned but frankly unworkable. It provides an open ended, unquantified suggestion that executive government would be compelled to issue a number of humanitarian visas linked to a random number of people from a given country who'd received temporary visas.

The number of humanitarian entrants remains a matter for executive government. It's set thoughtfully and carefully through the budget process published in the budget papers. The government increased for four years the number of places to 20,000 per annum, up from 2022-23. In particular, as the member well knows, that was to accommodate people who'd worked for the Australian government for DFAT or served with Defence in Afghanistan, and we're more than honouring that commitment. We've committed to a minimum 26,500 places over four years. We've already exceeded 30,000 places. My electorate is home to the largest community of Australians born in Afghanistan of any in this parliament. It's budgeted in advance and, importantly, it's linked to planning and service provision, to ensure that vulnerable people settle into Australia well.

I'll choose my words carefully in observing that humanitarian migrants, at the kind of scale you're talking about, don't settle in your electorate. They settle in communities like mine. And it means an enormous amount to the people I and many of my colleagues represent that the humanitarian program is done in an orderly way, where the settlement infrastructure, schools, language schools and trauma support services can keep pace. With respect, the proposition that you're putting forward completely destroys the ability of the settlement services sector to do that. It's well meaning. It might get you in the newspaper. But, in effect, it could be a giant spending measure. It's unreasonable, which restricts the ability of the minister to exercise these powers without a new appropriation of potentially billions and billions of dollars. The core point remains. The government's view is that this is necessary to protect the integrity of the visa system. I restate in closing: it's not a controversial proposition that, when someone receives a temporary visa to come to Australia, the Australian people remain confident that they are coming for a temporary purpose, not for another purpose.

Question negatived.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask leave of the House to move amendment 1 and amendments 3 to 10 as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (after line 22), after paragraph 84B(2)(a), insert:

(aa) the event or circumstance is an armed conflict; and

(ab) Australia has not caused or contributed to, and is not causing or contributing to, the event or circumstance; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 26 and 27), omit subsection 84B(8).

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 32) to page 6 (line 2), omit subsection 84B(10), substitute:

(10) The Minister may exercise the power in subsection (1) only once in relation to:

(a) a particular event or circumstances; or

(b) a particular class of non-citizens.

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection 84B(13).

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (after line 20), after subsection 84C(4), insert:

(4A) An arrival control determination does not apply in relation to a non-citizen at a particular time if, at that time, the non-citizen is currently in transit travelling to Australia under a temporary or visitor visa.

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 21), omit "(3) and (4)", substitute "(3), (4) and (4A)".

(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 25), after "may", insert ", by legislative instrument,".

(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 9), omit "in writing", substitute "by legislative instrument"

(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 28), after subsection 84E(2), insert:

(2A) If a temporary visa held by a non-citizen comes into effect again because of subsection (2):

(a) the visa is extended by a period equal to the period for which it was not in effect because of the relevant arrival control determination; and

(b) the Minister must seek advice as to what compensation should be paid to the non-citizen.

(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (before line 29), before subsection 84E(3), insert:

(2B) If an arrival control determination applies to a non-citizen, the Commonwealth must compensate the non-citizen in full for any travel, visa processing and other reasonable related costs incurred by the non-citizen because of the determination.

Let's be really clear. This legislation is hypocritical and deeply concerning. This is Trump politics. Of course, what we're clearly seeing from this government is that, if you're a high-profile person and a minister from the government can get a photo opportunity, then we will show some leniency, thoughtfulness and compassion. To everybody else, we're shutting the gate and acting in a way that is, I can only say, despicable.

This legislation is so hypocritical, it gives sweeping new powers to suspend the use of valid temporary visas for entire groups of people based on changing global circumstances. I want to be really clear. The legislation does not define 'event'. This can be, in this instance, a military conflict. In future it could be a natural disaster. It could be a famine. It could be a political policy or a government inclination that the government of the day does not like. This event is not defined. So one of my first amendments is to define this event to be limited to military conflict because, we know, this can be used in so many ways. We have to be really clear, when the assistant minister talks about how Australia wants to reserve the right of who comes and who stays, about how we don't want people overstaying, that people have already jumped through hoops to get these temporary and visitor visas. These are students or people who are coming for specific events to visit relatives—not direct relatives but relatives. It might be for funerals or weddings. These are significant events that people have absolutely jumped through procedural hoops to attend.

Let's be really clear, to get a visitor visa from Iran is not easy. The government makes it hard already, and this bill suggests that now all that effort could simply be for nothing, at the stroke of a pen from the minister. This amendment would allow the government to designate whole cohorts of visa holders from particular countries and prevent them from using lawfully granted visas.

Let's be really clear to call this what this is. It is racist policy. Any future government will have access to this legislation. This is not temporary legislation put in place with the current conflict. These measures will be ongoing and can be used in so many ways. While clearly targeted at Iranians today, in the future it can be unfairly applied to any nationality such as Lebanese or Palestinian temporary visa holders caught up in the current Middle East conflict.

There's nothing restricting these unprecedented powers just to this conflict, so I'm shocked at the hypocrisy that is being shown by the government and so many of its members. It shows how much our system is simply broken. Why are we not hearing from Labor backbenchers speaking up about this legislation? How are you representing your multicultural communities? How are you giving them a vote, a voice? You are incapable of properly representing your communities.

These amendments make sure that we restrict what kind of event can be contemplated for this. Of course, they also ensure that this is not indefinite. In the legislation there are no guardrails. The hypocrisy of the briefing I received with my colleagues in relation to there being guardrails was staggering. There are no limitations on how many periods of six months can be instigated, which says it is an indefinite power to block people from coming on valid visas, with no thought of compensation or anything. The rushed nature of the process speaks for itself. Surely you wouldn't want too much scrutiny when you're putting in place policies like this that are just copying Trump.

This legislation was debated with less than one hour's notice and with no indication that there would be a rush through of the second debate. This legislation is just simply wrong. Your communities know this and so many members of this House know that this legislation is wrong. We know that ministers being granted indefinite discretionary power is dangerous, so the amendments that I'm moving are to make sure that they are done by disallowable instruments to ensure that we have clear parliamentary scrutiny over these decisions. We need to have a review mechanism for affected individuals. There is no sunset clause to this legislation for how long this extraordinary power could remain in place. It is such a dangerous precedent, and it is shameful that members in this place are not speaking up against this legislation. The fact that you can pause these visas indefinitely, even though someone might be in transit, without any thought of compensation—

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'll call you in a minute. I'll just get the member for Warringah to clarify, because there's some contradiction between the amendments that you moved and what we have. Can you clarify the amendment that you had put forward.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I moved amendments (1) to (9) under the amended list circulated.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to clarify the paperwork: I've got circulated (1) to (10). You moved (1) to (9). So, you're moving the compensation scheme separately. Is that correct? Yes? Fine.

I'll be very brief. I've responded, I think, to all the arguments you put with previous amendments. I'll make two points. Just to confirm, at the end of the crossbench briefing, we were very clear that we were moving the bill in all stages through the House yesterday. That actually hasn't happened, because here we are this morning, with the opportunity to put amendments, to debate amendments and to comment on the bill. I maintain the point. Having said that we were moving it through the House, people were not in the chamber yesterday, with the exception of the member for Clark, who did not seek the call. But here we are, talking about the bill.

I'll respond to one point very briefly. You made a number of colourful remarks about government members and multicultural communities. I represent the most multicultural part of Australia, actually, the City of Greater Dandenong. I'll be very, very clear: I am absolutely confident that people in my community and people in the Attorney-General's community and people in the member for Holt's community and the member for Parramatta's community will, when we sit down and explain the practical consequences of this bill, overwhelmingly support it. The proposition that's being put, behind the nice, well-meaning sentiment and words from the crossbench amendments, is that a random group of people from a given country who happen to have a temporary visa to Australia at this point in time—granted, before major events changed or conflicts broke out—and who might be coming for business, tourism or a whole range of other temporary reasons and may have no familial connection to Australia whatsoever somehow get privileged in the humanitarian program and given the precious right to seek asylum onshore in Australia over people in my community and government members' communities who've been waiting one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years trying to save their families.

So I'm just not going to take the moral superiority, frankly, from people who overwhelmingly represent electorates with good Australians in them but are overwhelmingly not electorates where humanitarian migrants settle, whose community services don't get overwhelmed if we accept the kinds of propositions you're putting forward. I'm absolutely confident—and I'm just responding to the point you made in the debate—that the people I represent and that government members represent would support this legislation when they understand the practical consequences for their families and an orderly humanitarian migration program where our country is generous and we reserve the right to offer protection to the most vulnerable people out of an overwhelming case load with the strongest connection to Australia.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the comments by the member for Bruce, I'd ask: has the minister or members of the government indicated to their communities that, after going to great lengths and cost to have, for example, relatives come on visitor visas or seeking to come on tourist visas or student visas, at the stroke of a pen, from actions occurring outside of Australia—not always linked to military conflict; there is no limitation in the legislation limiting it to military conflict—all those efforts to obtain visas will be for nothing? Are your multicultural communities aware that the government of the day can determine that a group of people is not welcome here, to take effect for their visitor visas, their tourist visas, their student visas or their attendance here for work or funerals or other events? I think we have to be really clear about what the effect of this legislation is. This is not temporary legislation. This has no guardrails and no sunset clause. This is an indefinite opportunity for the government of the day to nominate an event occurring and then determine that anyone with a valid temporary visa for tourism, for study or for business will not be able to exercise the right that they have paid for with that visa and come to their communities.

So many people in multicultural communities know how important and hard it is for these temporary visitor visas to be obtained. To impugn on them an assumption that they will automatically overstay or no longer return, when they have already jumped through hoops to show their intention to return, that this is temporary—the government is absolutely conflating the issue of humanitarian visas, conflating that with temporary visas and this absolutely Trumpian amendment that has had no consultation. And, with respect, if you really want to stand by this legislation, let it be tested in your communities with the full explanation and not just the gaslighting that we're seeing in this place.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand in support of the member for Warringah's amendments. But also I say this to the assistant minister, as, I think, at the moment, the only refugee—somebody who's escaped a war-torn country—here—

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My family escaped civil war.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have too; I do know that you have as well; thank you—and lived in refugee camps. And I represent a very diverse and multicultural community in Fowler. Our community has a lot of temporary-visa visitors—people who come to speak and to engage with our communities; students; relatives—coming. Instead of giving this bill the scrutiny it deserves, the government has really used its numbers to shut down any discussion and has silenced us here. I'm sure lawyers in the House would question it, as to the natural justice and the rule of law that are, basically, missing in this piece of legislation. When legislation has consequences as far-reaching as this—legalising mass suspension of travel rights—Australians expect their representatives to debate, question and examine every detail, not to be forced into silence.

We all want a secure border and a migration system with integrity. But this bill isn't just about security; it's about an unprecedented grab for executive power. At its core, this bill grants the Minister for Home Affairs extraordinary ministerial powers to suspend the travel rights of entire classes of people. It is not based on what an individual has done; it is not based on the risk a specific person poses; it is simply because they belong to a category the minister chooses to switch off, as the member of Warringah says, with the stroke of a pen. This moves us away from a robust visa system with integrity and towards at-scale exclusion.

The architecture of this bill is designed to be opaque and unaccountable. There's no parliamentary veto. These determinations are not subject to disallowance. Once the minister signs, this House and the Senate are effectively locked out. There's no natural justice. This bill explicitly states that the rules of natural justice do not apply to the making of these determinations. Those affected have no right to be heard before their lives are up-ended—no recourse. While the bill mentions a permitted travel certificate, the minister has no duty to even consider an application for one. It is entirely discretionary and non-appellable. There's no access to courts. By designating these as privative clause decisions, the government is pushing legal challenges solely to the High Court, making justice too expensive for almost anyone to reach.

Consider the unintended consequences of this rushed job. Imagine a skilled worker or a student—and, as I mentioned before, I have a lot of those, on visitor visas, coming to Fowler. They board a flight to Australia with a valid visa, but, while they're in mid-flight, the minister signs a determination. When they land, they're no longer a welcome guest; they're an unlawful non-citizen. The bill itself admits these people could be hauled off to mandatory immigration detention—not for any crime, but because the rules changed while they were in mid-air!

And what signal does this send to the rest of the world? This legislation signals a shift towards a closed-door policy that undermines our reputation as a reliable partner. It tells the world that visa security is illusory and that a validly-granted visa can be suspended at any moment, based on political discretion. It suggests that executive whim now overrules the rule of law.

I understand the intent of this legislation, but consider all of the visitors from Iran and Iraq. There are many coming to my community. This will have unintended consequences for those visitors. Like your electorate, Minister, mine is very multicultural. And my migrant and refugee communities would question: How could their relatives not join them? How could their relative's visa have been cancelled? As the member for Warringah just mentioned, the process to apply for a temporary visa is so complex. It's not easy. It's not easy at all. So any legislation meant to protect our nation must be done in a transparent, accountable and fair way. Integrity does not come from concentrating power in the hands of the executive. It comes from the light of parliamentary scrutiny—something that the Albanese government has desperately tried to avoid today. We should be extremely cautious about handing any minister powers that are this broad, this discriminatory and this difficult to reverse.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a statement to make from the chair. The statement is about Ms Steggall's proposed amendment to Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. Amendment (10) circulated in the name of the member for Warringah, which appears to make the Commonwealth liable for compensation, would require the appropriation of revenue, thereby being contrary to the constitutional and parliamentary principle of the financial initiative of the Crown and contravening standing order 180. The amendment is therefore out of order and cannot be moved by the member.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this alternative circumstance, I have a question for the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and member for Bruce and for the government in relation to the situation caused by these amendments to our immigration law and temporary visas. A significant number of people will be caught in transit or having already made significant arrangements in reliance upon a validly obtained visitor visa, student visa or skilled work visa. In fact, to obtain these visas, a number of Australian businesses incur considerable cost to be able to sponsor skilled visas to come and assist them with their productivity and engagement. A number of those businesses—and I meet with them regularly—go to significant expense. With the stroke of a pen, the minister and the government will now be able to say that all that expense is for nothing. I ask the government: What consideration, undertaking or assurance is the government prepared to provide businesses, individuals and families within multicultural Australia that have gone to great expense to obtain validly visitor visas, student visas or skilled visas that are now, by the stroke of a pen, going to be invalid for periods of six months essentially indefinitely? What assurance does the government make to Australian businesses to recoup that lost expense? For all of those finding themselves in transit, what assistance and compensation will the government make to those people?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll be very brief. The government's view remains that the amendments in the bill demonstrate the government's commitment to protecting the integrity and sustainability of the migration system. The arrival control determination legislation is an important addition to the government's ability to regulate travel to Australia. I make the point again—and we've covered this repeatedly, so we are going to need to finish this debate and move on—that, currently, this can be achieved only through individually assessing each visa to determine whether there are grounds to cancel the visa. This is a task that the department does in all manner of visa categories and for individual visas every day, but it does take time and it's not appropriate for circumstances where there's an urgent response, at scale, that is required. In the circumstances where individual visas are cancelled, which is a far more draconian measure—the alternative to the measure in this bill to suspend the travel ability to Australia—then there is no compensation scheme that applies.

I don't know what else we can say except I'll finish on this point: the minister retains the power and the ability to exempt certain individuals in appropriate circumstances and still allow them, by issuing a certificate to come to Australia. That's a power that does not rest with the minister personally. It doesn't have to be exercised with the minister. It's not one or two a week in between other things. It's a power that can be given and will be given to the department, administered in the normal way for those kinds of circumstances which a number of members have outlined in the debate. We do need to move on, so I'll leave it there.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The conflict in Iran has inspired the government to bring forward this legislation. When it comes to that conflict, what we have seen in Australia is a very high degree of bipartisanship. In backing the actions of the United States and Israel we have seen bipartisan support. In the deployment of ADF assets and resources, we have seen bipartisan support. When it comes to the issuing of humanitarian visas for members of the Iranian women's football team, we have seen bipartisan support. In the amendments to the migration laws of this country, being put forward today by virtue of this legislation, again, we see bipartisan support.

With that said, the legislation before the House, while inspired by the conflict in Iran, is not contained and relevant only to the conflict in Iran. Thus, let me make a few broad comments about immigration policy and then ask the minister at the table some questions. Firstly, when it comes to Australia's immigration system, you see an enormous difference between the coalition's and Labor's approach. Under this government we have seen, unfortunately, the numbers of people coming to Australia being too high, the standards too low and a failure to shut the door to people who do not share Australian values. It's also conspicuous that legislation of this sort was not brought forward at an earlier date in response to another conflict, again in the Middle East—that is, of Gaza following the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023.

This leads me to these questions. One, at Senate estimates last month, officials confirmed that 6,957 visa grants were made to Palestinian nationals between November 2023 and November 2025. Given that volume of visa grants during a period of international conflict, can the government explain why it did not seek legislative powers of the kind contained in this bill earlier?

Two, given the government now believes it requires a mechanism to suspend the effect of offshore visas during international crises, why was such a mechanism not pursued when thousands of visas were being granted during the Gaza conflict?

Three, officials also confirmed that more than 2,300 Palestinian visa holders were present in Australia at various points in 2025, including 2,306 at the end of November. Did the government conduct any risk assessment regarding visa compliance outcomes for that cohort?

Four, did the department advise the government at any stage that additional powers, such as those now proposed in this bill, might be required to manage the migration risks arising from that conflict?

Five, evidence from estimates also confirmed that 26 visas granted to Palestinian nationals were cancelled during the same period, with 18 cancellations involving an element of national security concern, although some were later revoked. Can the government explain how those cases were identified and managed?

Six, given it is likely that these laws, if introduced earlier, may have prevented thousands of Gazans entering Australia over the last 2½ years, what action is the government taking where these Gazans have either sought to overstay their visas or attempted to change their visa arrangements?

Seven, can the government confirm whether the visa integrity risks it now seeks to mitigate by way of this bill were risks to which Australia has been exposed since the September 7 October 2023, with the arrival of thousands of Gazans?

Eight, how would the powers contained in this bill have provided additional safeguards in managing risks that the large influx of people from Gaza over recent years may have given rise to?

Again, the coalition is supporting the government in the passage of this legislation through the House. However, this legislation does give rise to at least those eight questions, on which I look forward to hearing the minister's response.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for immigration. I call the minister.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you the shadow minister for immigration?

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Foreign minister.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Foreign minister. Sorry, my mistake.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. It's hard to tell. You move around a lot. But the Nats will be changing soon. That's alright. I'll sum up.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not intend to lead that response.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I was genuinely confused.

No, that was a genuine confusion.

It's a nice try. It's not question time and, as you well know—

As you well know—this is not question time—there are other forms of the House, including questions on notice. I'm sure the Senate would be flattered at the attention you just paid to Senate estimates, but I thank the opposition for your support of the bill.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to note for the House that the coalition, despite supporting the government in the passage of this bill through the House, has put forward eight questions to the minister, and the minister has chosen to not answer any of those questions. I think that is notable. I ask the minister if he will be prepared to commit to respond to me in writing at a later date in response to those eight questions.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the minister like to respond to that? He would not.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak on this issue not as a member of parliament but as someone whose life story was shaped by war. As people know, my family fled Vietnam after the fall of Saigon. We were civilians caught in a conflict we did not start and could not control. Australia could have chosen to close its door, but under the former prime minister Malcolm Fraser, this country made a decision that changed the lives of thousands of families like mine.

Australia chose compassion. Because of that decision, a refugee child who arrived here with nothing now stands in this parliament representing her community. That history matters. It reminds us that migration policy is not about systems and powers; it's about human lives. So, when we talk about our migration policy, know that behind the numbers and the policies we talk about are the individuals and the civilians who actually are the most impacted by the wars that are happening across the world.

I could quote the amazing poet, Paul Valery, who talks about war as 'a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other'. As people who make decisions and policies that impact the lives of civilians out there, we need to be careful when it comes to war. If we are going to participate in any wars, we have to be ready to take up the responsibility and deal with the consequences.

And one of the consequences of that is people movement. There will be refugees. There will be people seeking safe haven, because these people, like my family, have no control over the war. We had no control over the decisions made by the government of the day to get into war, so we had to flee. When we fled, we needed a place of safe haven. Australia provided us with safe haven. We cannot now, sitting in here and seeing the wars happening, not step up and say: 'We participated in that war in some capacity. We must provide a safe haven for those people'—because, by God, there will be refugees seeking asylum to this safe haven—'because we are part of that war.'

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be agreed to.