This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Immigration, border & security
Australia would end offshore immigration detentionThis page uses it for holding asylum seekers and other non-citizens in detention centres outside Australia, such as on Christmas Island or in Nauru. and give people seeking asylum a legal right to independent oversightThis means a body or court outside the immigration department checks detention decisions and conditions instead of leaving them to the department alone. and quick review if their freedom is restricted.
Australia’s offshore and mandatory detentionThis is the old system where some non-citizens had to be detained automatically, without a fresh decision based on their own circumstances. system left asylum seekers subject to cruel, arbitrary detention without proper legal limits, independent oversightThis means a body or court outside the immigration department checks detention decisions and conditions instead of leaving them to the department alone. or prompt review. The bill would end offshore detention, make detention lawful only when necessary and proportionate in Australia, and let more people live in the community under tailored conditions.
Australia already had a system of mandatory and offshore immigration detentionThis page uses it for holding asylum seekers and other non-citizens in detention centres outside Australia, such as on Christmas Island or in Nauru. that, by 31 March 2022, was holding 1,512 people in detention facilities, 200 more offshore and many for long periods. Andrew Wilkie's bill tried to replace that system with detention inside Australia only when necessary and proportionate, with court oversight and stronger community-based alternatives. The bill was introduced in August 2022, later considered by scrutiny and Migration committees, and then dropped from the Notice PaperThis is the daily list of business before Parliament; if a bill drops off it, the bill is no longer being actively considered.. After the High Court made orders on 8 November 2023 that made indefinite detention unlawful in cases with no real prospect of removal, detainee releases and further litigation in 2024 kept non-citizenThis means a person who is not an Australian citizen, including people caught by immigration detention rules. detention at the centre of national policy.
The main criticism is that sharply limiting detention and moving more people into the community could make it harder to manage non-citizens with serious criminal histories and could put community safety at risk. That concern appears mainly in later public and political debate about detainee releases after High Court rulings, not in the 2022 speeches for this bill, where no party represented in the debate opposed the bill.
Andrew Wilkie MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
217 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Australia would end offshore immigration detentionThis page uses it for holding asylum seekers and other non-citizens in detention centres outside Australia, such as on Christmas Island or in Nauru. and give people seeking asylum a legal right to independent oversightThis means a body or court outside the immigration department checks detention decisions and conditions instead of leaving them to the department alone. and quick review if their freedom is restricted.
Immigration detention would only be allowed inside Australia, and only when it serves a legitimate purpose and is necessary and proportionate for that person.
People who cannot lawfully be detained would instead live in the community under written conditions tailored to their own situation.
Any extension of detention beyond the bill’s preferred timeframe would need approval from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of AustraliaThis court would have to approve any detention extension beyond the bill's usual time limit, giving judicial control over longer detention., not just a departmental decision.
Children would generally not be held in immigration detention, except under very limited conditions and time limits.
16. This part dismantles Australia’s current offshore immigration detention policies. It inserts into domestic law the fundamental principle that people have a legal right to seek asylum and any restriction on liberty imposed on persons exercising this right need to be provided for in law, carefully circumscribed, and subject to independent oversight and prompt review.Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention explanatory memorandum
20. Subclause 11(1) prescribes that detention must be in Australia and can only be applied where it pursues a legitimate purpose and has been determined to be both necessary and proportionate in each individual case.Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention explanatory memorandum
23. Subclause 12(1) specifies that if a reason for immigration detention, as listed under clause 16, cannot be found then the Secretary must determine alternatives to immigration detention. This must be done in writing, and is specific to individual cases.Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention explanatory memorandum
45. Subclause 17(1) outlines the preferred time frame. Any extension of that time frame must be decided by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and is not left to the discretion of the Secretary (subclause 17(2)).Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention explanatory memorandum
62. This clause sets out the fundamental principle that children should not be detained, as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This clause sets out the very specific conditions and time frames for when a child can be detained.Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already had a system of mandatory and offshore immigration detentionThis page uses it for holding asylum seekers and other non-citizens in detention centres outside Australia, such as on Christmas Island or in Nauru. that, by 31 March 2022, was holding 1,512 people in detention facilities, 200 more offshore and many for long periods. Andrew Wilkie's bill tried to replace that system with detention inside Australia only when necessary and proportionate, with court oversight and stronger community-based alternatives. The bill was introduced in August 2022, later considered by scrutiny and Migration committees, and then dropped from the Notice PaperThis is the daily list of business before Parliament; if a bill drops off it, the bill is no longer being actively considered.. After the High Court made orders on 8 November 2023 that made indefinite detention unlawful in cases with no real prospect of removal, detainee releases and further litigation in 2024 kept non-citizenThis means a person who is not an Australian citizen, including people caught by immigration detention rules. detention at the centre of national policy.
Christmas Island detention centre activity increases again
A government community notice said increased activity around the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre was affecting the island, showing offshore detention infrastructure remained active before the bill was proposed.
Department of Infrastructure ↗More than 1,500 people are still in immigration detention
Figures cited in the second reading speech said 1,512 people were in detention facilities, 563 were in community detentionThis is the bill's alternative to locked detention, where a person lives in the community under written conditions and reporting rules. and 200 were still in offshore detention, underlining the scale of the system the bill sought to change.
Second reading speech ↗Bill introduced to end offshore and arbitrary detention
Andrew Wilkie introduced the bill to abolish offshore detention and make immigration detention lawful only when it was necessary, proportionate and subject to independent oversightThis means a body or court outside the immigration department checks detention decisions and conditions instead of leaving them to the department alone. and court review.
Hansard ↗Bill drops from the House Notice PaperThis is the daily list of business before Parliament; if a bill drops off it, the bill is no longer being actively considered.
The bill was removed from the Notice PaperThis is the daily list of business before Parliament; if a bill drops off it, the bill is no longer being actively considered. under standing order 42This is a parliamentary rule mentioned here as the basis for removing the bill from the House Notice Paper., leaving Australia’s existing detention regime unchanged.
Parliamentary timeline ↗High Court order makes indefinite detention unlawful
The High Court made orders in NZYQ that meant immigration detention could not continue where there was no real prospect of removal from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. Media reports days later focused on the detainee releases that followed, making the issue an immediate operational and political problem for the government.
High Court of Australia ↗ASF17 decision keeps some scope for ongoing detention
The High Court later ruled in ASF17 that an Iranian man refusing deportation could continue to be detained, showing that the legal boundaries of immigration detention were still being redrawn well after the 2022 bill had stalled.
Australian Financial Review ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill was listed for Senate scrutiny committee consideration after introduction.
Considered by scrutiny committee
APH bill page notesThe bill was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration for inquiry.
Referred to committee
Joint Standing Committee on Migration inquiry pageThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism is that sharply limiting detention and moving more people into the community could make it harder to manage non-citizens with serious criminal histories and could put community safety at risk. That concern appears mainly in later public and political debate about detainee releases after High Court rulings, not in the 2022 speeches for this bill, where no party represented in the debate opposed the bill.
Recorded criticism was limited and mostly focused on public-safety and implementation risks rather than the bill’s goal.
Community safety risk from releasing serious offenders
The strongest case against this approach is that tighter limits on detention could force the release of some non-citizens with serious criminal records into the community, leaving government with fewer tools to manage risk. Critics worried that violent offenders and sex offenders could no longer be held while removal options were unresolved.
Reduced executive control over difficult detention cases
A related concern was that stronger court oversight and narrower detention powers could curb ministerial control in hard cases, leading to prolonged litigation and limiting the government’s ability to detain or closely monitor people it considered dangerous or hard to remove.
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Andrew Wilkie strongly supports the bill, saying it would end indefinite immigration detention, replace it with community-based alternatives where possible, and bring Australia into line with international law.
Read in Hansard ↗Tink supports the bill and says it is needed to end Australia’s cruel system of indefinite immigration detention, which she argues breaches international law and causes severe human and financial harm.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“This bill is needed, and frankly it's needed urgently, because we face the bizarre and outrageous situation in this country where someone, in some circumstances, can be detained indefinitely, without charge and without having been found guilty of anything.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill seeks to bring an end to that cruelty.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42)
Removed from the Notice PaperThis is the daily list of business before Parliament; if a bill drops off it, the bill is no longer being actively considered. in accordance with (SO 42)
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered by scrutiny committee
The bill was listed for Senate scrutiny committee consideration after introduction.
The APH bill page records that the bill was considered by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in Scrutiny Digest 4 of 2022.
APH bill page notesJoint Standing Committee on Migration
Referred to committee
The bill was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration for inquiry.
The Selection Committee referred the bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on 28 September 2022. The committee adopted the inquiry on 30 November 2022, and the inquiry later lapsed when the committee ceased at dissolution.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration inquiry page