This bill became law on Oct 26th, 2023.
Immigration, border & security
Australia can require people to win a random pre-application ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. before they can lodge visa applications for visa types later set by regulations, including the Pacific pathway this law was designed to support.
The planned Pacific Engagement VisaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available. needed a random ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. because demand was expected to exceed annual places, but the Migration ActThe main law that sets the rules for Australian migration, which this bill changes to make the ballot system legal. did not allow the minister to run one. This bill creates that ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. framework and lets regulations require selection before eligible people can apply for covered visas.
Australia already had migration pathways for Pacific workers, but the government wanted a new Pacific Engagement VisaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available. offering up to 3,000 permanent places a year to nationals of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, and expected demand to exceed the annual cap. Because the Migration ActThe main law that sets the rules for Australian migration, which this bill changes to make the ballot system legal. did not let ministers run a random pre-application ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply., the bill created that mechanism, drew criticism in Parliament as a visa lottery, then passed in October 2023 so the new visa pathway could be set up in law.
The main criticism was that the bill makes access to permanent residency depend on a random ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply., which critics said is the wrong basis for migration policy and could create poor safeguards and unintended harm. That argument drove Coalition opposition, while some crossbench and Greens concerns were narrower and conditional, focusing on safeguards, discrimination and limits on which visas could ever be put behind a ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply..
Hon Andrew Giles MP introduced this bill. In the recorded House second-reading vote, support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members; opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 26 Oct 2023
Final passage
No counted final vote
1 recorded vote on the bill was found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.
Passage speed
252 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australia can require people to win a random pre-application ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. before they can lodge visa applications for visa types later set by regulations, including the Pacific pathway this law was designed to support.
Refugee, humanitarian, protection and temporary safe haven visas cannot be put under this ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. gatekeeping process.
The Immigration Minister can set ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. rules in a legislative instrumentA rule made by a minister or other authority that has legal effect, and in this bill the ballot rules can be made this way and then disallowed by Parliament., but Parliament can disallow those rules, so visa access settings stay open to parliamentary scrutiny.
People may have to pay a registration chargeA small upfront payment a person may have to make just to enter the ballot, before they are allowed to apply for the visa. up front to enter a visa ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply., but regulations can also allow refunds, waivers or exemptions in set cases.
The Migration Amendment (Australia’s Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 (the Bill) amends the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) to allow the Minister to implement a visa pre-application process, involving random selection of eligible persons who will then be permitted to apply for a relevant visa. The Bill does not use the expression “ballot”; however, in this Explanatory Memorandum, the word “ballot” is used as a convenient shorthand to describe the visa pre-application process. Selection via the ballot will be a legal requirement to apply for a visa where this requirement is specified as a visa application validity requirement in the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Migration Regulations).Migration Amendment (Australia’s Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum
(4B) However, the regulations cannot prescribe criteria mentioned in subsection (4A) for any of the following visas:Migration Amendment (Australia’s Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Act 2023 final Act text
34. New subsection 46C(20) ensures that a ministerial determination under subsection 46(14) is subject to disallowance by either House of the Parliament in accordance with section 42 of the Legislation Act. Without this provision, the legislative instrument containing the ministerial determination would be exempt from disallowance pursuant to table item 20 of regulation 10 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015, which is made pursuant to paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act. It is appropriate for the ministerial determination to be subject to disallowance as it will deal with the eligibility requirements that must be met to participate in a ballot. These eligibility requirements will reflect important decisions by the Minister about access to Australian visas, and direct parliamentary oversight and scrutiny is appropriate.Migration Amendment (Australia’s Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum
38. New subsection 46C(23) provides that the regulations may make provision for the remission, refund, or waiver of the charge, and may also make provision for exemptions from the charge. These provisions allow flexibility to provide these forms of assistance to ballot participants if required.Migration Amendment (Australia’s Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already had migration pathways for Pacific workers, but the government wanted a new Pacific Engagement VisaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available. offering up to 3,000 permanent places a year to nationals of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, and expected demand to exceed the annual cap. Because the Migration ActThe main law that sets the rules for Australian migration, which this bill changes to make the ballot system legal. did not let ministers run a random pre-application ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply., the bill created that mechanism, drew criticism in Parliament as a visa lottery, then passed in October 2023 so the new visa pathway could be set up in law.
Government announces a ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. framework for the new Pacific Engagement VisaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available.
In introducing the bill, the minister said it would create legal power to run a ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. as a pre-application processThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. for specified visa programs.
Hansard ↗Government says the Pacific Engagement VisaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available. will offer up to 3,000 places a year
During the House debate, government speakers said the new visa would allow up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste to migrate permanently each year.
Hansard ↗Opposition attacks the proposal as a visa lottery
Coalition speakers argued that deciding access to permanent residency by ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. was effectively pulling names from a hat and opposed the new approach.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed on the same text, completing parliamentary passage of the ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. framework needed for the planned Pacific visa pathway.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and lets it operate as law. turns the bill into law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and lets it operate as law. completed the legislation so the government could use regulations and instruments to establish the ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply.-based pre-application system.
Parliamentary timeline ↗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 reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 86 to 52.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
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
Referred to Committee (09/03/2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/06/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and lets it operate as law., turning the bill into an Act.
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and lets it operate as law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill makes access to permanent residency depend on a random ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply., which critics said is the wrong basis for migration policy and could create poor safeguards and unintended harm. That argument drove Coalition opposition, while some crossbench and Greens concerns were narrower and conditional, focusing on safeguards, discrimination and limits on which visas could ever be put behind a ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply..
Criticism was real but not uniform, with several concerns aimed at design and safeguards rather than the Pacific visa goal itself.
Permanent residency decided by chance
Critics argued that a lottery-style ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. is the wrong way to decide who gets access to permanent residency and eventual citizenship, saying migration policy should be based on clearer criteria than luck.
Risk of harm to Pacific countries and the wrong workforce model
Opponents said the scheme could encourage skilled people to leave Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, undermine regional relationships, and do little to meet workforce needs compared with more targeted employer-sponsored pathways.
Too few safeguards and discrimination concerns
Some members who were open to the broader Pacific visa still warned that the bill needed tighter safeguards, review and support arrangements, and the Greens objected to disability discrimination settings and to any risk of humanitarian-type visas being drawn into the ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. framework.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 86 to 52. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Passed 86 to 52. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carrying this motion let the House move past the opposition's second-reading amendment and continue the bill's passage.
Passed 84 to 48. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This completed parliamentary agreement on the final text and allowed the bill to proceed to assent.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 28 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The defeat of this amendment meant the Senate did not add that criticism to the second-reading motion.
This amendment would change the bill text to add further visa classes, including child, parent, partner, and other family visas, to the list excluded from the ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. rules.
This amendment would change the bill text to add further visa classes, including child, parent, partner, and other family visas, to the list excluded from the ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. rules.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
This amendment would change the bill text to add further visa classes, including child, parent, partner, and other family visas, to the list excluded from the ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. rules.
This amendment would change the bill text to add further visa classes, including child, parent, partner, and other family visas, to the list excluded from the ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. rules.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
The Senate agreed on voices to Lambie's proposal, which called on the Government to develop policy options for a streamlined citizenship pathway for eligible people already in Australia under the PALM schemeA Pacific labour mobility program that the amendments mention when calling for a possible citizenship pathway for eligible workers already in Australia..
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected on voices the Greens proposal to delete the bill’s disability discrimination provisions and related migration regulation changes.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Andrew Giles supports the bill because it creates the legal framework for the Pacific engagement visaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available., which he ამბობს will strengthen Australia’s ties with Pacific countries and expand permanent migration opportunities.
Read in Hansard ↗Tehan says the coalition will oppose the bill because it creates a lottery-based pathway to permanent residency and citizenship, which he says is the wrong way to run Australia’s immigration system.
Read in Hansard ↗McKim says the Greens support introducing a ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. process into migration, but argues this bill is only a limited step and does not address the deeper unfairness in Australia's migration system.
Read in Hansard ↗Sharkie supports the bill because she says the Pacific engagement visaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available. will help regional employers find needed workers and build stronger ties with the Pacific.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
6 speakers · 8 contributions · 6 support
“In summary, the Pacific engagement visa is a revolutionary change to our permanent migration system. Over time, it will strengthen our links with the Pacific family and deepen our ties to the region that's our home and critical to our future. Boosting Pacific permanent migration to Australia is an essential part of the government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family. This is necessary, and those who stand in opposition to this stand in opposition to Australia's engagement in the Pacific. They are undermining our position and continuing the incompetence that they showed when they were in government. That's why they need to change their position, and that's why I commend these bills to the chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm glad to continue my speech in support of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the related bill. The bill implements an important commitment of the government and does some important work in relation to a group of nations that are among our most important friends. Indeed, we consider ourselves a member of the Pacific family, which is a perfect way of encapsulating the kind of relationship we have and which we hope to continue to have and strengthen with those island nations. I include in that Timor-Leste, which is covered by this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tim Ayres, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Ayres supports the bill and says it is a necessary first step in creating the Pacific Engagement VisaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available. and strengthening Australia’s ties with the Pacific. He argues it will add a permanent pathway for Pacific and Timor-Leste nationals without affecting existing migration places.
“This Bill is a necessary first step in delivering on the Government's commitment to establish the Pacific Engagement Visa from July 2023, to boost Pacific permanent migration to Australia and build a stronger Pacific family.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Tim Ayres supports the bill and says it fits the government’s broader Pacific engagement agenda, arguing that it will deepen ties, help Pacific workers and families, and benefit Australian employers. He also urges the Senate to back it despite opposition criticism and says it should be thoroughly supported.
“This piece of legislation fits comfortably and firmly within the government's broader suite of policy options and initiatives for the Pacific in partnership with the Pacific. The Senate ought to support this piece of legislation thoroughly and give confidence more broadly and get this bit of work done.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The new PEV program is part of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to build stronger relationships with Australia's Pacific neighbours. At present, Australia does not have a dedicated permanent residency pathway for nationals of Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. This is despite Australia and its Pacific neighbours sharing many crucial diplomatic, foreign policy and national security interests. This amendment bill rectifies that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Pacific engagement visa was a commitment the Albanese government took to the last election. Since coming to office last year, the Albanese government has consulted closely with Pacific partners and Timor-Leste on the Pacific engagement visa. These discussions have been invaluable, and we have designed the Pacific engagement visa program in response to their feedback. These bills are the first steps in enabling implementation of the visa.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Andrew Giles, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Andrew Giles supports the bill because it creates the legal framework for the Pacific engagement visaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available., which he ამბობს will strengthen Australia’s ties with Pacific countries and expand permanent migration opportunities. He presents it as an important first step in the government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family.
“The bill is a necessary first step in delivering on the government's commitment to establish the Pacific engagement visa from July 2023, to boost Pacific permanent migration to Australia and build a stronger Pacific family.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Giles strongly supports the bill, saying it will create a new Pacific engagement visaA new permanent visa path the bill was designed to enable for people from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste, using a ballot when demand is higher than the places available. that deepens Australia’s ties with the Pacific and Timor-Leste and improves fairness and opportunity in migration. He argues the bills deserve support and urges the House to back them.
“The bills support Australia's long-held values of fairness and equal opportunity, and support the creation of a new migration path to grow and support Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora communities in Australia. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. These bills deserve support, and I commend them to the Chamber.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
8 speakers · 7 oppose · 1 mixed
“(1) declines to give the bill a second reading because:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As I said at the start of this speech, the PEV has some merit and I would be willing to work with the government and the Pacific nations for the development of a sustainable PEV, knowing what it means to Mallee in terms of our workforce issues. A pathway for permanent residency is valid, particularly for those who have shown the capacity to work in Australia. That is something I support and will continue to support. What I can't support is the legislation in its current form. The PALM scheme itself could be a suitable vehicle to develop a PEV if, under the current system, PALM scheme participants are able to enter a ballot. PALM scheme participants have proven their suitability to work in Australia because they are already here working under a temporary visa. They would be ideal for a more concrete PEV. We know that, under the PALM scheme, there have been mutual benefits for all parties, including Australia, Pacific island nations and individual workers, employers and even families and communities of workers back in the Pacific islands. This Labor government should look at the PALM scheme and its participants more closely and, in effect, make the PALM scheme a step on the way to a PEV. This would ensure any PEV recipient is better placed to successfully take up Australian permanent residency rather than creating a whole new game. Wouldn't this be a solution in line with the country's current migration program that would avoid the need for a lottery and the risks it poses? I would think so.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The first point I want to address is this concept of a lottery. Now, there are members of the public sitting in the gallery here today. I wonder what they think about the concept that, for the first time in Australia's history, we are about to introduce a lottery process to determine who can or can't come to this country—a lottery process, whereby people pay an application fee to enter into the lottery, and whether or not their lot, their application, is chosen out of the process determines whether or not they can make a home in this country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So, if I, as a member of the opposition, may be so bold as to say it: these bills need to be rethought. The government needs to go back and consult more broadly with those who would be impacted the most heavily by these bills. This is not a time for policy on the run. This is a time for working with our Pacific partners, who are friends and family.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I and all of us in the coalition very much reject that approach to our migration system. We reject the paternalism of that. This is the sort of thing I thought was left in the 19th century, frankly. Whilst I am not reflecting on all the good things that were done by the British Empire, these sorts of paternalistic policies remind us of an era that we thought we would not see in the year 2023. Nonetheless, the Albanese government are proposing it here before us today, and that is why I urge the House not to support the passage of this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will not be supporting the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. I concur with the amendment that the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Wannon, has put forward and totally support his views on this important matter. He is quite correct when he points out that this is basically pulling a name out of a hat, a visa lottery for Pacific workers. That sort of system has not been in operation in Australia before. Once a lottery is established, it may well be expanded. This is not the sort of situation that we've had previously. We've had a bipartisan, non-discriminatory immigration program in place for decades. That is why I support the amendment but do not, cannot and will not support the bill as put forward.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to discuss the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Regrettably the coalition is not in a position to support this bill as it is currently drafted.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While these bills purport to be addressing Pacific island engagement, which is something that those on our side obviously support, the bills have unintended consequences, and that is the reason that my side cannot support these bills. One of the unintended consequences could be to drain the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste of some of their skilled workers, which is not the intention of good engagement with our Pacific neighbours. For all of the reasons mentioned, I oppose these bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 1 support · 1 mixed
“So the Greens are not opposed to the introduction of a ballot process into Australia's immigration system. As the minister said in his second reading speech on this bill in the other place, ballots promote equitable and fair access to Australia's temporary and permanent migration programs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Larissa Waters on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Waters says the Greens have serious objections to the bill, especially its potential use for humanitarian visas, its failure to confront the climate crisis driving displacement, and its disability discrimination rules. The party is proposing amendments, so its position is conditional rather than a simple yes or no.
“We've got three main concerns with this bill, and we have relevant amendments that will seek to address those concerns.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Waters says the Greens will push amendments to remove disability discrimination and keep humanitarian visas out of the proposed ballotThe step that happens before a visa application can be lodged, where a person first registers and may be randomly selected to apply. system, and she warns that the bill still misses the mark on Pacific policy because it does not match the climate action Australia should take. Her position is conditional rather than a clear endorsement, because support depends on fixing those problems.
“As I said at the outset, that's not the only concern we have with this legislation. We will also be seeking to amend the legislation to ensure that humanitarian visas are not subject to this proposed ballot process. That would be deeply inappropriate, as the UNHCR has already recognised. Also we desperately need climate action. If we were truly treating our Pacific neighbours with the respect that they deserve then we would stop approving new coal, oil and gas. It is flooding their food-producing lands. It is imperilling the very existence of some of those low-lying island nations. If we were genuinely treating our neighbours with respect then we would stop approving new coal, oil and gas. This legislation is entirely missing the point. We are demanding climate action. We stand alongside our Pacific neighbours to demand no new coal, oil and gas.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 1 support · 1 mixed
“I am supportive of these bills, but I feel it's also necessary, as permitted by democratic process, to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by the opposition and to consider some other proposals.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jacqui Lambie, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Lambie says she is prepared to support the bill because it would speed up migration from the Pacific and help fill jobs in care, farming and defence. But she says the 3,000-person lottery cap is too low and that her support depends on the government refining the system.
“So I'm not sure about your lottery process. I'm happy to support this, but your number 3,000, I don't understand why it can't be more. Like I said, they are proven. I can't understand why we can't target where these jobs are going, because that is what it should look like. So if your lottery is not bringing that up and I can't get more about this whole lottery system, then we're probably going to have a problem with votes in here. But you're going to have to refine your lottery system. So I will leave that with you and I will allow you people to discuss that over the next 15 or 20 minutes or whenever you want to take the vote. But right now we're not keen.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Moved amendment
Lambie supports the bill, but wants it amended to create a streamlined citizenship pathway for Pacific Islander migrants and PALM schemeA Pacific labour mobility program that the amendments mention when calling for a possible citizenship pathway for eligible workers already in Australia. workers already in Australia. Her focus is on using the measure to help fill serious labour shortages in essential services.
“(a) notes that providing Pacific Islander migrants with a streamlined pathway to obtain Australian citizenship would contribute to attracting and retaining the pool of talent needed to address significant labour shortages in essential industries such as defence, agriculture, healthcare, education, childcare and public safety; and”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
Authorised instruments
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 · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 86 to 52.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · 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.
Senate · 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.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and lets it operate as law., turning the bill into an Act.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and lets it operate as law., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/06/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (9 Mar 2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13 June 2023)
APH bill page notes
