This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Immigration, border & security
People without a valid visa would no longer have to be detained automatically, because officers would be allowed to detain them instead of being required to do so.
Australia’s migration law requires people without a valid visa to be detained automatically, can keep them there until removal or a visa grant, and still allows children to be detained. This bill lets detention be used only when necessary, caps it at 90 days unless the Minister extends it as a last resort with AATThe review body that can examine some government decisions, including whether detention should be extended beyond 90 days on this page. review, and bans child detention.
Australia’s migration law already required unlawful non-citizens to be detained until removal or a visa grant, and still allowed children to be locked up, with about 730 children in offshore detention in late 2014, some detainees held for nearly 16 years by March 2023, and a High Court ruling in November 2023 finding indefinite detention unlawful. In response, Kylea Tink introduced this bill on 27 November 2023 to make detention discretionary, limit it to 90 days unless a ministerial extensionA decision by the Immigration Minister to keep someone in detention beyond the usual 90-day limit. survived tribunal review, and ban child detention, but the proposal did not pass and was removed from the Notice PaperThe list of bills and business scheduled for Parliament; if a bill is removed from it, it usually stops moving forward. in August 2024.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and the main reservations visible are about whether it goes far enough or should be paired with stronger review arrangements. The recorded debate publicly available sources here shows support from crossbench members, with any criticism appearing limited and largely about implementation detail rather than opposition to the bill's aim.
Kylea Tink 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
260 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
People without a valid visa would no longer have to be detained automatically, because officers would be allowed to detain them instead of being required to do so.
Immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law. would be limited to situations where holding someone is necessary, reasonable and proportionateThe test this bill uses to say detention should happen only when it is justified and not more restrictive than needed., rather than available on broader grounds.
Immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law. would generally be capped at 90 days, and the Minister could extend it only as a last resort under international law principles, with review by the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe review body that can examine some government decisions, including whether detention should be extended beyond 90 days on this page..
People challenging a decision to keep them in immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law. for more than 90 days would have to get a tribunal decision quickly, or they would be released on a bridging visaA temporary visa that lets a person stay in Australia lawfully while their immigration matter is being decided..
Children under 18 would be barred from immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law..
This clause removes the requirement for an officer to detain a person if they know or reasonably suspect that a person in the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place) is an unlawful non-citizen and replaces it with the option to detain.Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
This clause establishes limited grounds under which an officer may detain a person, under the above sections. The grounds are based on the principles of necessity, reasonability, and proportionality.Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
Item 8- Subsections 196(2) to (7) This clause provides that, in both deciding to detain a person and extending detention beyond 90 days, the Minister must have regard to the principles of international law, including those of necessity, reasonability, and proportionality, and provides that this decision is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
about a reviewable decision regarding an extension of detention must occur within 7 business days. A conditional 7-day extension is provided for and if a decision cannot be reached after that time, it is decided that the person is to be released from immigration detention on a bridging visa.Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
This clause provides prohibition of the detention of minors; to be interpreted as a person who is less than 18 years old.Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s migration law already required unlawful non-citizens to be detained until removal or a visa grant, and still allowed children to be locked up, with about 730 children in offshore detention in late 2014, some detainees held for nearly 16 years by March 2023, and a High Court ruling in November 2023 finding indefinite detention unlawful. In response, Kylea Tink introduced this bill on 27 November 2023 to make detention discretionary, limit it to 90 days unless a ministerial extensionA decision by the Immigration Minister to keep someone in detention beyond the usual 90-day limit. survived tribunal review, and ban child detention, but the proposal did not pass and was removed from the Notice PaperThe list of bills and business scheduled for Parliament; if a bill is removed from it, it usually stops moving forward. in August 2024.
About 730 children were being held in offshore detention
The bill’s second reading speech said roughly 730 children were in offshore detention before Christmas 2014, making child detention a defining harm behind the later proposal to ban it.
Second reading speech ↗Detention was still lasting for years
By March 2023, the longest period someone had spent in immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law. was 5,766 days, showing how a system built on mandatory detention could stretch far beyond any short-term processing purpose.
Second reading speech ↗High Court rules indefinite immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law. is unlawful
The second reading speech said a recent High Court judgment had found indefinite immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law. unlawful, adding immediate force to calls to rewrite the detention rules.
Second reading speech ↗Bill introduced to cap detention and ban child detention
Kylea Tink introduced the bill to replace automatic detention with a discretionary power, limit detention to what is necessary, reasonable and proportionateThe test this bill uses to say detention should happen only when it is justified and not more restrictive than needed., impose a 90-day cap with AATThe review body that can examine some government decisions, including whether detention should be extended beyond 90 days on this page.-reviewed extensions, and prohibit detention of minors.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill is removed from the Notice PaperThe list of bills and business scheduled for Parliament; if a bill is removed from it, it usually stops moving forward.
The bill was removed from the Notice PaperThe list of bills and business scheduled for Parliament; if a bill is removed from it, it usually stops moving forward. under standing order 42A parliamentary rule used here to remove the bill from the Notice Paper., leaving the proposed limits on immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law. and the ban on child detention unlegislated.
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.
Key criticism
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and the main reservations visible are about whether it goes far enough or should be paired with stronger review arrangements. The recorded debate publicly available sources here shows support from crossbench members, with any criticism appearing limited and largely about implementation detail rather than opposition to the bill's aim.
No party represented in the debate publicly available sources opposed the bill.
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Kylea Tink supports the bill and says it should pass because it would limit immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law. to 90 days, add tribunal review for any extension, and prohibit the detention of minors.
Read in Hansard ↗Daniel supports the bill and urges Labor members to back it as a timely step toward more humane limits on immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because they do not have a valid visa or are being processed under migration law..
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“I present this bill today and invite the government to accept it as it is consistent with the policy reform they themselves have said they will pursue—limiting immigration detention to 90 days.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Members on the government benches should live up to the promise of their party platform and support this bill. They should support the member for North Sydney's timely private member's bill and allow it to be brought to a vote. I congratulate my fellow crossbencher and I commend this bill to the House.”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 PaperThe list of bills and business scheduled for Parliament; if a bill is removed from it, it usually stops moving forward. in accordance with (SO 42)
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
