This bill became law on Dec 7th, 2023.
Immigration, border & security
Courts can now keep some non-citizens in prison or place them under offence-backed supervision if they were convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence, cannot presently be removed from Australia, and are judged to be an unacceptable risk.
The High Court’s NZYQThe High Court case that triggered this law change by ruling that some non-citizens could not keep being held in detention if removal from Australia was not realistically in prospect. ruling exposed that some non-citizens with serious criminal histories could not lawfully be kept in detention when removal was not foreseeable, leaving normal visa-breach detention unavailable. The bill expands Bridging (Removal Pending) visaA temporary visa used here for people who cannot yet be removed from Australia, so they can stay in the community under strict conditions while removal remains pending. controls with new offences, tougher conditions, and clearer electronic monitoring and information-sharing powers.
Australia already relied on immigration detention and bridging visa controls to manage non-citizens awaiting removal, but that system broke when the High Court’s 8 November 2023 NZYQThe High Court case that triggered this law change by ruling that some non-citizens could not keep being held in detention if removal from Australia was not realistically in prospect. ruling said detention was unlawful where removal was not reasonably foreseeable. Parliament first tightened bridging visa conditions on 18 November 2023, then used this bill to go further by creating tougher supervision, offence-backed restrictions and clearer electronic monitoring powers for serious offenders who could not yet be removed, with the Act taking effect after Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of law. on 7 December 2023.
The main case against the bill was that it went beyond managing risk and instead created a rushed, harsh regime of preventive detention, mandatory penalties and intrusive controls for non-citizens who could not be removed. That criticism was pressed most clearly by Greens senators, while the Coalition did not oppose the bill overall but argued it should be tougher and include stronger reporting and public-safety measures.
The government introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 07 Dec 2023
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
10 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Courts can now keep some non-citizens in prison or place them under offence-backed supervision if they were convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence, cannot presently be removed from Australia, and are judged to be an unacceptable risk.
A community safety orderA court order used to keep a high-risk non-citizen under prison-style supervision in the community or in custody when they cannot be removed from Australia right away. can replace a non-citizen’s current visa with a Bridging (Removal Pending) visaA temporary visa used here for people who cannot yet be removed from Australia, so they can stay in the community under strict conditions while removal remains pending. as soon as the order starts, so the person stays in Australia under that visa while the order operates.
People on a Bridging (Removal Pending) visaA temporary visa used here for people who cannot yet be removed from Australia, so they can stay in the community under strict conditions while removal remains pending. can now face up to 5 years in prison if they breach conditions that bar them from close contact work with children or vulnerable people, going near schools or childcare, or contacting victims and victims’ families.
Authorised officers can now fit and run electronic ankle-monitoring devices, track a visa holder’s location, and share the information to check compliance, protect the public, investigate breaches, and help remove the person when removal becomes possible.
The object of this Division is to protect the community from serious harm by providing that non‑citizens who:Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) as-passed bill text
(2) If the non‑citizen holds a visa (other than a criminal justice visa) at the relevant time, then, despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations, the following apply:Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) as-passed bill text
It will achieve this by introducing new criminal offences (with mandatory minimum sentences) for BVR holders who fail to comply with a visa condition which:Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum
(2) An authorised officer may collect, use, or disclose to any other person, information (including personal information) for any of the following purposes:Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) as-passed bill text
Context
Australia already relied on immigration detention and bridging visa controls to manage non-citizens awaiting removal, but that system broke when the High Court’s 8 November 2023 NZYQThe High Court case that triggered this law change by ruling that some non-citizens could not keep being held in detention if removal from Australia was not realistically in prospect. ruling said detention was unlawful where removal was not reasonably foreseeable. Parliament first tightened bridging visa conditions on 18 November 2023, then used this bill to go further by creating tougher supervision, offence-backed restrictions and clearer electronic monitoring powers for serious offenders who could not yet be removed, with the Act taking effect after Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of law. on 7 December 2023.
High Court rules detention was unlawful in NZYQThe High Court case that triggered this law change by ruling that some non-citizens could not keep being held in detention if removal from Australia was not realistically in prospect.
The court held that a non-citizen could not keep being detained when there was no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, exposing a gap in how the government could control some serious offenders.
Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum ↗Parliament had already tightened bridging visa conditions
The explanatory memorandum says this bill was designed to complement and reinforce the earlier Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023 passed on that date.
Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum ↗Government introduces a second bill to expand controls
When the bill was introduced, the government said it was responding to NZYQThe High Court case that triggered this law change by ruling that some non-citizens could not keep being held in detention if removal from Australia was not realistically in prospect. by adding stronger visa conditions, offences and monitoring tools for non-citizens who could not presently be removed.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed on the same text, clearing the way for a new regime of community safety orders, tougher Bridging (Removal Pending) visaA temporary visa used here for people who cannot yet be removed from Australia, so they can stay in the community under strict conditions while removal remains pending. restrictions and explicit electronic monitoring powers.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Act receives Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of law.
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of law. turned the bill into law so the expanded supervision and offence provisions could operate under the Migration ActThe main law this bill changes to create the new visa conditions, offences and monitoring powers..
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.
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 reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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.
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. The main amendments were: Observed added text: "Schedule 2—Amendments relating to community safety orders Part 1—Amendments Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review)…".
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 bill passed by Parliament into an Act of law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it went beyond managing risk and instead created a rushed, harsh regime of preventive detention, mandatory penalties and intrusive controls for non-citizens who could not be removed. That criticism was pressed most clearly by Greens senators, while the Coalition did not oppose the bill overall but argued it should be tougher and include stronger reporting and public-safety measures.
Criticism was real but split between civil-liberties objections and claims the bill was not tough enough.
Preventive detention and mandatory penalties
Critics argued the bill normalised keeping people locked up or under offence-backed supervision because of predicted future risk, and added mandatory-style criminal penalties that cut across basic legal safeguards and judicial independence.
Unfairly targets non-citizens and refugees
Opponents said the bill singled out refugees and other non-citizens for especially harsh treatment, extending punitive controls on people who could not lawfully be removed and treating migration status as a basis for exceptional punishment.
Bill still too weak and not transparent enough
A separate criticism was that the bill did not go far enough to protect the public, because the government acted too late, failed to put stronger detention arrangements in place earlier, and did not require enough parliamentary reporting when high-risk individuals were released.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for 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.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
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
Government amendments tighten bridging visa rules by making community safety orders end a non-citizen’s existing visa and deeming a Bridging (Removal Pending) visa granted, while reframing the bill as migration law to protect the Australian community from serious offenders.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Anne Ruston opposes the bill as too weak, saying the government should have introduced a preventive detention regime and stronger laws before the High Court decision created the current crisis.
Read in Hansard ↗Cash says the coalition will support the bill but wants it strengthened, arguing Labor mishandled the release of high-risk detainees and failed to provide enough transparency or protection.
Read in Hansard ↗McKim opposes the bill, calling it rushed, shoddy, xenophobic legislation that unfairly punishes refugees and other non-citizens.
Read in Hansard ↗Gallagher supports the bill, saying it strengthens the legal framework for managing the affected cohort and protecting the community, especially vulnerable people and victims.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Katy Gallagher on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Gallagher supports the bill, saying it strengthens the legal framework for managing the affected cohort and protecting the community, especially vulnerable people and victims.
“These amendments are reasonable and necessary, and will be further supported by a number of amendments to the Migration Regulations1994.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Gallagher supports the bill, saying it strengthens the legal framework for managing the affected cohort and protecting the community, especially vulnerable people and victims. She argues the new offences and monitoring powers are reasonable, necessary and proportionate responses after the High Court decision.
“These amendments are reasonable and necessary, and will be further supported by a number of amendments to the Migration Regulations1994.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 1 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
“That is why we are going to be moving an additional amendment to strengthen the provisions of this bill. We will do this by moving an amendment requiring the minister to report to parliament any time one of these dangerous individuals is released into the community. This amendment will go some way to providing this much-needed transparency from this hopeless, hapless government, and I hope the government and the crossbench will see fit to support what is a modest but sensible amendment and to start cleaning up the mess the Albanese government has made.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government's incompetence continued well past this. First of all, the first duty of government is obviously to keep Australians safe. The government failed in its first attempt to put any legislation into this place, because it clearly didn't go far enough. They said that they'd never written laws that were this tough, yet within a matter of minutes, when it was drawn to their attention that there actually were a whole heap of other things that they could do that were tougher—boom, boom—those things got done.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is a shameful reflection upon those who sit around the cabinet table. It is a shameful reflection upon this government that you aren't keeping Australians safe—that you aren't keeping Australia safe. So this opposition, this coalition of the Liberal and National parties, will proudly move the amendments to toughen up this legislation. We'll proudly, as we have done this afternoon, bring on this legislation for debate because we want Australia to be safe. We want Australians to be safe. I encourage those in this chamber to support the amendments being moved by Senator Cash because, under this Labor government, rapists, murderers, paedophiles and a contract killer are wandering the streets of Australia. The question I put to my fellow Australians is: do you feel safer today than you did a week ago, a month ago or under the previous coalition government? Australians aren't feeling safer.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“What we're facing here is rushed, shoddy, xenophobic legislation. This is a dark, dark day in the Senate's history, and you can add it to a range of dark, dark days in the Senate's history. Time after time in this place, the major parties have got together to do over refugees and do over people who are seeking asylum.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The first one is future crime, also called preventive detention. The second one is mandatory sentencing. They are two things that Labor, in opposition and even as recently as in their 2023 national platform, rejected and said are offensive to the legal system and have the impact of reducing the independence of the judiciary. They are two things that Labor said, in opposition and even as recently as in the 2023 national platform they adopted, they'd never do. And now, as they follow on meekly behind Mr Peter Dutton and the coalition, with their heads bowed in political surrender to the coalition, they're putting both those things in the one piece of legislation, which is targeted overwhelmingly at refugees. You couldn't make up a bigger political surrender, a bigger moral surrender, a bigger surrender of principles than what Labor is doing with this legislation, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023.”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 · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · 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.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Message from House of Reps reported
Message from House of Reps reported
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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 bill passed by Parliament into an Act of law., turning the bill into an Act.
