This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Immigration, border & security
Australia would cap immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because of their migration status, which this bill would limit to short periods. at 90 days unless the ministerThe government minister who would decide whether detention could go past 90 days. decides a longer period is a last resort, reasonable and proportionate, and that decision could be reviewed by the Administrative Review TribunalThe body that could review a minister's decision to keep someone detained beyond 90 days..
Australia’s migration law requires detention of people without valid visas and can effectively allow indefinite detention, leaving children and people in offshore processingProcessing asylum or visa matters outside mainland Australia, which this bill says should be treated the same as detention for these limits. exposed. This bill caps detention at 90 days unless the ministerThe government minister who would decide whether detention could go past 90 days. justifies extensions, bans childA person under 18, whom the bill would not allow to be held in immigration detention. detention, and makes detention a choice rather than automatic.
Australia's migration law already required detention of unlawful non-citizens and allowed detention to continue until a visa grant or removal, which the bill's backers argued exposed adults, children and people in offshore processingProcessing asylum or visa matters outside mainland Australia, which this bill says should be treated the same as detention for these limits. to effectively indefinite detention and breached basic human rights obligations. In August 2024 the bill sought to turn detention into a discretionary power, cap it at 90 days with ministerial justifications for short extensions and ban childA person under 18, whom the bill would not allow to be held in immigration detention. detention, but it lapsed when Parliament was dissolved on 28 March 2025.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, beyond possible implementation questions about how ministers and tribunals would handle repeated detention reviews and alternatives to automatic detention. The available parliamentary speeches supported the bill, so any visible reservations appear narrow and not a broad case against the bill's overall 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
221 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Australia would cap immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because of their migration status, which this bill would limit to short periods. at 90 days unless the ministerThe government minister who would decide whether detention could go past 90 days. decides a longer period is a last resort, reasonable and proportionate, and that decision could be reviewed by the Administrative Review TribunalThe body that could review a minister's decision to keep someone detained beyond 90 days..
Children could no longer be held in immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because of their migration status, which this bill would limit to short periods. under this bill.
Officers would no longer have to detain every person in Australia without a valid visa, because detention would become a choice instead of an automatic legal requirement.
Any extra detention period after the first 90 days could last no more than 30 days at a time.
People held in offshore processingProcessing asylum or visa matters outside mainland Australia, which this bill says should be treated the same as detention for these limits. would also get these detention limits, and offshore processingProcessing asylum or visa matters outside mainland Australia, which this bill says should be treated the same as detention for these limits. would be treated as immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because of their migration status, which this bill would limit to short periods. for that purpose.
This bill does two things. Firstly, it will introduce a 90-day limit on immigration detention, which can only be extended if the Minister decides that, having regard to principles of international law, an extended period of detention is necessary as a last resort, reasonable, and proportionate. This bill provides that any extension of detention is reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
Secondly, this bill includes a prohibition of the detention of minors, in accordance with human rights obligations.Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
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 item also provides a maximum time limit of 30 days by which the Minister can extend a person’s detention.Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
This clause ensures that the limits on detention apply to regional processing by repealing the provisions in the Act that say regional processing is not immigration detention and makes explicit that the limits under s189 apply to persons subject to offshore processing. This is also true for draft items 9, 11, 12 and 13.Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia's migration law already required detention of unlawful non-citizens and allowed detention to continue until a visa grant or removal, which the bill's backers argued exposed adults, children and people in offshore processingProcessing asylum or visa matters outside mainland Australia, which this bill says should be treated the same as detention for these limits. to effectively indefinite detention and breached basic human rights obligations. In August 2024 the bill sought to turn detention into a discretionary power, cap it at 90 days with ministerial justifications for short extensions and ban childA person under 18, whom the bill would not allow to be held in immigration detention. detention, but it lapsed when Parliament was dissolved on 28 March 2025.
Existing migration law is framed as allowing effectively indefinite detention
The explanatory memorandum said unlawful non-citizens had to be detained until granted a visa or removed, creating the problem the bill was meant to change.
Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum ↗Bill would also apply detention limits to offshore processingProcessing asylum or visa matters outside mainland Australia, which this bill says should be treated the same as detention for these limits.
Its explanatory memorandum said the detention limits would extend to regional processingProcessing asylum or visa matters outside mainland Australia, which this bill says should be treated the same as detention for these limits. by treating offshore processingProcessing asylum or visa matters outside mainland Australia, which this bill says should be treated the same as detention for these limits. as immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because of their migration status, which this bill would limit to short periods. for this purpose.
Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) explanatory memorandum ↗Bill is introduced to cap detention and ban childA person under 18, whom the bill would not allow to be held in immigration detention. detention
The bill was introduced with a proposal to impose a 90-day limit on immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because of their migration status, which this bill would limit to short periods., allow only reviewable short extensions justified by the ministerThe government minister who would decide whether detention could go past 90 days., and prohibit the detention of minors.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill lapses when Parliament is dissolved
The proposal did not become law because it lapsed at dissolution, leaving the existing detention regime unchanged.
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 ministerThe government minister who would decide whether detention could go past 90 days. 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, beyond possible implementation questions about how ministers and tribunals would handle repeated detention reviews and alternatives to automatic detention. The available parliamentary speeches supported the bill, so any visible reservations appear narrow and not a broad case against the bill's overall aim.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far.
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Tink supports the bill and says it is a way to end indefinite and arbitrary immigration detentionHolding a person in custody because of their migration status, which this bill would limit to short periods. while still allowing limited detention on human rights grounds.
Read in Hansard ↗Daniel supports the bill and says it is needed to stop a return to offshore detention by stealth.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“In presenting the Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) Bill 2024, I'm offering our current government a way to move beyond the politics of fear and division and to re-instate Australia's fundamental commitment to international humanitarian law.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Despite stated Labor policy, we are more than two-thirds of the way through this term of parliament, within eyesight of the next election, and still living with the stain of offshore detention on our national character. The updated bill clearly brings offshore detention within its scope, as well as reflecting developments, including the NZYQ High Court case and the establishment of the Administrative Review Tribunal. It is of profound concern that Nauru is now hosting six times more people than it did six months ago. This return to offshore detention by stealth must be stopped, and those sitting on the government benches should live up to the promise of their party platform and support this bill. I commend the 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 ministerThe government minister who would decide whether detention could go past 90 days. or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Lapsed at dissolution
Lapsed at dissolution
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
