This bill became law on Dec 4th, 2024.
Immigration, border & security
People on a Removal Pending bridging visaA temporary visa for a person who has been told they may need to leave Australia but cannot be removed yet. can lose that visa after notice from the MinisterThe minister who introduced the bill and who gets new powers to give notice, share information, and make removal-related decisions. if another country has given them permission to enter and stay there, unless they still have an undecided protection claim, cannot legally be sent there, or are under 18.
Existing migration law left gaps in removing some non-citizens on a removal pathway, including Removal Pending bridging visaA temporary visa for a person who has been told they may need to leave Australia but cannot be removed yet. holders who had permission to enter and stay in another country. The bill lets those visas cease after notice and expands powers, information-sharing and third-country arrangements to facilitate removal from Australia.
After the High Court’s November 2023 NZYQThe High Court case that made indefinite immigration detention unlawful and forced the government to find other ways to manage people on removal pathways. ruling made indefinite immigration detention unlawful, the government relied on Removal Pending bridging visas and other controls to manage people on removal pathways who could not yet be sent out of Australia. A second High Court setback on 6 November 2024, which knocked out punitive conditions such as curfews and ankle monitors, prompted this bill to widen removal powers, enable third-country arrangements and information sharing, and the new framework became law in December 2024.
The main criticism was that the bill gives the executive very broad deportation and third-country removal powers, weakens due process, and may still be vulnerable to constitutional challenge. That case was raised most clearly by the Greens, several crossbench MPs and Senator Pocock, while even the opposition said the bill needed close scrutiny and a Senate inquiry before trusting its safeguards.
Hon Tony Burke MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 04 Dec 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
27 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
People on a Removal Pending bridging visaA temporary visa for a person who has been told they may need to leave Australia but cannot be removed yet. can lose that visa after notice from the MinisterThe minister who introduced the bill and who gets new powers to give notice, share information, and make removal-related decisions. if another country has given them permission to enter and stay there, unless they still have an undecided protection claim, cannot legally be sent there, or are under 18.
The MinisterThe minister who introduced the bill and who gets new powers to give notice, share information, and make removal-related decisions. can decide that an earlier protection findingAn earlier legal finding that a person would face protection issues if sent to a country; the bill lets the Minister revisit some of these findings. no longer applies to some visa holders on a removal pathway, which can clear the way for removal from Australia.
Australian officials and the CommonwealthThe Australian federal government, which this bill lets act, spend money, and share information for removal arrangements. get protection from civil lawsuits for some migration actions taken in good faith under these new removal and third-country arrangements.
The law confirms that the MinisterThe minister who introduced the bill and who gets new powers to give notice, share information, and make removal-related decisions., departmental officers, and advisers can use and share criminal history information for migration decisions, and says past use and sharing is treated as lawful.
The Australian Government can share personal information with foreign governments and spend money or take other action to set up and run arrangements that remove non-citizens to third countries willing to receive them.
establish a ceasing event in new section 76AAA of the Act so that a BVR ceases to be in effect immediately after a mandatory notice is given to the BVR holder by the Minister that new section 76AAA of the Migration Act applies to the BVR holder, in certain circumstances where permission (however described) is granted by another country for the BVR holder to enter and remain in that other country;Migration Amendment explanatory memorandum
amend sections 197C and 197D of the Act to broaden the application of these provisions to include removal pathway non-citizens (with a new definition for this term inserted in section 5 of the Act), enabling the Minister to make a decision that a protection finding would no longer be made in relation to a non-citizen who holds a visa as a removal pathway non-citizen;Migration Amendment explanatory memorandum
establish immunity provisions which provide that officers as defined in section 5 of the Migration Act, or officers of the Commonwealth (including the Minister), are not liable under Australian law in respect of civil claims relating to certain persons or under certain arrangements;Migration Amendment explanatory memorandum
clarify that despite any State or Territory law, and Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), collection, use, and disclosure of criminal history information by the Minister or an officer of the Department is and always has been authorised for the purpose of informing, directly or indirectly, the performance of a function or the exercise of a power under the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Migration Regulations), including collection, use and disclosure by a person or body who has received the information from the Minister or an officer, for the purpose of providing advice or recommendations in connection with those functions or exercises of powers under the Migration Act or Migration Regulations;Migration Amendment explanatory memorandum
authorise spending on third country reception arrangements and authorise Commonwealth action in relation to third country reception arrangements;Migration Amendment explanatory memorandum
Context
After the High Court’s November 2023 NZYQThe High Court case that made indefinite immigration detention unlawful and forced the government to find other ways to manage people on removal pathways. ruling made indefinite immigration detention unlawful, the government relied on Removal Pending bridging visas and other controls to manage people on removal pathways who could not yet be sent out of Australia. A second High Court setback on 6 November 2024, which knocked out punitive conditions such as curfews and ankle monitors, prompted this bill to widen removal powers, enable third-country arrangements and information sharing, and the new framework became law in December 2024.
High Court rules indefinite immigration detention is unlawful in NZYQThe High Court case that made indefinite immigration detention unlawful and forced the government to find other ways to manage people on removal pathways.
The decision forced the government to release some non-citizens from detention and manage them in the community while still trying to remove them from Australia.
Hansard ↗High Court rules curfews and ankle monitors cannot be imposed on released detainees
The government said this fresh loss removed part of its post-NZYQThe High Court case that made indefinite immigration detention unlawful and forced the government to find other ways to manage people on removal pathways. control regime and required immediate new legislation focused on community safety and removals.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the Migration Amendment Bill 2024The bill that changed migration law so some people on removal pathways can have visas ended and can be moved to other countries more easily.
Ministers presented the bill as a response to gaps in existing migration law, especially for Removal Pending bridging visaA temporary visa for a person who has been told they may need to leave Australia but cannot be removed yet. holders and third-country removal arrangements.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed to the same text, giving the government new powers to end some visas after notice, share information and facilitate removals to receiving countries.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Migration Amendment Act 2024 receives Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into law.
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into law. completed the legal response to the two High Court setbacks and put the expanded removal and third-country framework into force.
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 minister who introduced the bill and who gets new powers to give notice, share information, and make removal-related decisions. 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 bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Committee (19/11/2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (26/11/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 50 to 9.
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.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 ministerThe minister who introduced the bill and who gets new powers to give notice, share information, and make removal-related decisions. or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Recorded vote: 25 to 13.
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
Recorded vote: 26 to 13.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
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 law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill gives the executive very broad deportation and third-country removal powers, weakens due process, and may still be vulnerable to constitutional challenge. That case was raised most clearly by the Greens, several crossbench MPs and Senator Pocock, while even the opposition said the bill needed close scrutiny and a Senate inquiry before trusting its safeguards.
Criticism was substantial but split between outright opposition and calls for tighter safeguards and more scrutiny.
Broad executive deportation powers
Critics argued the bill lets ministers and officials make life-changing removal decisions with too little court oversight, including reopening protection findings and expanding third-country deportation powers beyond the immediate NZYQThe High Court case that made indefinite immigration detention unlawful and forced the government to find other ways to manage people on removal pathways. problem.
Risk to due process and human rights
Opponents said the bill could punish and remove migrants outside proper legal process, harm refugees and asylum seekers, and separate families by making harsh removal powers easier to use.
Weak safeguards, accountability and legal durability
Several MPs argued the bill was drafted too broadly, gave immunity from liability too readily, and might face another High Court challenge because the safeguards and accountability mechanisms were not strong enough.
Rushed scrutiny and implementation risk
Even some who let the bill pass said it should be tested more carefully, arguing the government had moved too quickly on a complex bill with major legal and human consequences and had not yet earned confidence in its safeguards.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
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.
Passed 26 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 50 to 9. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 25 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 25 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Government amendments would consequential amendment.
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.
Senate
Moved by Urquhart. Defeated 14 to 32. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
A defeat meant the bill was referred on the shorter timetable originally proposed, limiting the time available for the inquiry.
Defeated 3 to 32. Support came from One Nation and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
A defeat meant the Senate did not adopt that criticism as part of the second-reading motion.
Defeated 14 to 24. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
A defeat meant the Senate did not add that constitutional warning to the second-reading motion.
Defeated 12 to 26. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
A defeat meant the Senate did not attach that condemnation to the second-reading motion.
Passed 26 to 12. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice.
This was a counted vote on amendments, not a generic debate-procedure vote.
Moved by David Pocock. Passed 26 to 12. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice.
The amendment vote was carried.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as carried on voices.
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 Journal records this outcome as defeated on voices.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as carried on voices.
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 Journal records this outcome as defeated on voices.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Pocock's proposal would have limited cessation of certain bridging visas to cases where the person had been finally convicted of a serious offence; it was decided on voices.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as defeated on voices.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as defeated on voices.
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
Mr Burke supports the Migration Amendment Bill 2024The bill that changed migration law so some people on removal pathways can have visas ended and can be moved to other countries more easily. and says it is needed to back new community protection regulations and strengthen the government's powers to remove non-citizens.
Read in Hansard ↗Kylea Tink opposes the bill, arguing it rushes back punitive monitoring, deportation and immunity powers after the High Court's NZYQThe High Court case that made indefinite immigration detention unlawful and forced the government to find other ways to manage people on removal pathways. decision instead of fixing migration policy in a lawful and humane way.
Read in Hansard ↗James Stevens says the opposition will let the Migration Amendment Bill 2024The bill that changed migration law so some people on removal pathways can have visas ended and can be moved to other countries more easily. pass and supports its second reading, but wants a Senate inquiry because he does not trust the government to deliver the protections it claims the bill will provide.
Read in Hansard ↗Zoe Daniel opposes the bill and says she will not support it in its current form because it gives the executive too much deportation power, goes beyond the NZYQThe High Court case that made indefinite immigration detention unlawful and forced the government to find other ways to manage people on removal pathways. cohort, and risks harming refugees and asylum seekers without proper due process.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 3 support
“I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The various provisions in the amending bill are necessary for maintaining a robust and effective removal program for those who have no right to remain in Australia but can no longer be detained. This bill sends a very strong signal about Australia's intentions and expectations of cooperation with removal efforts, and reinforces the integrity of the overall immigration system.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the Bill to the house.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 unclear
“We commend the second reading through the House. In the Senate, we will be supporting a full inquiry into this legislation to properly probe and understand that it is indeed going to do what the government claims it will.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While we think the government needs to act to keep the community safe, we want to make sure the government, for once, is actually getting it right, and that's why we will closely examine this bill in a Senate inquiry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“For this reason, we support the member for Wentworth's amendments, which seek to address some of the bills cruellest aspects such as reducing who can be forcibly removed. However, we still reject the fundamental assumptions that this bill makes that the government is able to extrajudicially punish people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 4 oppose
“Ultimately—let's be clear—we need real, long-term solutions for the challenges we face as a nation when it comes to managing migration. I fear that those things are not contained in this legislation, and I am almost certain that, 12 months from now, the parliament will be back on its feet debating yet more flawed legislation, which will result from the court challenges to this latest iteration. Our community deserves better.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Thank you for writing. Yes, I will let you know that I will not be supporting this bill in its current form.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I urge the government to refer the bill for an inquiry and await the inquiry's report before attempting to pass it in either the House or the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I cannot in good faith support a bill unlikely to withstand yet another High Court challenge.”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 minister who introduced the bill and who gets new powers to give notice, share information, and make removal-related decisions. 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 · 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 · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 50 to 9.
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 · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
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 ministerThe minister who introduced the bill and who gets new powers to give notice, share information, and make removal-related decisions. or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 25 to 13.
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 · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 26 to 13.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 law., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (26/11/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (19 Nov 2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (26 Nov 2024)
APH bill page notes
