Natural justice
Crossbench and Greens speakers argued that people facing third-country removal should still have notice and a chance to respond before decisions affecting their safety, health or family life are made.
Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1)
Current status
This bill became law on Sep 5th, 2025.
Policy area
Immigration, border & security
What does this bill do?
The Act says natural justiceA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond. does not apply when the Commonwealth enters, prepares for, or acts in relation to third-country reception arrangements for removing non-citizens from Australia.
Why was it introduced?
The government introduced the bill to put beyond doubt that procedural fairnessA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond. does not apply to final removal steps connected with third-country reception arrangements, and to deal with legal uncertainty created by AJN23A Full Federal Court case that set aside a protection-visa refusal because it relied on the pre-NZYQ understanding of indefinite detention. about earlier visa decisions made before the High Court changed the law on indefinite immigration detention in NZYQThe 2023 High Court case that held indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there is no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future..
Broader context
The Act sits in the long-running legal and political response to NZYQThe 2023 High Court case that held indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there is no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future., the 2023 High Court decision that ended indefinite immigration detention where removal was not reasonably foreseeable. It also responds to AJN23A Full Federal Court case that set aside a protection-visa refusal because it relied on the pre-NZYQ understanding of indefinite detention., where a past protection-visa refusal was set aside because it relied on the old Al-KatebThe earlier High Court case whose understanding of immigration detention was relied on before NZYQ changed the law. understanding of detention law, and to TCXMA Federal Court case the explanatory memorandum says held that third-country reception actions were not conditioned on procedural fairness., where the Federal Court held that third-country reception actions were not conditioned on procedural fairnessA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond..
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the Act removes natural justiceA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond. from decisions with serious human consequences and uses retrospective validation to protect past government action. Crossbench and Greens speakers also objected to the speed of passage and the limited scrutiny, while the Opposition supported the bill but argued it did not go far enough on community safety.
Who supported it?
The government introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation; opposed by Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members.
Introduced in House 26 Aug 2025
Passed House 02 Sept 2025
Passed Senate 04 Sept 2025 Aye 30 No 12
Became law 05 Sept 2025
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 05 Sept 2025
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
10 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The Act says natural justiceA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond. does not apply when the Commonwealth enters, prepares for, or acts in relation to third-country reception arrangements for removing non-citizens from Australia.
-
It also removes natural-justice requirements from specific Migration Act powers to share information with foreign governments, issue removal-pathway directions, and collect, use or disclose criminal history information.
-
The third-country reception changes apply to things done before, on or after commencement, and the Act validates past actions that would otherwise be invalid only because natural justiceA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond. was not observed.
-
The Act validates relevant visa decisions made on or before 8 November 2023 if their only defect was that they were made on the old understanding that indefinite immigration detention was authorised or required.
-
The validation provisions can affect accrued rightsRights or legal positions a person has already gained before a later law or validation rule takes effect. and may allow criminal consequences to stand for conduct that otherwise would not have been an offence at the time.
Show source excerpts
-
The rules of natural justice do not apply to an exercise of the executive power of the Commonwealth to: (a) enter into a third country reception arrangement with a foreign country; or (b) do anything preparatory to entering into a third country reception arrangement with a foreign country.
Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Act 2025 final Act text -
The Migration Act will also be amended to provide that the rules of natural justice do not apply to the following: the exercise of a power under section 198AAA ... the giving of removal pathway directions under section 199C ... and the collection, use or disclosure of criminal history information under 501M of the Migration Act.
Explanatory memorandum -
Section 198AHAA of the Migration Act 1958 ... applies to ... a third country reception arrangement entered into with a foreign country before, on or after commencement ... The following are taken for all purposes to be valid and to have always been valid.
Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Act 2025 final Act text -
Part 2 will validate any relevant visa decision made on or before 8 November 2023 ... that might have otherwise been rendered wholly or partly invalid only because it was made ... on the understanding that the Migration Act authorises or requires the detention of an unlawful non-citizen in respect of whom there is no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Explanatory memorandum -
To avoid doubt, the validation ... applies despite any effect it may have on the accrued rights of any person; and may result in a person being convicted of an offence constituted by conduct that would, apart from this item, not have constituted an offence at the time the person engaged in the conduct.
Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Act 2025 final Act text
Context
Broader context for this bill
The Act sits in the long-running legal and political response to NZYQThe 2023 High Court case that held indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there is no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future., the 2023 High Court decision that ended indefinite immigration detention where removal was not reasonably foreseeable. It also responds to AJN23A Full Federal Court case that set aside a protection-visa refusal because it relied on the pre-NZYQ understanding of indefinite detention., where a past protection-visa refusal was set aside because it relied on the old Al-KatebThe earlier High Court case whose understanding of immigration detention was relied on before NZYQ changed the law. understanding of detention law, and to TCXMA Federal Court case the explanatory memorandum says held that third-country reception actions were not conditioned on procedural fairness., where the Federal Court held that third-country reception actions were not conditioned on procedural fairnessA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond..
- 2004
Al-KatebThe earlier High Court case whose understanding of immigration detention was relied on before NZYQ changed the law. allowed indefinite detention understanding
The explanatory memorandum says earlier visa decisions could have been made on the understanding from Al-KatebThe earlier High Court case whose understanding of immigration detention was relied on before NZYQ changed the law. that the Migration Act authorised or required detention even where removal was not reasonably foreseeable.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 08 Nov 2023
NZYQThe 2023 High Court case that held indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there is no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. changes detention law
The High Court orders in NZYQThe 2023 High Court case that held indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there is no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. held that indefinite detention was unconstitutional where there was no real prospect of removal becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 2024
AJN23A Full Federal Court case that set aside a protection-visa refusal because it relied on the pre-NZYQ understanding of indefinite detention. creates visa-decision uncertainty
The explanatory memorandum says AJN23A Full Federal Court case that set aside a protection-visa refusal because it relied on the pre-NZYQ understanding of indefinite detention. set aside a ministerial protection-visa refusal because it had been materially influenced by the old Al-KatebThe earlier High Court case whose understanding of immigration detention was relied on before NZYQ changed the law. understanding later overturned in NZYQThe 2023 High Court case that held indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there is no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future..
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 2025
TCXMA Federal Court case the explanatory memorandum says held that third-country reception actions were not conditioned on procedural fairness. supports third-country position
The explanatory memorandum says TCXMA Federal Court case the explanatory memorandum says held that third-country reception actions were not conditioned on procedural fairness. held that actions and things done in relation to third-country reception arrangements were not conditioned on procedural fairnessA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond..
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 26 Aug 2025
Bill introduced in the House
Tony Burke introduced the bill, saying it was aimed at final removal steps for non-citizens who had exhausted avenues to remain in Australia.
Minister second reading speech ↗ - 05 Sept 2025
Act receives Royal Assent
The Act received Royal Assent on 5 September 2025, with Schedule 1 commencing the next day.
Federal Register of Legislation metadata in seed ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 26 Aug 2025
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 26 Aug 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 02 Sept 2025
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House second reading agreed 02 Sept 2025
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
House third reading agreed 02 Sept 2025
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Message from House of Reps reported 02 Sept 2025
The Senate was formally told that the House had sent it the bill.
Introduced 03 Sept 2025
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 03 Sept 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Legal and Constitutional Affairs review 03 Sept 2025
The local source bundle records a Senate committee referral and public hearing, but does not include a committee report extract for a fuller summary.
Referred; public hearing held
Collector notes from APH and ParlInfoSecond reading debate 04 Sept 2025
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Senate second reading agreed 04 Sept 2025
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
Detailed Senate review 04 Sept 2025
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered proposed amendments.
Committee of the Whole debate
Senate third reading agreed Aye 30 No 12 04 Sept 2025
Recorded vote: 30 to 12.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Passed both houses 04 Sept 2025
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
Scrutiny of Bills review 04 Sept 2025
The local source bundle records that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2025.
Considered in published report
Collector notes from APH and ParlInfoAssent 05 Sept 2025
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Human Rights review 02 Oct 2025
The local source bundle records that the Human Rights Committee considered the bill in Report 5 of 2025.
Considered in published report
Collector notes from APH and ParlInfoKey criticism
The main case against this bill
The main criticism was that the Act removes natural justiceA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond. from decisions with serious human consequences and uses retrospective validation to protect past government action. Crossbench and Greens speakers also objected to the speed of passage and the limited scrutiny, while the Opposition supported the bill but argued it did not go far enough on community safety.
Supporters argued the bill was aimed at people at the end of migration processes and was needed to prevent delay; opponents focused on procedural fairnessA basic fairness requirement that a person affected by a decision usually gets notice of relevant material and a chance to respond., retrospectivity, third-country removal risks and scrutiny.
Retrospective validation
Critics objected that the bill retrospectively validated past actions and visa decisions, including provisions that can affect accrued rightsRights or legal positions a person has already gained before a later law or validation rule takes effect. and criminal liability.
Rushed scrutiny
Several opponents said the bill was being rushed and should have had fuller human-rights or Senate committee scrutiny before passage.
Community safety
The Coalition supported passage but argued the bill did not itself detain high-risk members of the NZYQThe 2023 High Court case that held indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there is no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. cohort, and proposed tougher community-protection and sentencing rules.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed House passed the bill
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
House passed the bill
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.
Carried Senate passed the bill
Passed 30 to 12. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Carried
Senate passed the bill
Party Aye / No
Labor 24 / 0
Greens 0 / 10
Liberal Party 3 / 0
One Nation 3 / 0
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Independent 0 / 1
Earlier bill-stage votes
Carried Let bill proceed without formalities
Passed 26 to 12. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Carried
Let bill proceed without formalities
Party Aye / No
Labor 21 / 0
Greens 0 / 9
Liberal Party 5 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Carried Read bill a first time
Passed 26 to 12. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Carried
Read bill a first time
Party Aye / No
Labor 21 / 0
Greens 0 / 9
Liberal Party 5 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Amendments at a glance
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated Refer bill for human rights scrutiny
Defeated 9 to 72. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Refer bill for human rights scrutiny
Defeated 9-72; the House did not make that extra referral.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 43
Liberal Party 0 / 18
Independent 7 / 1
Nationals 0 / 7
Unknown 1 / 3
Greens 1 / 0
Senate
Carried Close debate on procedural vote
Passed 26 to 12. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Carried
Close debate on procedural vote
Carried 26-12; the Senate moved straight to the procedural question.
Party Aye / No
Labor 21 / 0
Greens 0 / 9
Liberal Party 5 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Defeated Tighten community protection rules
Moved by The Hon Michaelia Cash (Liberal Party of Australia). Defeated 26 to 36. Support came from Liberal Party, One Nation, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Defeated
Tighten community protection rules
Defeated 26-36; these Opposition changes were not added.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 24
Liberal Party 20 / 0
Greens 0 / 10
One Nation 3 / 0
Nationals 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Independent 0 / 1
Unknown 1 / 0
Defeated Remove retrospective validation powers
Moved by David Shoebridge (Australian Greens). Defeated 12 to 31. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation.
Defeated
Remove retrospective validation powers
Defeated 12-31; the retrospective validation provisions stayed in the bill.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 24
Greens 10 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 4
One Nation 0 / 3
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
Independent 1 / 0
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Unclear
Tony Burke
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Unclear
Zali Steggall
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Unclear
Andrew Hastie
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Unclear
David Shoebridge
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
3 speakers · 3 unclear
Labor
3 speakers · 3 unclear
-
Tony Burke ★ No summary available.
-
Anthony Chisholm No summary available.
-
Nita Green No summary available.
Coalition
3 speakers · 3 unclear
Coalition
3 speakers · 3 unclear
-
Andrew Hastie ★ No summary available.
-
Michaelia Cash No summary available.
-
Slade Brockman No summary available.
Greens
2 speakers · 2 unclear
Greens
2 speakers · 2 unclear
-
David Shoebridge ★ No summary available.
-
Elizabeth Watson-Brown No summary available.
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 unclear
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 unclear
-
Malcolm Roberts No summary available.
Minor parties and independents
6 speakers · 6 unclear
Minor parties and independents
6 speakers · 6 unclear
-
Zali Steggall ★ No summary available.
-
Andrew Wilkie No summary available.
-
Helen Haines No summary available.
-
Monique Ryan No summary available.
-
Allegra Spender No summary available.
-
Kate Chaney No summary available.
Record
Full record
- Act title
- Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Act 2025
- Act number
- Act No. 42, 2025
- Became law
- 05 Sept 2025
- Takes effect
-
- Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table 05 Sept 2025
- Schedule 1 06 Sept 2025
- Registered
- 05 Sept 2025
- Administered by
- Department of Home Affairs
- Final law metadata was collected from the APH progress table; commencement rows were parsed from the bill text.
- Status
- Act -- Collected from the APH bill page and checked against the Federal Register of Legislation metadata in the local seed.
- Originating house
- House of Representatives
- Recorded divisions found
- 7 -- The seed contains one House division, three Senate first-reading procedural divisions, two Senate amendment divisions and one Senate final-passage division.
- Proposed amendments collected
- 4 -- One House second-reading amendment and three Senate committee amendment sheets were collected.
- Introduction to passage
- 9 calendar days -- Introduced on 26 Aug 2025 and finally passed both Houses on 04 Sep 2025.
- Introduction to assent
- 10 calendar days -- Royal Assent followed on 05 Sep 2025.
- Commencement
- 05 Sep 2025 and 06 Sep 2025 -- Sections 1 to 3 commenced on Royal Assent; Schedule 1 commenced the day after Royal Assent.
- 26 Aug 2025
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.
- 26 Aug 2025
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.
- 02 Sept 2025
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 02 Sept 2025
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.
- 02 Sept 2025
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 02 Sept 2025
Senate · Message from House of Reps reported
Message from House of Reps reported
The Senate was formally told that the House had sent it the bill.
- 03 Sept 2025
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.
- 03 Sept 2025
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.
- 04 Sept 2025
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 04 Sept 2025
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.
- 04 Sept 2025
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Detailed Senate review
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered proposed amendments.
- 04 Sept 2025
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 30 to 12.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 04 Sept 2025
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
- 05 Sept 2025
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Referred; public hearing held
The local source bundle records a Senate committee referral and public hearing, but does not include a committee report extract for a fuller summary.
Direction to committee (2 Sept 2025): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Public hearing (3 Sept 2025)
Collector notes from APH and ParlInfoSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
The local source bundle records that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2025.
Considered by scrutiny committee (4 Sept 2025): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2025
Collector notes from APH and ParlInfoParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
The local source bundle records that the Human Rights Committee considered the bill in Report 5 of 2025.
Considered by scrutiny committee (2 Oct 2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 5 of 2025
Collector notes from APH and ParlInfo