Wide power to block travel
Critics said the bill gives the government a broad power to stop people with valid temporary visas from travelling, without enough limits or checks.
This bill became law on Mar 13th, 2026.
Immigration, border & security
The bill lets the government temporarily stop some groups of people overseas who hold temporary visas from travelling to Australia when events overseas put pressure on the migration system.
Rapid overseas crises can put unsustainable strain on the migration system, but the Migration Act lacks a general power to stop groups of current temporary visa holders travelling to Australia. The bill lets the minister temporarily restrict travel by classes of offshore temporary visa holders to protect the system’s integrity and sustainability.
Before this bill, the Migration Act could cancel visas one by one but had no general way to stop whole groups of offshore temporary visa holders from travelling to Australia. After the Middle East war raised fears of more asylum claims and visa overstays, Parliament created a short-term power to pause travel for affected temporary visa groups during fast overseas crises.
Critics were worried the bill would let the minister stop groups of people with valid temporary visas from travelling on broad grounds, with too little scrutiny and little protection for people who had already paid or made plans.
The government introduced this bill. In the House final vote, support came from Labor, Liberal, LNP of Queensland, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposition came from Greens, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 13 Mar 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
2 counted final-passage votes were recorded.
Passage speed
2 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The bill lets the government temporarily stop some groups of people overseas who hold temporary visas from travelling to Australia when events overseas put pressure on the migration system.
The minister could make this kind of travel stop only with written agreement from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister, and it could last for up to 6 months.
It is meant for fast-changing crises overseas. If conditions change after a visa is granted, the minister could pause travel for groups of visa holders who may now be more likely to stay after their visa ends.
It would not apply to people on temporary protection or humanitarian visas, or to spouses, partners and dependent children of Australian citizens or permanent residents.
A travel pause would not change when a visa expires. It would not affect permanent visa holders, or temporary visa holders who were already in Australia when the pause started, even if they later left.
The Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 (the Bill) amends the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) to establish a new legislative framework that provides the Minister administering the Act with powers to more effectively regulate travel into Australia by specified classes of non-citizens who hold a temporary visa in circumstances where this is necessary to protect the integrity and sustainability of Australia’s migration system, including during periods of international conflict or in response to other events or circumstances outside Australia.Explanatory memorandum
An arrival control determination can also only be made with the written agreement of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and can only be in force for a period of up to 6 months.Explanatory memorandum
For example, a criterion for the grant of most temporary visas is that the applicant intends to remain in Australia temporarily or for the purpose for which the visa is granted and that all relevant public interest criteria are met. In considering whether to grant the visa, the Minister would usually consider whether a person will remain in Australia after the visa validity period, having regard to the circumstances in the person’s country of usual residence. These amendments would enable the Minister to suspend temporary visas held by one or more specified classes of offshore non-citizens in circumstances where the circumstances since the time the visa was granted have changed, and the Minister can act where circumstances have changed and there is a need for a rapid response.Explanatory memorandum
New section 84C of the Migration Act expressly provides that an arrival control determination does not apply to certain kinds of non-citizens, including holders of protection visas that are temporary visas, temporary safe haven visas, temporary humanitarian visas or non-citizens who are the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child of an Australian citizen or permanent visa holder.Explanatory memorandum
Significantly, the temporary cessation of an offshore non-citizen’s temporary visa by the arrival control determination does not have any effect on the expiry date of their temporary visa and do not impact any current holders of a permanent visa, or a temporary visa holder who is in the migration zone when the period of time specified in the determination comes into force but subsequently departs.Explanatory memorandum
Context
Before this bill, the Migration Act could cancel visas one by one but had no general way to stop whole groups of offshore temporary visa holders from travelling to Australia. After the Middle East war raised fears of more asylum claims and visa overstays, Parliament created a short-term power to pause travel for affected temporary visa groups during fast overseas crises.
Case-by-case visa cancellations were too slow for fast crises
Bill papers said the Migration Act had no general way to stop groups of current temporary visa holders from travelling to Australia.
AustLII ↗Middle East war raised fears of more visa overstays
The government moved quickly after fighting began because more arrivals might seek asylum or stay after their visas ended.
ABC News ↗Bill introduced to allow temporary travel pauses
The measure let ministers temporarily block some offshore temporary visa holders from coming for up to six months during major overseas events that strain the migration system.
Parliament of Australia ↗Travel-pause powers became law on 13 March
Royal Assent turned the bill into the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Act 2026.
Federal Register of Legislation ↗Iranian visitor visa holders faced the first travel pause
The first six-month restriction covered offshore Visitor visa holders linked to Iranian passports because conflict in Iran was seen as increasing overstay risks.
Minister for Home Affairs ↗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
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
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 bill was referred for inquiry and a public hearing was held, but the material provided does not say what the committee concluded.
Referred
Public hearing 10 Mar 2026Recorded vote: 95 to 8.
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 minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Recorded vote: 24 to 11.
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 11.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
It questioned whether the bill gave too much administrative power, whether decisions could be reviewed, and whether later rules would get enough parliamentary oversight.
Considered in published report
Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2026It raised concerns about possible effects on children's rights, equal treatment and freedom of movement, and sought human rights legal advice on those issues.
Considered in published report
Report 4 of 2026Key criticism
Critics were worried the bill would let the minister stop groups of people with valid temporary visas from travelling on broad grounds, with too little scrutiny and little protection for people who had already paid or made plans.
Some MPs supported the goal but said the power needed tighter limits and better safeguards.
Wide power to block travel
Critics said the bill gives the government a broad power to stop people with valid temporary visas from travelling, without enough limits or checks.
Too little scrutiny
Critics said the bill was pushed through too quickly for proper scrutiny or changes.
Travel costs lost
Critics said people, families and businesses could lose money and have plans disrupted if travel is stopped after they have already committed to it.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 95 to 8. Support came from Labor, Liberal, LNP of Queensland, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 26 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and LNP of Queensland. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 24 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal, and LNP of Queensland. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 7 to 84. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and LNP of Queensland.
Carried: ministerial blocking powers would be much narrower. Defeated: the bill kept a lower threshold.
Defeated 8 to 85. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and LNP of Queensland.
Carried: strict guardrails and compensation were added. Defeated: broad powers remained.
Senate
Moved by Mehreen Faruqi (Australian Greens). Defeated 11 to 24. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, LNP of Queensland, and Liberal.
Carried: Senate would have urged a bigger humanitarian program. Defeated: no such call was added.
Moved by Tammy Tyrrell (Crossbench). Defeated 11 to 24. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and LNP of Queensland.
Carried: Senate would have formally criticised the bill. Defeated: no criticism was attached.
Defeated 11 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and LNP of Queensland.
Carried: more oversight and another visa pathway. Defeated: the bill kept neither change.
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 11 to 25. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and LNP of Queensland.
Carried: powers would be far narrower and reviewable. Defeated: broad ministerial powers stayed intact.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
The minister argues the bill is needed to let the government temporarily restrict travel by certain classes of temporary visa holders during overseas crises, with time limits, exemptions, reporting requirements and other safeguards.
Read in Hansard ↗Senator Pocock argues the bill has been rushed through without proper scrutiny and would give the executive overly broad migration powers with inadequate safeguards, transparency and protections for families and humanitarian entrants.
Read in Hansard ↗Senator Duniam says the opposition supports the bill because it creates an appropriate framework for temporarily suspending certain temporary visas in conflict-affected or otherwise significant circumstances, with safeguards and exceptions.
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall opposes the bill, arguing it creates sweeping, indefinite ministerial powers to suspend valid temporary visas without adequate guardrails, scrutiny, review or compensation.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 9 contributions · 3 support
Hansard records 7 separate contributions by Hill on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Second Reading - 10 Mar 2026
The minister argues the bill is needed to let the government temporarily restrict travel by certain classes of temporary visa holders during overseas crises, with time limits, exemptions, reporting requirements and other safeguards. He says it will strengthen the migration system, protect the national interest and allow risks to be managed quickly and proportionately.
“It will also ensure that where risks can be appropriately managed, that travel limitations can be lifted as soon as it is in the national interest to do so. This bill allows Australia's visa system to continue to operate effectively and to the benefit of Australia. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Hill defends the bill against proposed amendments, arguing that tighter tests would make the provision impractical and unworkable in a risk-based visa system. He says the bill is a sensible and necessary measure to protect the integrity of temporary visas and give government a practical way to respond when large numbers of visa holders may not intend a temporary stay.
“I'll finish on this point. Despite some of the hyperbole in the media commentary by others outside this chamber, this bill is a sensible step. It's necessary to maintain the integrity of the visa system. It's not a radical proposition. It's core to the entire operation of the migration system that, when someone is granted a temporary visa to Australia and they come to Australia on a temporary visa, the Australian community is confident that they intend a temporary visit. A temporary visa means a temporary visit. In circumstances where it becomes manifestly obvious that large numbers of people would not or may not intend a temporary visit, then the government needs the ability to respond, and currently the minister has the power to respond visa by visa, individually reviewing or cancelling individual visas. The government maintains that this is a sensible, necessary measure and, frankly, it avoids the cancellation en masse of large numbers of visas by simply suspending the ability of the visa holder to enter Australia.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Hill argues that multicultural communities would support the bill because it protects an orderly humanitarian migration program and prioritises the most vulnerable people with the strongest connection to Australia, rather than giving temporary visa holders an advantage in seeking asylum onshore. He rejects crossbench amendments on the basis that they would unfairly privilege some temporary entrants over families already waiting in the humanitarian program.
“So I'm just not going to take the moral superiority, frankly, from people who overwhelmingly represent electorates with good Australians in them but are overwhelmingly not electorates where humanitarian migrants settle, whose community services don't get overwhelmed if we accept the kinds of propositions you're putting forward. I'm absolutely confident—and I'm just responding to the point you made in the debate—that the people I represent and that government members represent would support this legislation when they understand the practical consequences for their families and an orderly humanitarian migration program where our country is generous and we reserve the right to offer protection to the most vulnerable people out of an overwhelming case load with the strongest connection to Australia.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Hill argues the government supports the bill as drafted and rejects proposed amendments, saying they would make the provisions unworkable and undermine visa-system integrity. He says the bill already contains appropriate safeguards, limited duration, ministerial and parliamentary scrutiny, and standard definitions of immediate family.
“With respect to the question of safeguards, the government's view remains that the safeguards that are provided for in the bill are appropriate. I'd restate that the bill doesn't affect or restrict the ability of a permanent visa holder of any kind to travel to Australia. It exempts very explicitly people who are already in Australia within the migration zone, their immediate family and any holder of a temporary humanitarian visa or a bridging visa associated with those temporary humanitarian visa classes. There are additional safeguards such that the exercise of the power by way of legislative instrument requires the written agreement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister and therefore the involvement and scrutiny of their officials in those ministries. It also requires, with respect to parliamentary scrutiny, that the instrument and the associated reasons be tabled in both houses of parliament, which provides, in the government's view—given that this is a rarely used power for significant events—the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. It provides for a maximum of six months, following which there is the ability to remake but not to extend or vary a previously made determination, and it would need to be remade at the point in time based on new facts and circumstances. It also provides the power for the minister to exempt individuals from the arrival control determination.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Hill argues that the proposed amendment is impractical because it would create an open-ended humanitarian visa obligation outside the normal budget and settlement planning process. He defends the bill’s approach as necessary to protect the integrity of the visa system and ensure migration and settlement services remain orderly and properly resourced.
“I'll choose my words carefully in observing that humanitarian migrants, at the kind of scale you're talking about, don't settle in your electorate. They settle in communities like mine. And it means an enormous amount to the people I and many of my colleagues represent that the humanitarian program is done in an orderly way, where the settlement infrastructure, schools, language schools and trauma support services can keep pace. With respect, the proposition that you're putting forward completely destroys the ability of the settlement services sector to do that. It's well meaning. It might get you in the newspaper. But, in effect, it could be a giant spending measure. It's unreasonable, which restricts the ability of the minister to exercise these powers without a new appropriation of potentially billions and billions of dollars. The core point remains. The government's view is that this is necessary to protect the integrity of the visa system. I restate in closing: it's not a controversial proposition that, when someone receives a temporary visa to come to Australia, the Australian people remain confident that they are coming for a temporary purpose, not for another purpose.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Hill says the bill’s amendments will protect the integrity and sustainability of the migration system and give the government a faster, less draconian tool than cancelling individual visas when an urgent response at scale is needed. He also notes that officials can exempt appropriate individuals and allow them to travel to Australia.
“The government's view remains that the amendments in the bill demonstrate the government's commitment to protecting the integrity and sustainability of the migration system. The arrival control determination legislation is an important addition to the government's ability to regulate travel to Australia.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
In closing, Julian Hill dismisses opposition interjections as out of order and notes established parliamentary avenues for questions. He indicates support for the bill by thanking the opposition for supporting it.
“Mr HILL: As you well know—this is not question time—there are other forms of the House, including questions on notice. I'm sure the Senate would be flattered at the attention you just paid to Senate estimates, but I thank the opposition for your support of the bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I commend the Bill to the Chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The current situation in the Middle East demonstrates how quickly circumstances that may be relevant to holders of valid temporary visas who may seek to travel to Australia can change. In these circumstances it is vital that government can respond accordingly. This bill provides government with a framework to better and more rapidly regulate travel to Australia in periods of international conflict or global shocks. This new framework will ensure government has the means to quickly take the necessary steps to manage risk before it manifests in Australia. I commend the bill to the chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 4 contributions · 2 support
“The opposition will support this legislation. We think it is right. We think that there are appropriate safeguards in there. Above all else, of course, the legislation enables a framework for temporary suspensions. This is not permanent prevention of people from coming into this country. They are temporary suspensions. Of course there are exclusions and exceptions on very solid grounds for people who shouldn't be caught up under these determinations and processes for people to seek exception to the application of a determination to not be able to use your visa, should it have been granted to you. To that end, it comes down to the government applying these laws in the way they should—and should have before now—to protect our country in relation to who comes here and the circumstances under which they come.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by O'Brien on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Second Reading - 10 Mar 2026
O'Brien says the coalition gives the bill in-principle support and will support its passage through the House, describing it as a reasonable set of measures to strengthen the integrity of Australia's migration system. He also uses the debate to criticise Labor's broader migration management, while welcoming the bill's targeted integrity powers.
“Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:26): I thank the assistant minister. I want to note that the responsible shadow minister, Senator Duniam, has received a verbal briefing from the government. I note too that he has received a draft of the legislation. This legislation does have the coalition's in-principle support. I note that there will be a Senate inquiry this evening, which will inform the final position taken by the coalition, but we do not see any major hurdles. Thus, today we will be supporting the passage of the bill through the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
O'Brien says the coalition supports the bill and frames the proposed migration law amendments as part of a bipartisan response to the Iran conflict. He also criticises the government's broader migration record and questions why similar powers were not introduced earlier in response to visa grants during the Gaza conflict.
“Again, the coalition is supporting the government in the passage of this legislation through the House. However, this legislation does give rise to at least those eight questions, on which I look forward to hearing the minister's response.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
O'Brien states that the coalition is supporting the government's passage of the bill through the House, while criticising the minister for failing to answer eight questions put forward by the coalition. He asks the minister to commit to providing written responses later.
“Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (11:01): I wish to note for the House that the coalition, despite supporting the government in the passage of this bill through the House, has put forward eight questions to the minister, and the minister has chosen to not answer any of those questions. I think that is notable. I ask the minister if he will be prepared to commit to respond to me in writing at a later date in response to those eight questions.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 5 oppose
“Time and time again, it's Labor governments that treat refugees with the most cruelty of anyone. Don't be fooled. This is a cynical call and cry-out to One Nation. That's who they're talking to: One Nation. They don't want the public to know what they're doing on this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. That's why they don't want it to go to a proper inquiry, and that's why they are not getting up and speaking about it—because they know it's the wrong thing to do. They know it's cruel, they know it's inhumane, and they know that Australians will not and do not support it. It's absolutely pathetic.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (13:14): I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to oppose this legislation, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. Time and time again, it's Labor governments that bring in the nastiest and meanest laws to attack people seeking asylum, and again Labor has done it with this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Greens are proud to stand against this bill, and we are proud to stand against this war.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That's what this bill also does; it gives a blank cheque to the minister to just cancel people's visas that they've already had issued—that they could already, legally, rely on. I mean, what a power grab by this minister, and what a perverse and inhumane power grab at that. You backed this illegal war, and you've supported bombs raining down on civilians, and now you've got the gall to shut the door on those same civilians who will be impacted by those bombs. I do not know how you possibly rationalise that and, frankly, how you can live with yourselves.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While the young women from the Iranian soccer team are safe and will be able to stay in Australia, any other Iranian who currently holds a visa to enter Australia will now be denied access. That is the effect of this bill that is being rammed through this House with barely hours' notice, with the two major parties teaming up for cruelty. These are folks who've already been vetted, and approved to travel to Australia for a range of reasons: for work, for weddings, for funerals. Many of these people are on their way right now, only to be turned back at the airport when they land.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 13 contributions · 6 oppose · 2 mixed · 1 unclear
“These are comprehensive amendments, and their breadth speaks to the huge issues with this bill. I understand the intent of the bill is to preserve the integrity of the humanitarian intake program. However, after considering the provisions of the bill in the short time available and listening to experts in my community, listening to Canberrans who I represent and vote on behalf of in this place, it's clear that this bill has significant shortcomings and that it should not be supported. This bill should not become law today, and I will be opposing it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Steggall on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Steggall opposes the bill, arguing it creates sweeping, indefinite ministerial powers to suspend valid temporary visas without adequate guardrails, scrutiny, review or compensation. She moved amendments to narrow the trigger to armed conflict, limit the duration and use of the power, require legislative instruments and parliamentary oversight, and protect or compensate affected visa holders.
“This legislation was debated with less than one hour's notice and with no indication that there would be a rush through of the second debate. This legislation is just simply wrong. Your communities know this and so many members of this House know that this legislation is wrong. We know that ministers being granted indefinite discretionary power is dangerous, so the amendments that I'm moving are to make sure that they are done by disallowable instruments to ensure that we have clear parliamentary scrutiny over these decisions. We need to have a review mechanism for affected individuals. There is no sunset clause to this legislation for how long this extraordinary power could remain in place. It is such a dangerous precedent, and it is shameful that members in this place are not speaking up against this legislation. The fact that you can pause these visas indefinitely, even though someone might be in transit, without any thought of compensation—”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
The speaker argues that the bill would let the government indefinitely block people with valid temporary visas from entering Australia based on vaguely defined events, without guardrails or a sunset clause. She says it unfairly targets multicultural communities, conflates humanitarian and temporary visas, and was introduced without consultation.
“Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (10:32): In relation to the comments by the member for Bruce, I'd ask: has the minister or members of the government indicated to their communities that, after going to great lengths and cost to have, for example, relatives come on visitor visas or seeking to come on tourist visas or student visas, at the stroke of a pen, from actions occurring outside of Australia—not always linked to military conflict; there is no limitation in the legislation limiting it to military conflict—all those efforts to obtain visas will be for nothing? Are your multicultural communities aware that the government of the day can determine that a group of people is not welcome here, to take effect for their visitor visas, their tourist visas, their student visas or their attendance here for work or funerals or other events? I think we have to be really clear about what the effect of this legislation is. This is not temporary legislation. This has no guardrails and no sunset clause. This is an indefinite opportunity for the government of the day to nominate an event occurring and then determine that anyone with a valid temporary visa for tourism, for study or for business will not be able to exercise the right that they have paid for with that visa and come to their communities.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Steggall questions the impact of the bill’s visa amendments on businesses, individuals and families who have already incurred costs relying on valid visas. She presses the government on what assurances, assistance or compensation it will provide to those whose arrangements could be invalidated for extended periods.
“Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (10:52): In this alternative circumstance, I have a question for the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and member for Bruce and for the government in relation to the situation caused by these amendments to our immigration law and temporary visas. A significant number of people will be caught in transit or having already made significant arrangements in reliance upon a validly obtained visitor visa, student visa or skilled work visa. In fact, to obtain these visas, a number of Australian businesses incur considerable cost to be able to sponsor skilled visas to come and assist them with their productivity and engagement. A number of those businesses—and I meet with them regularly—go to significant expense. With the stroke of a pen, the minister and the government will now be able to say that all that expense is for nothing. I ask the government: What consideration, undertaking or assurance is the government prepared to provide businesses, individuals and families within multicultural Australia that have gone to great expense to obtain validly visitor visas, student visas or skilled visas that are now, by the stroke of a pen, going to be invalid for periods of six months essentially indefinitely? What assurance does the government make to Australian businesses to recoup that lost expense? For all of those finding themselves in transit, what assistance and compensation will the government make to those people?”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Chaney on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Kate Chaney says the bill’s objective is sound but argues it is too rushed and gives overly broad ministerial powers with insufficient scrutiny and safeguards. She moves a series of amendments to narrow triggers, restore parliamentary disallowance, define key terms, broaden family exemptions, require consideration of travel certificate applications, and pause visa expiry during suspensions.
“I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill. I acknowledge the intent behind it. We all want a migration system that's sustainable, responsive to global events and respectful of human rights. But, while the objective may be sound, the drafting of this bill has been rushed, has avoided scrutiny and carries a real risk of unintended consequences. Powers of this magnitude need careful calibration, not sweeping discretions that may undermine fairness or trust in the system. In the 24 hours since I first saw this bill, I've prepared a series of amendments to tighten safeguards and improve accountability, and I'll address each of these in turn.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Kate Chaney argues that the minister's proposed safeguards do not address her concerns, particularly for people outside Australia, because tabling without disallowance offers no real scrutiny, remaking an order after six months is effectively an extension, and exemption provisions do not create enforceable rights or protections.
“Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (09:38): In relation to the safeguards the minister has put forward, I don't think the safeguards listed address any of the issues I've raised. A number of them relate to a different class of people, people who are in Australia. We're talking about people who are actually not in Australia and safeguards for that group. You mentioned that the determination should be tabled, but it's not disallowable, so there's no actual scrutiny that comes with its being tabled. Requiring that the order be remade after six months is effectively the same as extending it. And saying that exemptions may be made for individuals because there is a provision in there that says the minister doesn't have to consider any applications for those exemptions doesn't create a right or a safeguard. So I would say that none of these safeguards listed affect the class of people we're concerned about in this case.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“If we are going to stop people already approved to come to Australia from making that trip, we should make a corresponding increase to the number of humanitarian visas we offer and approve. There is a geopolitical and humanitarian crisis facing the world, and Australia must respond commensurate with the challenge that that is. I know many in my electorate of Bradfield would feel pride in our nation for standing unwaveringly alongside the people of Iran, who are vulnerable to an oppressive regime. Australia needs to play its fair share in this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Le on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
Le argues that the bill gives the minister sweeping, opaque powers to suspend travel rights without natural justice, parliamentary oversight or realistic court access, and warns it could unfairly harm migrants, students, visitors and refugee families. She says the legislation has been rushed and should face far greater scrutiny rather than proceeding in its current form.
“We all want a secure border and a migration system with integrity. But this bill isn't just about security; it's about an unprecedented grab for executive power.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 11 Mar 2026
The speaker reflects on her family’s refugee experience after fleeing Vietnam and argues that migration policy should be guided by compassion and the human consequences of war. She says Australia has a responsibility to provide safe haven to people displaced by conflicts it has participated in, but she does not clearly state whether she supports the bill.
“And one of the consequences of that is people movement. There will be refugees. There will be people seeking safe haven, because these people, like my family, have no control over the war. We had no control over the decisions made by the government of the day to get into war, so we had to flee. When we fled, we needed a place of safe haven. Australia provided us with safe haven. We cannot now, sitting in here and seeing the wars happening, not step up and say: 'We participated in that war in some capacity. We must provide a safe haven for those people'—because, by God, there will be refugees seeking asylum to this safe haven—'because we are part of that war.'”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill seeks to introduce significant changes to Australia's migration regime. It empowers the minister to suspend classes of temporary visas held by people offshore through so-called arrival control determinations. This is a sweeping power, one which could affect thousands of people who have already followed our migration rules in good faith and who have already obtained temporary visas in good faith. The amendments I have circulated in my name seek to strengthen the test for making these arrival control determinations to ensure that the minister will satisfy a higher and more proportionate threshold before exercising this extraordinary power. My amendments will ensure that determinations meet both limbs of the test under section 84B, ensuring that there is a reasonable probability that a controlled determination is actually necessary.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We cannot allow this country to slide further down this dangerous path. Racist migration policies have no place in this country, and the Albanese government has a duty to assist people seeking refuge, regardless of their skin colour or their religion, particularly when they are from places where this government is complicit in violence. This bill must be opposed in the strongest possible terms, and I will later move a second reading amendment. We need to lead by example. We cannot follow the US and Israel in the killing of innocent people. Labor, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate condemns and rejects legislation that grants extraordinary decision-making power to the Minister for Home Affairs that is intended to prevent people fleeing conflict zones from entering Australia and terminates even the most basic parliamentary safeguards such as a sunset clause and scrutiny powers".”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate condemns and rejects legislation that grants extraordinary decision-making power to the Minister for Home Affairs that is intended to prevent black, brown, Muslim and Arab people fleeing conflict zones from entering Australia and terminates even the most basic parliamentary safeguards such as a sunset clause and scrutiny powers".”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
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
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 · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail debate
House · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 95 to 8.
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 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
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 24 to 11.
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 11.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Referred
The bill was referred for inquiry and a public hearing was held, but the material provided does not say what the committee concluded.
Referred to Committee (10 Mar 2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Public hearing 10 Mar 2026
Public hearing 10 Mar 2026Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
It questioned whether the bill gave too much administrative power, whether decisions could be reviewed, and whether later rules would get enough parliamentary oversight.
Considered by scrutiny committee (25 Mar 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2026
Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2026Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
It raised concerns about possible effects on children's rights, equal treatment and freedom of movement, and sought human rights legal advice on those issues.
Considered by scrutiny committee (1 Apr 2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 4 of 2026
Report 4 of 2026