← Back to home Browse all bills

Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences)

Current status

This bill became law on Feb 16th, 2023.

Policy area

Immigration, border & security

What does this bill do?

Combined prison sentences for multiple offences now count the same as a sentence for one offence across Australia’s migration laws and migration regulationsThe regulations that work with the Migration Act and are also updated so aggregate sentences count the same way there..

Why was it introduced?

The PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. court ruling exposed a gap in migration law by finding that one combined prison sentence for multiple offences did not count as a substantial criminal recordThe legal threshold that can make a person fail the character test, including a prison sentence of 12 months or more. for visa character decisions. This bill makes aggregate sentences count the same as single-offence sentences and validates earlier visa actions while preserving review and revocationA request to undo a visa cancellation, which some affected people can still seek even after the original deadline. rights.

Broader context

Australia’s migration character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. already allowed visas to be refused or cancelled for non-citizens with a substantial criminal recordThe legal threshold that can make a person fail the character test, including a prison sentence of 12 months or more., but the Full Federal CourtThe appeal court that decided Pearson and whose ruling the bill is designed to reverse.’s PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. ruling in December 2022 found that a single aggregate prison sentence for multiple offences did not count in the same way. The bill was introduced within weeks to restore the intended treatment of aggregate sentences across the Migration ActThe main law the bill changes, which sets the visa character rules and powers to refuse or cancel visas. and regulations, validate earlier decisions affected by the ruling, and preserve a path for affected people to seek merits reviewA fresh review of the decision itself, where a reviewer can look at the facts and law again and make a different outcome. or revocationA request to undo a visa cancellation, which some affected people can still seek even after the original deadline. after the law took effect.

Key criticism

Critics said the bill was an overreach that would override the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. ruling, retrospectively validate old visa cancellations, and risk putting people back into detention or removal processes unfairly. That case was raised mainly by crossbench and Greens speakers rather than the major parties, while the Coalition's reservations mostly argued the bill should go further instead.

Who supported it?

Senator Murray Watt introduced this bill. In the latest recorded vote on the bill in the House, support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Centre Alliance, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposition came from Greens, some crossbench members.

Introduced in Senate 07 Feb 2023
Passed Senate 09 Feb 2023
Passed House 13 Feb 2023
Became law 16 Feb 2023

Did it become law?

Yes

Became law 16 Feb 2023

Final passage

No counted final vote

2 recorded votes on the bill were found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.

Passage speed

9 days

From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

Meaning

What does this bill do?

  1. Combined prison sentences for multiple offences now count the same as a sentence for one offence across Australia’s migration laws and migration regulationsThe regulations that work with the Migration Act and are also updated so aggregate sentences count the same way there..

  2. A non-citizen who gets one combined prison sentence of 12 months or more for multiple offences can fail the character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. and may have a visa refused or cancelled.

  3. Earlier visa cancellations, refusals and related actions that may have been undermined by the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. court ruling are made lawful again, which can return some people to immigration detentionGovernment-held detention used when a non-citizen has no valid visa and is being processed for removal or another migration decision. and removal processes.

  4. People whose earlier visa decisions are validated keep a chance to seek review or ask for revocationA request to undo a visa cancellation, which some affected people can still seek even after the original deadline., even if the original deadline has already passed.

Show source excerpts
  1. The provisions of this Act and the regulations apply no differently in relation to a single sentence imposed by a court in respect of 2 or more offences to the way in which those provisions apply in relation to a sentence imposed by a court in respect of a single offence.
    Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 final Act text
  2. In the context of the character test in section 501 of the Migration Act, the amendments will make clear that a person who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more does not pass the character test on the basis of having a substantial criminal record within the meaning given by subsection 501(7) of the Migration Act, whether in relation to a sentence imposed by a court in respect of a single offence or two or more offences (an aggregate sentence). That outcome is intended regardless of whether the sentence was for one or more offences and regardless of the perceived seriousness of any individual offence.
    Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) explanatory memorandum
  3. The Bill will also validate (make lawful) past decisions and actions where they may have been deemed invalid as a consequence of the Pearson decision. Where this results in the person no longer holding a visa, and where relevant, the non-citizen has finished serving their criminal sentence, this will allow the Government to return these non-citizens to immigration detention in order to progress their removal from the country.
    Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) explanatory memorandum
  4. The Bill ensures that those persons whose previous visa decisions are validated by the Bill retain the ability to pursue or continue review and revocation avenues even if the relevant timeframes since their original decision have already passed.
    Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) explanatory memorandum

Context

Broader context for this bill

Australia’s migration character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. already allowed visas to be refused or cancelled for non-citizens with a substantial criminal recordThe legal threshold that can make a person fail the character test, including a prison sentence of 12 months or more., but the Full Federal CourtThe appeal court that decided Pearson and whose ruling the bill is designed to reverse.’s PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. ruling in December 2022 found that a single aggregate prison sentence for multiple offences did not count in the same way. The bill was introduced within weeks to restore the intended treatment of aggregate sentences across the Migration ActThe main law the bill changes, which sets the visa character rules and powers to refuse or cancel visas. and regulations, validate earlier decisions affected by the ruling, and preserve a path for affected people to seek merits reviewA fresh review of the decision itself, where a reviewer can look at the facts and law again and make a different outcome. or revocationA request to undo a visa cancellation, which some affected people can still seek even after the original deadline. after the law took effect.

  1. December 2022

    PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. ruling narrows how aggregate prison sentences count under migration law

    Speakers on the bill said the Full Federal CourtThe appeal court that decided Pearson and whose ruling the bill is designed to reverse. held in PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. that a single aggregate sentenceOne prison sentence that covers more than one offence, which this bill says should count the same as a sentence for one offence. for multiple offences did not itself amount to a substantial criminal recordThe legal threshold that can make a person fail the character test, including a prison sentence of 12 months or more. for character decisions.

    Hansard ↗
  2. 07 Feb 2023

    Government introduces a bill to reverse the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. effect

    The minister introduced the bill saying it would create a consistent approach to aggregate sentences across the Migration ActThe main law the bill changes, which sets the visa character rules and powers to refuse or cancel visas. and Migration RegulationsThe regulations that work with the Migration Act and are also updated so aggregate sentences count the same way there. for visa character decisions.

    Hansard ↗
  3. 07 Feb 2023

    Explanatory memorandum says earlier visa actions need validating

    The explanatory memorandum states the bill responds to PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. by making aggregate sentences count and by restoring the legal basis for earlier refusals, cancellations and related actions.

    Australian Parliament House ↗
  4. 13 Feb 2023

    Parliament passes the bill

    Both houses passed the bill in the same form within a week, showing bipartisan support for quickly restoring the intended operation of the character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history..

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  5. 16 Feb 2023

    Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act and brings the new law into force. makes the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. fix law

    Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act and brings the new law into force. turned the bill into an Act, allowing aggregate sentences of 12 months or more to count for character decisions again while affected people kept review or revocationA request to undo a visa cancellation, which some affected people can still seek even after the original deadline. opportunities.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

Legislative route

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 07 Feb 2023

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 07 Feb 2023

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 08 Feb 2023

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Senate second reading agreed Aye 39 No 11 08 Feb 2023

Recorded vote: 39 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

Committee of the Whole debate 08 Feb 2023

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Committee of the Whole debate 09 Feb 2023

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Senate third reading agreed 09 Feb 2023

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Introduced 09 Feb 2023

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 13 Feb 2023

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 13 Feb 2023

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

House second reading agreed 13 Feb 2023

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

Consideration in detail 13 Feb 2023

The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.

Consideration in detail debate

House third reading agreed 13 Feb 2023

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Passed both houses 13 Feb 2023

Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.

Finally passed both Houses

Assent 16 Feb 2023

The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act and brings the new law into force., turning the bill into an Act.

Key criticism

The main case against this bill

Critics said the bill was an overreach that would override the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. ruling, retrospectively validate old visa cancellations, and risk putting people back into detention or removal processes unfairly. That case was raised mainly by crossbench and Greens speakers rather than the major parties, while the Coalition's reservations mostly argued the bill should go further instead.

Opposition was limited and came mainly from the crossbench and Greens.

Retrospective re-detention and legal overreach

The main criticism was that the bill went beyond clarifying the law by retrospectively restoring past visa refusals and cancellations, which could send people back into immigration detentionGovernment-held detention used when a non-citizen has no valid visa and is being processed for removal or another migration decision. or removal processes after the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision. Critics argued the government should have used existing powers or appealed rather than legislating to undo the court's effect.

Raised by Zoe Daniel and Nick McKim Source ↗

Broader harm from expanded cancellation powers

Opponents warned that treating aggregate sentences as a trigger for visa cancellation would deepen an already harsh system and could hit vulnerable groups, including refugees, asylum seekers, family violence survivors and some New Zealand citizens. The concern was less about the policy goal of community safety than about widening ministerial power without enough safeguards or exceptions.

Raised by Nick McKim, with related concerns reflected in defeated crossbench amendments Source ↗

Further sources

parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗ parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗

Votes

Recorded votes

How the bill itself passed

The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.

Passed

Senate passed the bill

Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.

09 Feb 2023

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

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.

13 Feb 2023

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 cleared second reading

Aye 39 No 11

Passed 39 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.

08 Feb 2023

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 17 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 9 / 0
Liberal Party 8 / 0
Nationals 3 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
Carried

House kept aggregate-sentences bill intact

Aye 54 No 13

Passed 54 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Centre Alliance, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

13 Feb 2023

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 40 / 0
Unknown 7 / 6
Independent 2 / 6
Liberal Party 3 / 0
Greens 0 / 1
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Nationals 1 / 0

Amendments at a glance

Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.

House

Carried

Character-test expansion amendment defeated

Aye 88 No 56

Passed 88 to 56. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

13 Feb 2023

The vote defeated the proposed character-test expansion; the as-passed bill kept only the aggregate-sentences amendments.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 63 / 0
Unknown 17 / 24
Liberal Party 0 / 18
Nationals 0 / 11
Independent 6 / 2
Greens 1 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Katter's Australian Party 0 / 1
Carried

Protection-focused character amendment defeated

Aye 54 No 13

Passed 54 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

13 Feb 2023

The vote defeated the protection-focused proposal; it was not added to the bill that passed both houses.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 39 / 0
Unknown 7 / 6
Independent 2 / 6
Liberal Party 3 / 0
Nationals 2 / 0
Greens 0 / 1
Centre Alliance 1 / 0

Senate

Defeated

Expand visa cancellation grounds

Aye 28 No 35

Defeated 28 to 35. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Penny Allman-Payne (Greens) voted aye. Greens had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

08 Feb 2023

The amendment was defeated 35 to 28, so the bill kept the government's narrower aggregate-sentences approach.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 15
Liberal Party 15 / 0
Unknown 7 / 6
Greens 1 / 11
Nationals 4 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
Jacqui Lambie Network 0 / 1
One Nation 1 / 0
Defeated

Exclude protected people from character-test refusals

Senator David Pocock’s proposal was defeated on voices; it would have stopped certain character-test grounds from applying to people with protection findings, non-refoulement obligations, statelessness, or humanitarian visas.

Defeated on voices

The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.

Hansard record ↗

Defeated

Limit special-category visa changes for New Zealand citizens

The Jacqui Lambie Network proposal was defeated on voices; it would have made the new special-category-visa rules in the bill not apply when dealing with New Zealand citizens, including when granting the visa.

Defeated on voices

The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.

Hansard record ↗

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 Supports

Murray Watt

Australian Labor Party • Senator 07 Feb 2023

Watt supports the bill, saying it restores the intended meaning of sentence in the Migration ActThe main law the bill changes, which sets the visa character rules and powers to refuse or cancel visas. so aggregate sentences count for the character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. and visa cancellation rules.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead opposing voice Opposes

Nick McKim

Australian Greens • Senator 08 Feb 2023

Nick McKim opposes the bill, saying it rushes through new powers to make aggregate sentences a trigger for mandatory visa cancellation and to sidestep the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. court decision.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

James Stevens

Liberal Party • MP 13 Feb 2023

James Stevens says the coalition will support the bill because it clarifies ministerial power after the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision and restores the outcome he says Parliament intended.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Opposes

Zoe Daniel

Independent • MP 13 Feb 2023

Zoe Daniel says she does not support the bill in its current form because it is a blanket overreach that could lead to cruel, indefinite detention and retrospective re-detention of people after the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support

  1. Murray Watt ★ 2 contributions Watt supports the bill, saying it restores the intended meaning of sentence in the Migration ActThe main law the bill changes, which sets the visa character rules and powers to refuse or cancel visas. so aggregate sentences count for the character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. and visa cancellation rules.

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Murray Watt on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech Australian Labor Party • Senator • 07 Feb 2023

    Watt supports the bill, saying it restores the intended meaning of sentence in the Migration ActThe main law the bill changes, which sets the visa character rules and powers to refuse or cancel visas. so aggregate sentences count for the character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. and visa cancellation rules. He argues it is a necessary, common-sense response to the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision to keep the community safe and validate past decisions.

    “This Government is urgently addressing this situation through this Bill, by restoring the meaning of "sentence" in the Migration Act to the meaning that was understood prior to the Federal Court's decision in Pearson.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Australian Labor Party • Senator • 08 Feb 2023

    Watt supports the bill and says it is needed to keep Australians safe by clarifying that aggregate sentences count for migration character-test purposes. He argues it restores the long-held understanding of the law and protects visa-cancellation decisions already made against serious offenders.

    “This bill deserves support from all parts of this chamber, and I commend the bill to the Senate.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  2. Andrew Giles Giles supports the bill, saying it restores the long-held understanding that aggregate sentences count under the Migration ActThe main law the bill changes, which sets the visa character rules and powers to refuse or cancel visas. and fixes the inconsistency created by the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision.
    “The government is taking urgent commonsense action in order to keep our community safe. I commend the bill to the chamber.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 13 Feb 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Coalition

6 speakers · 7 contributions · 5 support · 1 mixed

  1. James Stevens ★ James Stevens says the coalition will support the bill because it clarifies ministerial power after the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision and restores the outcome he says Parliament intended.
    “We are, of course, going to support this bill. We look forward to its speedy passage because it does correct a decision. We would like to see the ministerial power be clarified and we want the minister to be able to take the action the minister took in the case of the Pearson matter.”

    Liberal Party • MP • 13 Feb 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. James Paterson James Paterson says the opposition will support the bill because it fixes how aggregate sentences are treated under the Migration ActThe main law the bill changes, which sets the visa character rules and powers to refuse or cancel visas. and aligns the law with the court decision in PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law..
    “I rise to make a contribution on the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023 and to indicate the opposition's position in relation to this bill, which is that we will be supporting it.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 08 Feb 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Michael McCormack 2 contributions McCormack says he will back the bill only because the opposition amendments will make it stronger, and he argues the bill as drafted does not go far enough on migration and national security.

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michael McCormack on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech National Party • MP • 13 Feb 2023

    McCormack says he will back the bill only because the opposition amendments will make it stronger, and he argues the bill as drafted does not go far enough on migration and national security. He wants the minister to have extra powers to consider the nature of a conviction before the bill can work properly.

    “I encourage members to support these amendments put forward by the member for Wannon. Our amendments are important. They are going to give the minister extra powers to be able to consider the factors in relation to the nature of the conviction, and that's what this bill is about. I appreciate that the bill has been put in here parliament with good intentions. I appreciate that the bill has been put before parliament with national security in mind. But I don't believe that the bill goes far enough. That's why, I know, the member for Wannon has come in with these amendments—to solidify the bill to make it better.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech National Party • MP • 13 Feb 2023

    McCormack says the opposition will support the bill because it removes uncertainty after the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision and helps ensure non-citizens who fail the character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. can have visas refused or cancelled. He also backs an amendment to improve how the bill works.

    “Following the Federal Court's decision in the Pearson case there is uncertainty surrounding the ability for the minister to cancel someone's visa based on how a court imposes a particular sentence. The opposition does support this bill. We feel it does bring clarity to the situation. But in the same instance I support the member for Wannon's amendment to make sure that this bill is better, to make sure that it serves the purpose in a better way. We know that Labor does not come to this place with a good record on migration. We absolutely want to make sure that there is clarity around this bill, to make sure that it works effectively and to make sure that people who are in this country pass the character test.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  4. Dan Tehan Dan Tehan says the opposition will support the bill because it corrects the Federal Court outcome in PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. and creates a more consistent sentencing approach, but he wants amendments to strengthen the character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. further.
    “The opposition will be supporting this bill but we will also be putting forward some amendments circulated in my name to strengthen it even further. The government has introduced the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023, which will amend the Migration Act 1958 to establish a consistent approach across the provisions of the Migration Act as well as the Migration Regulations 1994 in relation to sentencing for offences. As the minister has detailed, there has been bipartisan agreement for the approach that has been taken.”

    Liberal Party • MP • 13 Feb 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Jenny Ware Ware supports the bill and says it is a sensible fix to the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision that will restore clarity to visa-cancellation powers and help protect national security by keeping people with serious criminal records from remaining in Australia.
    “This bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to provide that, wherever reference is made to 'a sentence of imprisonment', it does not matter whether this sentence has been imposed with respect to one offence or multiple offences. This bill, therefore, is a sensible amendment to overcome some anomalies that developed out of the Pearson judgement. This bill will ensure that there is now far more clarity for the minister.”

    Liberal Party • MP • 13 Feb 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. David Gillespie Gillespie supports the bill and says it is needed to fix the effect of the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision so serious offenders can still fail the character testThe visa test that checks whether a non-citizen has a serious criminal or other disqualifying history. and face visa refusal or cancellation.
    “I rise in support of the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill, and I'd also like to acknowledge the amendments that have been moved by the member for Wannon, as I think they are sensible and would even strengthen the provisions of the bill.”

    National Party • MP • 13 Feb 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Greens

1 speaker · 1 oppose

  1. Nick McKim ★ Nick McKim opposes the bill, saying it rushes through new powers to make aggregate sentences a trigger for mandatory visa cancellation and to sidestep the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. court decision.
    “The fact that this bill is the first proposed legislative reform to the Migration Act is telling and concerning. It will bolster powers that have already harmed many of the most disadvantaged members of our communities, including refugees and people who are seeking asylum and victims-survivors of family violence. These powers already expose vulnerable people to the most severe consequences, including indefinite or arbitrary detention or being forced to return to harm. These powers will, and do, tear families apart.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 08 Feb 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Minor parties and independents

1 speaker · 1 oppose

  1. Zoe Daniel ★ Zoe Daniel says she does not support the bill in its current form because it is a blanket overreach that could lead to cruel, indefinite detention and retrospective re-detention of people after the PearsonThe Full Federal Court case that found an aggregate sentence did not count in the same way under the migration character rules before this bill changed the law. decision.
    “This bill though I think is an overreach and is at odds with that approach. I do not support it in its current form.”

    Independent • MP • 13 Feb 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Record

Full record

Full chat