This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Immigration, border & security
People entering Australia would have to say on their incoming passenger cardThe form arriving travellers fill in at the border, which this bill would use to ask about recent overseas organ transplants. whether they had an organ transplant overseas in the past 5 years.
Australia had no reporting rules for arrivals who had organ transplants overseas, leaving the government without reliable data to monitor possible illegal or unethical transplants and related human rights abuses. The bill requires travellers to disclose recent overseas transplants and where they happened, and requires annual public reporting of country and city trends.
Australia had no rule requiring people arriving in the country to report recent organ transplants done overseas, leaving the government without reliable data to track possible links to organ traffickingIllegal trade in organs or in people for organ removal, which is the harmful conduct the bill says it is trying to help detect. and other serious human rights abuses. The bill responded by proposing border disclosure questions and annual public reporting, then the SenateThe chamber that amended the bill, including by removing the character-test changes and adding the review clause. narrowed it in August 2024 by dropping visa character-test changes and adding a three-year review before the measure ultimately lapsed at the dissolution of ParliamentThe point at which Parliament ends for an election, which caused this bill to lapse before it became law. in March 2025.
The main criticism was that the bill originally went too far by adding new visa character-test grounds when existing migration law already covered that area, creating unnecessary overreach beyond the transplant-disclosure scheme. That concern was raised by supportive senators including Dean Smith and the Greens, and it led to the character-test schedule being removed while support for the narrower disclosure rules remained.
Senator Dean Smith introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Liberal Party, Greens.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
645 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
People entering Australia would have to say on their incoming passenger cardThe form arriving travellers fill in at the border, which this bill would use to ask about recent overseas organ transplants. whether they had an organ transplant overseas in the past 5 years.
People who had an overseas organ transplant would also have to name the medical facility and give its country and town or city.
The Minister would have to table a yearly public report showing how many arrivals reported overseas organ transplants and which countries and cities were named.
The bill was amended to drop the visa character-test changes and instead require an independent reviewA formal outside check of how the new disclosure rules work, required after three years in the amended bill. of the new disclosure rules after 3 years.
The Bill amends the Migration Act to place new requirements on a person entering Australia to answer questions in their incoming passenger card regarding overseas organ transplants. They will need to declare whether they have received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last 5 years. If the person has received any organ transplants outside Australia within the last 5 years, they will be required to provide the name, and the place (as in the country, and the town or city) of the medical facility where each of those organ transplants took place.Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum
Paragraph 166A(1)(a) requires the person to disclose whether they have received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last 5 years. If the person has received such a transplant, the person would be required to answer 2 further questions. First, paragraph 166A(1)(b) requires the person to disclose the country, and the town or city, of the medical facility where each relevant organ transplant took place. Second, paragraph 166A(1)(c) requires the person to disclose the names of the medical facilities.Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum
The report will incorporate the number of answers during the previous calendar year indicating a person has received an organ transplant overseas within the last 5 years, and information on the town or city and countries identified in the responses, including the number of times each place was identified. It will not be required that the report prepared by the Minister identify the name of medical facilities where organ transplants have occurred.Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum
The government had two points of opposition with regard to this bill. One was that people might lie on the incoming arrival card. Actually, unfortunately, people might lie on a whole range of issues that they're asked to disclose on the existing passenger arrival card. I suspect that concern is actually not very real. Secondly, the government's objection was that it thought that schedule 2 of this bill was unnecessary because the character test arrangements, requirements and powers that already exist in the Migration Act will be sufficient. That's a fair point, and it's a point that I have listened to. That's why, in the committee stage of this bill, we'll be asked to deal with two amendments—just two. One is to follow Senator Scarr's advice about a statutory review mechanism that would be in place that will allow an independent person to report to the minister on the operation of the scheme after three years. That is just good public policy. That's not revolutionary. But, having looked closely at the evidence that was provided to us in the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and having listened closely to Senator Ciccone's contribution in the second reading debate just recently, the second amendment will be to remove schedule 2. The existing arrangements in the Migration Act more than adequately deal with matters around character and cancellation.Second reading speech
Context
Australia had no rule requiring people arriving in the country to report recent organ transplants done overseas, leaving the government without reliable data to track possible links to organ traffickingIllegal trade in organs or in people for organ removal, which is the harmful conduct the bill says it is trying to help detect. and other serious human rights abuses. The bill responded by proposing border disclosure questions and annual public reporting, then the SenateThe chamber that amended the bill, including by removing the character-test changes and adding the review clause. narrowed it in August 2024 by dropping visa character-test changes and adding a three-year review before the measure ultimately lapsed at the dissolution of ParliamentThe point at which Parliament ends for an election, which caused this bill to lapse before it became law. in March 2025.
Bill introduced to create border disclosure of overseas organ transplants
Senator Dean Smith introduced the bill to make incoming travellers disclose recent overseas organ transplants and help Australia gather data about possible organ traffickingIllegal trade in organs or in people for organ removal, which is the harmful conduct the bill says it is trying to help detect. links.
Parliamentary timeline ↗SenateThe chamber that amended the bill, including by removing the character-test changes and adding the review clause. debate focuses on using travel disclosures to expose organ harvesting risks
During resumed second reading debate, senators argued the bill would give Australia a practical way to identify patterns in overseas transplants tied to illegal organ harvesting and human rights abuses.
Hansard ↗SenateThe chamber that amended the bill, including by removing the character-test changes and adding the review clause. passes the bill after removing visa character-test changes
The SenateThe chamber that amended the bill, including by removing the character-test changes and adding the review clause. agreed to amendments that dropped the visa cancellation and refusal provisions, kept the disclosure and reporting scheme, and added an independent reviewA formal outside check of how the new disclosure rules work, required after three years in the amended bill. after three years.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Amended bill is introduced in the House of RepresentativesThe other chamber of Parliament, where the amended bill was sent next after passing the Senate.
After clearing the SenateThe chamber that amended the bill, including by removing the character-test changes and adding the review clause., the narrower bill moved to the House for the next stage of its passage.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill lapses at the dissolution of ParliamentThe point at which Parliament ends for an election, which caused this bill to lapse before it became law.
The proposal did not become law, so Australia remained without the new arrival reporting and annual publication scheme for overseas organ transplant disclosures.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (09/11/2023): SenateThe chamber that amended the bill, including by removing the character-test changes and adding the review clause. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (14/05/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill originally went too far by adding new visa character-test grounds when existing migration law already covered that area, creating unnecessary overreach beyond the transplant-disclosure scheme. That concern was raised by supportive senators including Dean Smith and the Greens, and it led to the character-test schedule being removed while support for the narrower disclosure rules remained.
No significant broader case against the final disclosure scheme is recorded so far.
Unnecessary visa-character expansion
Critics of the bill's original draft argued the new character-test provisions were unnecessary because the Migration ActThe main law this bill would change to add the new disclosure rule and, in the original draft, the visa character-test change. already gave decision-makers powers to deal with serious misconduct, so this part risked legal overreach unrelated to the bill's main disclosure purpose.
Further sources
Votes
These amendments were agreed on the voices without a counted division.
Senate
This amendment would delete the bill’s character testThe visa screen that lets the Minister refuse or cancel a visa if a person is linked to serious conduct; the bill originally added organ trafficking to it. amendments from Schedule 2The part of the bill that dealt with the original visa character-test changes, which was later removed from the narrower version..
This amendment would delete the bill’s character testThe visa screen that lets the Minister refuse or cancel a visa if a person is linked to serious conduct; the bill originally added organ trafficking to it. amendments from Schedule 2The part of the bill that dealt with the original visa character-test changes, which was later removed from the narrower version..
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
This amendment would insert a clause requiring an independent reviewA formal outside check of how the new disclosure rules work, required after three years in the amended bill. of the Act’s amendments three years after commencement, with a report tabled in Parliament.
This amendment would insert a clause requiring an independent reviewA formal outside check of how the new disclosure rules work, required after three years in the amended bill. of the Act’s amendments three years after commencement, with a report tabled in Parliament.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Dean Smith supports the bill as a practical way to help disrupt illegal organ harvesting, but says he will move amendments to add a three-year review and remove schedule 2The part of the bill that dealt with the original visa character-test changes, which was later removed from the narrower version. because the existing Migration ActThe main law this bill would change to add the new disclosure rule and, in the original draft, the visa character-test change. character powers already cover that ground.
Read in Hansard ↗Shoebridge says the Greens will support the bill after the objectionable character-test schedule is removed, because they see the passenger-card disclosure measures as a useful step against unethical organ transplant tourismTravelling overseas to get a transplant, often in places where the transplant system may involve exploitation or poor oversight..
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“Before the Senate at the moment is a very necessary, timely, practical and least intrusive method to improve Australia's ability to interrupt the illegal organ harvesting trade throughout the world.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I can indicate, on behalf of the Greens, that we think this is a step forward. We think it's an act of global decency. We think it's the kind of action that Australia should take. The argument against it that not everybody will honestly fill in a passenger card is hardly a reason not to support this, if for no other fact than it's an offence to falsely fill in a passenger card. If that is the only basis upon which we can hold people to account for unethical organ transplants, well that, too, is a step forward in accountability.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
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
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 · Lapsed at dissolution
Lapsed at dissolution
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (14/05/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (9 Nov 2023): Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (14 May 2024)
APH bill page notes
