Monique Ryan
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 23), omit "one or".
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "may", substitute "would".
(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "would".
The crossbench received this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, five minutes before the government briefed us yesterday morning—five minutes! The government introduced this legislation to the House one hour later. Members of the crossbench sought the call during the second reading to raise our significant concerns about it, but the government denied us the opportunity to speak. This bill was drafted for introduction only 10 days after the war began in Iran. The explanatory memorandum claims that this bill is designed to maintain the integrity of our migration system. Integrity requires proper consultation, transparency and debate, none of which have occurred on this bill. If the government is serious about integrity, it should start by upholding the integrity of this parliament and of our legislative processes.
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.
There are still significant issues with the drafting of this legislation. I'm concerned that the government's arrival control determinations are not disallowable instruments; they should be. They will not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; they should be. I'm concerned that the minister can re-issue control determinations seemingly indefinitely. That is wrong. There is no upper limit on the number of times a class of temporary visitors might have their visas suspended. That shows contempt to people who have legally obtained temporary visas to visit this country. It means that those offshore who already have a valid visa may be deprived of any possibility of ever entering this country. Just think about the individuals affected by that. And there's no sunset clause on this bill, which would be a very appropriate parliamentary safeguard for legislation which has been rushed through to this extent.
We know what has prompted this legislation. Today there are more than 7,000 Iranians holding visitor visas. Many of them cannot safely return or remain home due to ongoing conflict and instability in their country—conflict and instability to which we are potentially contributing. Under this bill, their temporary visas, which they have obtained validly, often at considerable personal cost, could be suspended overnight. These are people who have already spent years waiting for the chance to visit family or to reunite with their loved ones, yet this temporary visa subclass 449 followed by a temporary humanitarian concern visa subclass 786 approach has removed the dignity and integrity from our migration regime.
Instead, today, thousands of people who are overseas face the prospect that their already granted visas may be rendered unusable overnight, sometimes in circumstances where they don't feel that they can safely return home. If the government is committed to integrity in our migration regime, it should commit to special migration arrangements to those who are affected by this bill.
Julian Hill
I'll just address the new issues raised, because some of it goes to matters which I've addressed on the previous amendment, and we don't want to become the goldfish going round in the bowl, repeating ourselves all morning. I'll just address one procedural point. I wrote down the words; I think I got them right. The member indicated that the crossbench had been 'denied the call' yesterday. I'll just make the point that I don't think that's fair or accurate. There was none of the crossbench in the chamber when the bill was debated. No-one was denied the call; it moved on.
Hon. Members
Honourable members interjecting—
Julian Hill
Well, I make the point: we could've moved the third reading yesterday, and the bill would've been in the Senate by now. We're here debating it in good faith, but I just need to correct the record: no-one was denied the call. You were not in the chamber.
I do appreciate the genuine concern and intent, and I'll just address the new issue raised. The first amendment would require the minister to be reasonably satisfied of both criteria in b(i) and b(ii). By itself, that would require the minister to be reasonably satisfied both that a noncitizen of the kind specified and an instrument may overstay and, if the event had been occurring when the visa application was made, the visa may not have been granted. But, when coupled with the next two amendments, it would render the provision practically and likely unworkable. Changing 'may' to 'would' in (i) and (ii) would lift the threshold for the test to a definitive view—that is, the noncitizen would overstay and the visa would not have been granted. At the very best you could say that would require a high degree of fact finding and evidence re individuals to be put to the minister. But, in practical terms, as I made the point in the previous amendment commentary, that's a threshold which is rarely if ever passed in any visa grant. Every visa that the Department of Home Affairs grants—literally millions and millions a year for people to come and go in a globalised economy and society—relies on a risk based judgement about the likelihood of someone overstaying.
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.
Marion Scrymgour
Member for Clark.
Andrew Wilkie
I'm sure the minister wasn't deliberately misleading the House, but I just would remind the minister that I was present for the debate yesterday.
Elizabeth Watson-Brown
We have to really ask the question, as we're debating this migration amendment bill: who is really benefiting from the war in Iran? It's not you or me or working Australians. It's not the Australian military personnel who will be deployed to the UAE. And it's certainly not the people of Iran. It's indefensible that Australia will help extend this war by sending military personnel and weapons of war to the Middle East, while simultaneously closing the door to anyone left stranded as a result.
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.
My heart goes out to the Australian military personnel who'll be deployed in the UAE. My heart goes out to every person left stranded, and abandoned, by the Australian government. And my heart goes out to the people of Iran, who are paying the cost of this war. If you thought this war was about protecting the people of Iran, here is the clearest example that that is a lie. Labor is actively working against the safety of people from Iran. The cost of this war is not borne by the people who started it. It's not borne by politicians. It's not borne by corporations, billionaires and weapons manufacturers, who will actually profit from it. It's borne by everyday working people.
Milton Dick
The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.
Summary
Date and time: 10:10 AM on 2026-03-11
Allegra Spender's vote: Aye
Total number of "aye" votes: 7
Total number of "no" votes: 84
Total number of abstentions: 59
Related bill: Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026
Adapted from information made available by theyvoteforyou.org.au