The majority voted against amendments introduced by Curtin MP Kate Chaney (Independent), which means they were unsuccessful.
Ms Chaney explained the purpose of her amendments:
Firstly, as drafted, the bill allows the minister to restrict arrivals based on nothing more than a risk that a visa holder might overstay. This is an extremely low bar. Almost any unpredictable overseas development could be framed as an overstay risk, creating the potential for travel bans with little concrete evidence. My amendment removes this speculative limb and retains only the stronger, more principled threshold: would the visa have been granted had the current circumstances been known at the time? This is a more defensible standard. It ensures the power is used in genuine cases where the event is significant enough to change our temporary visa decisions. Broad overstay risk predictions are notoriously unreliable and can easily become a pretext for restricting travel from particular regions. A higher bar protects against this.
Secondly, the bill removes parliamentary disallowance for arrival control determinations. This means parliament would have no capacity to overturn an instrument that effectively suspends the rights of thousands of visa holders. That represents a profound concentration of executive power. These determinations operate as legislative instruments with the full force of the law. The idea that such decisions should be entirely insulated from parliamentary scrutiny is inconsistent with the basic principles of responsible government. My amendment restores disallowance. This does not impede swift action. Determinations take effect immediately, but it ensures parliament retains the ability to review and, if necessary, overturn them after the fact. That's entirely appropriate for powers of this scale.
Thirdly, the phrase 'event or circumstance' is the legal trigger for one of the most coercive powers in the migration system—the power to suspend visas on a broad class basis—yet the bill offers no definition of this phrase. As drafted, the trigger could encompass almost anything: diplomatic tensions, economic instability or foreign policy shifts. This is far too open ended. My amendment narrows the definition to the scenarios the provision is plainly designed for: conflicts, natural disasters and major global events that genuinely threaten the integrity of Australia's migration system. This introduces a necessary and proportionate boundary, ensuring the power is not invoked on an excessively broad or subjective basis.
Fourthly, the bill exempts spouses, de facto partners and dependent children from arrival control determinations but stops there. This creates a troubling gap. Consider a person whose elderly parent depends on them for care, or an adult sibling who is the sole remaining family connection in a crisis situation. Under the bill as drafted, these people are not exempt, and their visas can be suspended, stranding them abroad despite being part of an applicant's immediate family structure. My amendment expands the exemption to parents, siblings and step equivalents, aligning it with family definitions used in refugee, humanitarian and protection visa pathways, where we recognise that families are not always confined to the nuclear model.
Fifthly, section 84D(8) is an extraordinary provision. It states explicitly that the minister has no duty to even consider whether to issue a permitted travel certificate, even when someone has formally applied. This doesn't merely preserve discretion; it nullifies the right to apply altogether. My amendment removes this clause. It does not limit the minister's ability to refuse a certificate; it simply requires the minister to turn their mind to a request when one is formally made. This is a basic requirement of procedural fairness in the rule of law.
Lastly, under the bill, when a determination is lifted a visa comes back into effect, yet it may already have expired during the suspension period. My amendment would effectively pause the visa clock for the duration of the determination.
Amendment text
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 23 to 32), omit paragraph 84B(2)(b), substitute:
(b) if the event or circumstance had occurred, or had been occurring, at the time non-citizens of a kind to whom the determination is to apply were to make an application for a temporary visa, the visa may not have been granted; and
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection 84B(13).
(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of section 84B, add:
(14) In this section:
event or circumstance means a conflict, natural disaster or significant emergency which increases or is likely to increase the risk that certain classes of temporary visa holders will not depart Australia when their visas cease to be in effect.
(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 6), after "de facto partner", insert ", parent, sibling or step equivalent".
(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 18 to 21), omit subsection 84D(8).
(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 21 and 22), omit "at a particular time during the visa period for the visa if, at that time", substitute "if".
(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 28), after subsection 84E(2), insert:
(2A) If a temporary visa held by a non-citizen comes into effect again because of subsection (2), the visa is extended by a period equal to the period for which it ceased to be in effect under subsection (1).
Context written by
They Vote For You volunteers (ODbL), reproduced unchanged.