Key points

• The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 (the Bill) amends the Migration Act 1958 with regard to provisions introduced by two Acts passed in late 2024 principally concerning the removal of certain non-citizens from Australia under ‘third country reception arrangements’.
• ‘Natural justice’, often used synonymously with ‘procedural fairness’, affords a person certain procedural rights in relation to decisions made, or actions taken, that affect that person’s rights or interests.
• Currently under the Migration Act, rules of natural justice do not apply to a range of actions including certain visa cancellations. The Bill specifies additional provisions where the rules of natural justice will not apply. These are:
  • in relation to third country reception arrangements
  • certain decisions made regarding the collection, use and disclosure of information, including criminal history information and
  • ministerial directions given to removal pathway non-citizens.
• Additionally, the Bill validates relevant visa decisions made prior to NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37.
• Noting responses to the previous legislation, stakeholders are likely to raise significant objections to the present Bill on the grounds of human rights concerns.
• At the time of writing, the Bill had not been referred to or reported on by any parliamentary committees.

Introductory Info

Date of introduction: 26 August 2025
House introduced in: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Home Affairs
Commencement: Schedule 1 commences on the day after Royal Assent

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958 to expedite removal of non-citizens who are at the final stage of the removal process by clarifying that rules of natural justice do not apply in certain circumstances. The Bill also validates previous relevant visa decisions, which may have been impacted by the High Court’s decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 (NZYQ).

Structure of the Bill

The Bill consists of a single Schedule. Division 1 of Part 1 of the Schedule inserts amendments into the Migration Act, principally proposed section 198AHAA to provide that the rules of natural justice do not apply in relation to third country reception arrangements as set out in section 198AHB.

Division 2 of Part 1 provides for definitions, the application of the proposed amendments in Division 1, and the validation of certain things done in relation to third country reception arrangements.

Part 2 provides for the validation of certain visa decisions made before the High Court of Australia made its orders in relation to NZYQ which found that indefinite immigration detention was unconstitutional because it was punitive.

Background

Previous legislation

The Bill amends the Migration Act with regard to certain provisions introduced by two Acts passed in November 2024 which had effect from 4 December 2024 – the Migration Amendment Act 2024 and the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Act 2024.

The Migration Amendment Act 2024 amended the Migration Act to introduce new measures for removing certain non-citizens from Australia. This included enabling the government to take action regarding ‘third country reception arrangements’ to facilitate the removal of non-citizens to a foreign country (new section 198AHB). New section 76AAA provided that where a Bridging (Removal Pending) visa (BVR) holder is granted permission to enter and remain in a foreign country subject to these arrangements, their visa is ceased in order to facilitate their removal. The Migration Amendment Act also introduced to the Migration Act the definition of a ‘removal pathway non‑citizen’ (subsection 5(1)), being ‘an unlawful non‑citizen who is required to be removed from Australia under section 198 as soon as reasonably practicable’ or certain lawful non-citizens holding specified types of visa.

The Migration Amendment Act was part of a series of legislative responses set in the context of the High Court of Australia’s judgment in NZYQ, which found that indefinite immigration detention was unconstitutional because it was punitive. A person cannot therefore continue to be held in immigration detention if there is no real prospect of their removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.

See the Bills Digest for the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 for the background and context for the amendments.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights both reported concerns with the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, including its engagement with multiple human rights. Relevantly for the present Bill, the concerns included insufficient safeguards regarding the disclosure of criminal history information, including to foreign countries; the operation of third country reception arrangements; natural justice and procedural fairness; and retrospective validation regarding disclosures of criminal history information. The Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also stated concerns that there had not been sufficient time for the necessary high level of scrutiny required when considering legislation that may trespass on personal rights and liberties (p. 69).

The Migration Amendment Bill 2024 was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 19 November 2024 and provided its report on 26 November 2024. Chapter 2 of the report summarises stakeholder responses to the Bill and the responses of the Department of Home Affairs to significant concerns they raised.

The Committee recommended that the Senate pass the Bill, while noting that it:

… acknowledges the concerns raised in relation to Australia’s human rights obligations, including by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the potential impact of the Bill on specific individuals and communities. (p. 23)

Coalition Senators provided additional comments, noting that while they supported the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, they held concerns about ‘rushed process and limited time for parliamentary scrutiny, which increases the risk of unintended consequences and drafting errors in the legislation’ (p. 25). The Australian Greens provided a dissenting report recommending that the Bill not be passed and pointing to concerns raised in submissions to the inquiry including around the third country reception arrangements (p. 33–35).

The Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Act 2024 introduced measures to allow the Minister to issue written directions to a ‘removal pathway non-citizen’ to do certain things to facilitate their removal from Australia (section 199C).

The Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 was introduced and passed the House on 26 March 2024 and was introduced to the Senate on 27 March 2024.

The Government intended to pass the Removals Bill in the week it was introduced; however, it was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry with the support of the Opposition and the crossbench. The committee tabled its report on 7 May 2024. While the Committee recommended that the Bill be passed, Coalition Senators who participated in the inquiry, the Australian Greens and Senator David Pocock all prepared dissenting reports.

The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (pp. 2–9) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (pp. 16–43) both noted a range of issues with the scope, provisions and speed of anticipated passage of the Removals Bill.

See the Bills Digest for the Removals Bill for further background.

The Removals Bill proceeded to the second reading debate in the Senate on 28 November 2024 and finally passed both houses on 29 November with government amendments.

Subsequent arrangements

In a media conference on 16 February 2025, Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke stated that:

After I’d introduced that Migration Amendment Bill to the Parliament, the Government of Nauru approached Australia, while the legislation was in Parliament, with an interest in forming an arrangement with Australia where they would decide as a sovereign nation who they might want to issue a visa to.

The Minister also announced Nauru had issued 30-year visas to 3 people then on BVRs, which allowed for the cancellation of the BVRs and the taking of the 3 into immigration detention. The government intended to remove the 3 people to Nauru ‘as soon as possible’.

Communications between the governments of Australia and Nauru are detailed in Federal Court decision of TCXM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] (paragraphs 39–65). This covers interim arrangements between Australia and Nauru concerning a ‘third country reception arrangement’ under section 198AHB of the Migration Act (see in particular paragraph 43) and Nauru’s grant of the visas to the 3 BVR holders.

The BVRs were automatically ceased under section 76AAA of the Migration Act, whereby the holder was notified of the grant of a visa for another country party to a third country reception arrangement (Nauru). The former BVR holders, no longer having a valid Australian visa, could therefore be taken into immigration detention with a reasonable prospect of removal from Australia (consistent with the decision in NZYQ).

Legal challenges began shortly afterwards and the removals were put on hold. Stakeholders including the Human Rights Commissioner raised concerns with the new Nauru arrangement.

The Court in TCXM found in favour of the government, holding that the relevant powers under the Migration Act were ‘not conditioned by an obligation to afford the applicant procedural fairness’ (paragraph 17).

However, on 6 August 2025, the Human Rights Law Centre, which is representing one of the 3 former BVR holders, stated in a media release that the United Nations Human Rights Committee had made an order to the Australian Government to not remove the person while it investigated the case.

On 29 August 2025, Minister Burke issued a media release stating that he had signed a memorandum of understanding with the President of Nauru David Adeang for Nauru to receive ‘people who have no legal right to stay in Australia’. The statement noted that the arrangement contained ‘undertakings for the proper treatment and long-term residence’ of people to be granted visas for Nauru. It also stated that Australia would provide funding to Nauru under the arrangement. A media article on 30 August 2025 stated that, according to a transcript of proceedings in the Nauru Parliament, ‘Australia committed an upfront $408 million to Nauru, and will keep paying about $70 million each year to cover the ongoing costs of resettlement’.

Advocacy groups led by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre issued a media statement on 30 August 2025 criticising the announcement.

Policy position of non-government parties/independents and major interest groups

The Australian Greens issued a media release on 26 August 2025 criticising the Bill, particularly the removal of natural justice.

The Coalition has not indicated a position on the Bill as at the time of writing. A media article of 28 August 2025 quotes Opposition Leader Sussan Ley as stating of the Bill: ‘It’s rushed, it’s secretive, it’s chaotic’; however, the article adds that ‘the bill is likely to pass with the Coalition’s support in the Senate’.

The Greens moved an amendment to the motion to adopt the Selection of Bills Committee Report no. 5 of 2025 to have the Bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025. The amendment was negatived, with Coalition senators joining the Government to vote against it.

Noting responses to the previous legislation, major interest groups are likely to raise significant objections to the present Bill on the grounds of human rights concerns. At the time of writing, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (along with the Refugee Advice and Casework Service and the Human Rights Law Centre), Liberty Victoria and the Human Rights Commissioner had issued media releases stating concerns with the Bill.

Key issues and provisions

What is ‘natural justice’?

‘Natural justice’ generally affords a person certain procedural rights ‘when a decision is made that affects a person’s rights, interests or legitimate expectations’ (see the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) at 15.1). In administrative law matters, natural justice generally has 2 limbs (see for example ALRC at 15.9–15.19), being requirements that:

15.10 […] a decision-maker inform a person of the case against them, provide them with an opportunity to be heard, and prior notice of a decision that adversely affects their interests [often referred to as the fair hearing rule] […]

15.14 […] a decision-maker must not be biased or be seen by an informed observer to be biased in any way [often referred to as the rule against bias].

The notion of natural justice is often used interchangeably with ‘procedural fairness’. For instance, the Explanatory Memorandum (p. 22) interchangeably refers to natural justice and procedural fairness.

In the case of Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (2010), the High Court of Australia unanimously held that:

… it can now be taken as settled that when a statute confers power to destroy, defeat or prejudice a person’s rights, interests or legitimate expectations, principles of natural justice generally regulate the exercise of that power. [74]

However, this is generally the case unless legislation explicitly precludes the rules of natural justice applying. As the ALRC (14.15) has stated, ‘[a] duty to afford procedural fairness may be excluded by legislation’. The High Court has also stated in Annetts v McCann (1990) that the rules of natural justice must apply ‘unless they are excluded by plain words of necessary intendment’ (emphasis added). Where legislation clearly stipulates that rules of natural justice do not apply, individuals affected by impacted provisions will not possess certain procedural rights.

Natural justice currently does not apply to some areas under the Migration Act

Currently, the rules of natural justice do not apply to a range of issues contained within the Migration Act. This means that individuals are unable to bring claims to challenge certain decisions on natural justice grounds. Such provisions where natural justice rights have already been removed include:

• notices given to non-citizens in relation to certain bridging visas (subsection 76AAA(5) and decisions to grant such visas section 76E)
• cancellation of visas under:
  • section 109 (as outlined in subsection 133A(4)) or
  • section 116 (as outlined in subsection 133C(4))
• designation (and revocation) of a country as a regional processing country (subsection 198AB(7))
• taking unauthorised maritime arrivals to regional processing countries (subsection 198AD(9)) and
• refusal or cancellation of visas on certain character grounds (subsection 501(5)).

What new actions will natural justice not apply to?

The Bill proposes that natural justice does not apply to the ‘final steps in the removal process’ (Minister’s second reading speech, p. 1). The Minister justified removal of procedural fairness rights for certain impacted provisions in his second reading speech (p. 1):

Procedural fairness is a fundamental principle in many areas of decision-making. However, these provisions can and are being used by noncitizens to delay and frustrate their removal, at cost to the Commonwealth in circumstances where it is neither necessary nor appropriate for it to continue to apply.

Third country reception arrangements

The government, through its executive power, can enter third country reception arrangements with a foreign country in relation to the removal of non‑citizens from Australia. If the government does so, section 198AHB of the Migration Act stipulates what actions the Commonwealth can take.

In the recent case of TCXM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 540, the Court held that actions and things done in relation to third country reception arrangements are not conditional on an obligation to afford procedural fairness to an affected person (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 3).

This Bill makes clear that the rules of natural justice do not apply to the exercise of the government’s executive or statutory powers in relation to third country reception arrangements (proposed section 198AHAA, item 3, Schedule 1). In practice, this means individuals will be unable to request review of decisions relating to the Commonwealth entering into a third country reception arrangement with a foreign country, anything preparatory to entering into such arrangement, or anything done in relation to such an arrangement, on the basis of non-compliance with natural justice rules, irrespective of whether such things are done by exercise of executive power or relevant statutory power (proposed subsections 198AHAA(1) - (3)).

Item 10 of Schedule 1 provides that certain actions relating to third country reception arrangements are held to be valid, and to have always been valid .

Collection, use and disclosure of information

Currently, the Minister or an officer of the department may collect, use, or disclose information to the government of a foreign country, for a relevant purpose relating to the removal of removal pathway non-citizens from Australia (section 198AAA, Migration Act). Item 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill inserts proposed subsection 198AAA(5A) to state that the rules of natural justice do not apply to an exercise of power under section 198AAA. In practice, this means that individuals will not be able to request review of dealings with information (including personal information) for purposes set out in subsection 198AAA(2),  including in relation to payments made in relation to a third country reception arrangement, or in relation to third country reception functions (as defined in subsection 198AHB(5)) on the basis of non-compliance with natural justice rules.

Additionally, item 7 of Schedule 1 provides that the rules of natural justice do not apply to the collection, use and disclosure of criminal history information in compliance with section 501M of the Migration Act. Such criminal history information can be shared so long as it is in relation to the performance of a function or the exercise of a power under the Migration Act or relevant regulations.

Item 10 of Schedule 1 states that exercise of powers under sections 198AAA and 501M are held to be valid, and to have always been valid.

Minister giving removal pathway directions

Currently, section 199C of the Migration Act provides that the Minister may provide directions to a removal pathway non‑citizen to do certain things, including:

• complete, sign and apply for relevant travel related documents
• provide specified documents or information to an officer
• attend an interview or appointment with an officer.

Item 6 of Schedule 1 provides that the rules of natural justice will not apply to section 199C, meaning individuals given such directions will be unable to challenge the directions on the basis of non-compliance with natural justice rules.

Item 10 of Schedule 1 states that exercise of powers under section 199C are held to be valid, and to have always been valid.

Relevant visa decisions made before NZYQ are held to be valid

Relevant visa decisions made on or before 8 November 2023 (being the date the High Court made orders in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37)) are held to be valid (item 11, Schedule 1). A relevant visa decision is a decision made to do one of the following things:

• grant a visa
• impose, or not impose, a condition on a visa
• waive a condition on a visa
• refuse to grant a visa
• cancel a visa or
• refuse to revoke the cancellation of a visa.

Such visa decisions are taken to be valid and to have always been valid (subitem 12(2), Schedule 1).

The recent Full Federal Court case of AJN23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 103 set aside a decision of the Minister to refuse the appellant's protection visa, on the basis that the Minister’s decision (which was made before the NZYQ judgment was handed down by the High Court) was materially affected by an incorrect understanding of the law.

Part 2 of Schedule 1 intends to ensure that past visa decisions are not invalidated on the ground identified in AJN23. This covers relevant visa decisions that would be wholly or partly invalid only because they were made, or purportedly made, on the understanding of the Migration Act following the decision in Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37, which was overturned by NZYQ (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 3).