Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025

Stage by Stage

Summaries in reported speech - not a transcript. In date order, both chambers.

1. Tuesday 26 August 2025 · House of Representatives

   Second Reading

   The debate concerned amendments to the Migration Act aimed at facilitating the removal of noncitizens with no lawful basis to remain in Australia. The government argued that procedural fairness provisions were being used to delay removals and sought to exclude them from specific removal pathway actions. The bill also included validation provisions to uphold past visa decisions affected by legal uncertainty following the High Court's NZYQ decision. As no other members spoke, the debate concluded with the motion being moved by the Minister.

   Outcome: The debate was adjourned after the Minister moved the second reading.

   Read the full summary

2. Monday 1 September 2025 · House of Representatives

   Reference to Committee

   The debate centred on a motion moved by Kate Chaney to refer the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for scrutiny. Independent members argued the bill was rushed, lacked consultation, and raised serious concerns regarding retrospective validation of decisions and the removal of procedural fairness safeguards for a broad group of noncitizens. They highlighted potential impacts on up to 80,000 people and significant costs associated with deportations to Nauru. The government, represented by Andrew Charlton, opposed the referral, stating that the committee already performs standard scrutiny of all bills. The motion was defeated by a vote of 9 to 72.

   Outcome: The motion to refer the bill to the committee was defeated by a vote of 9 to 72.

   Read the full summary

3. Tuesday 2 September 2025 · House of Representatives

   Reference to Federation Chamber
   See who spoke

4. Tuesday 2 September 2025 · House of Representatives

   Second Reading

   The debate centred on legislation designed to facilitate the removal of noncitizens from the NZYQ cohort to third countries, primarily Nauru, by removing procedural fairness requirements and retrospectively validating previous visa decisions. The Shadow Minister for Home Affairs supported the bill as a necessary measure to address public safety risks and legal uncertainties following the NZYQ High Court ruling. In contrast, all crossbench members opposed the bill, citing concerns over the erosion of natural justice, the rushed legislative process, the high financial cost of the Nauru arrangement, and potential breaches of international human rights obligations. No government minister spoke during the debate.

   Outcome: The transcript does not state the final voting result of the bill.

   Read the full summary

5. Tuesday 2 September 2025 · House of Representatives

   Third Reading
   See who spoke

6. Tuesday 2 September 2025 · Senate

   First Reading

   The debate concerned the procedural motion to allow the bill to proceed without formalities. Senator Shoebridge opposed the motion, arguing it bypassed natural justice and silenced community voices regarding asylum seeker rights. Senator Ayres moved the motion and later moved for it to be put. The Greens sought to divide the question to speak on the procedural aspect but ultimately withdrew the request, rejecting the idea of proceeding without formalities.

   Outcome: The transcript does not state the final result of the vote.

   Read the full summary

7. Wednesday 3 September 2025 · Senate

   First Reading
   See who spoke

8. Wednesday 3 September 2025 · Senate

   Second Reading

   The debate concerned amendments to the Migration Act aimed at facilitating the removal of non-citizens who have exhausted visa processes. The government argued that procedural fairness provisions were being used to delay removals and sought to exclude them from specific removal pathway actions. The bill also included validation provisions to uphold past visa decisions affected by legal uncertainty following the High Court's NZYQ decision. The debate was adjourned without a final vote recorded in the transcript.

   Outcome: The debate was adjourned.

   Read the full summary

9. Thursday 4 September 2025 · Senate

   In Committee

   The debate focused on coalition amendments aimed at lowering the legal threshold for community safety detention orders and closing loopholes in mandatory sentencing for serious criminals. Senator Cash argued that the current legislative bar is too high, preventing the government from detaining individuals in the NZYQ cohort who pose a risk to public safety. She highlighted that no preventative detention orders had been applied for despite the presence of serious offenders in the community. The amendments sought to clarify legal standards to enable courts to issue detention orders more readily and ensure mandatory sentences are not suspended.

   Read the full summary

10. Thursday 4 September 2025 · Senate

    Limitation of Debate

    The Senate concluded debate on the bill after the allotted time expired. The Australian Greens moved several amendments to Schedule 1, specifically targeting items 9 and 10. The Liberal Party opposed these changes, arguing for the bill to stand as printed. The amendments were put to the vote, with some passing and others failing.

    Outcome: Division 11 failed, Division 12 passed, Division 13 failed, and Division 14 passed.

    Read the full summary

11. Thursday 4 September 2025 · Senate

    Second Reading

    The Senate debated the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, which aims to streamline the removal of non-citizens by excluding procedural fairness obligations for third-country reception arrangements and validating certain visa decisions. The Coalition supported the bill's principles regarding procedural fairness but criticised the government's lack of transparency and community safety measures, particularly concerning the NZYQ cohort and a controversial agreement with Nauru. The Greens strongly opposed the legislation, arguing it stripped fundamental rights and facilitated deportations to unsafe conditions. The bill passed the second reading with a vote of 27 to 13.

    Outcome: The bill passed the second reading with a division of 27 votes in favour and 13 against.

    Read the full summary