Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Shoebridge opposed the bill, arguing it blocked 7,200 Iranian visa holders from seeking protection from conflict. Shoebridge criticised the government for supporting military action in Iran while simultaneously preventing refugees from entering Australia. Shoebridge claimed the legislation was driven by political pressure from One Nation and reflected a lack of decency towards people seeking asylum. Shoebridge noted that limited family exemptions existed but argued that offshore humanitarian claims were not a viable alternative for those in Iran.

Thorpe opposed the bill, characterising it as a racist policy that targeted black, brown, Muslim, and Arab people. Thorpe argued that the government was complicit in creating a refugee crisis through its support for military actions in the Middle East and then refusing to accept those displaced. Thorpe claimed the legislation gave sweeping powers to the minister based on suspicion and would be weaponised against specific communities. Thorpe foreshadowed moving a second reading amendment to condemn the bill.

Waters opposed the legislation, describing it as a cynical move that shut the door on thousands of visa holders while the government highlighted isolated humanitarian gestures. Waters argued that the bill granted a blank cheque to the minister to cancel visas without sufficient oversight. Waters questioned the consistency of the government's approach, noting the disparity between the response to the Ukraine conflict and the current measures regarding Iran. Waters warned that the powers could be expanded to other regions, such as Lebanon.

Pocock opposed the bill, citing concerns about the breadth of executive powers and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny due to the rushed timeline. Pocock argued that the legislation concentrated too much discretion in the minister's hands without adequate safeguards or review mechanisms. Pocock foreshadowed moving amendments to strengthen preconditions for determinations, ensure natural justice, and provide compensation for affected individuals. Pocock highlighted the inconsistency in Australia's humanitarian responses to different global conflicts.

Faruqi opposed the bill, arguing it entrenched a cruel double standard and targeted Muslim communities. Faruqi claimed the legislation was a Trump-style Muslim ban disguised as border integrity measures. Faruqi moved a second reading amendment calling on the government to increase the annual humanitarian quota to a minimum of 27,000 spots. Faruqi criticised the government for supporting military campaigns while preventing refugees from seeking safety in Australia.

Hodgins-May opposed the bill, arguing it was a cynical attempt to appease One Nation and hide the government's role in creating conflict. Hodgins-May claimed the legislation prevented people with valid visas from entering Australia for family events or work. Hodgins-May criticised the government for prioritising political optics over humanitarian obligations and international law. Hodgins-May argued that protection should not depend on public profile or media attention.

Payman moved a second reading amendment condemning the legislation for granting extraordinary powers to the minister to prevent black, brown, Muslim, and Arab people from entering Australia. Payman argued that the bill terminated basic parliamentary safeguards such as sunset clauses and scrutiny powers. The amendment was negated by the Senate.

Tyrrell moved a second reading amendment condemning the legislation for granting extraordinary powers to stop those escaping conflict zones from coming to Australia. Tyrrell argued that the bill removed basic parliamentary safeguards including sunset clauses and scrutiny powers. The amendment was not passed.