National Migration Conference

Thank you to the Migration Institute of Australia for inviting me again this year to address your National Conference.

Thank you also to the work that your members do in guiding and supporting Australians in the complex business of navigating our migration system.

Bringing families together and helping businesses prosper. Ensuring multicultural communities like mine in south-east Melbourne can stay connected with relatives and trading partners overseas.

I acknowledge National President Chin Wei (Sean) Choong, CEO Peter van Vliet, migration professionals from across Australia, departmental colleagues and everyone who has travelled to Sydney for today's event.

Migration is always topical, but I can’t remember a time more so than now and largely not for good reasons.

What passes for ‘debate’ since last I spoke to you has become increasingly unhinged from facts, untethered from reality, and uncivil to our fellow Australians, as loud voices scapegoat migrants for all manner of social and economic ills.

The parties on the right are in a race to the bottom – in every sense. Dangerously weaponising issues of race and culture while pretending they are not, and playing the victim when they’re called out. Desperately outbidding each other over who would make the biggest cuts, costs be damned!

There’s never any detail of course. No clarity about what will be cut, what the social and economic impacts would be. Which industries will be shut down? Which services will close as our population ages? Which families will never be reunited?

There’s no discernible focus on the national interest. It’s all about the vibes and the memes.

In contrast, let me clearly state the Government’s view. To quote Tony Burke, Minister for Home Affairs in his National Press Club address last month:

“Migration is good for Australia. It strengthens our economy, supports essential industries, and enriches our society.”

Australia has benefited over generations from migration, and continues to welcome people who want to make a genuine contribution to our country.

The 2026 Intergenerational Report highlights that with a rapidly ageing population, migration will play an increasingly important role in Australia's future. Helping to address the challenges that arise, including severe workforce shortages and growing demand for health, aged care and disability services, while supporting economic growth, productivity and national resilience.

But that doesn’t mean everyone can come to or should be able to stay in Australia.

The policy settings inherited from the previous Government saw net overseas migration peak and remain too high after the borders reopened. Changes already made have seen NOM fall since the post-COVID peak by almost 50%. Further reductions are needed to reach the sensible, balanced forecasts in the Budget, and give housing a chance to catchup.

We should be able to have a debate about the right migration settings and how to reduce the overall level, without dumping on our fellow Australians or attacking the very nature of our beautiful multicultural nation. I love Australia as it really is – the world’s most vibrant, diverse, dynamic, successful multicultural, multiethnic, multi-faith, multilingual democracy on earth. We seek unity not uniformity.

Now I will presume everyone here is across what Minister Tony Burke announced a couple of weeks ago regarding the next phase of Australia’s migration reforms.

Rather than repeat all the detail, let me instead use my time here to do three things.

Firstly, contextualise the latest measures within the major ongoing themes of reform and update you on a few actions since.

Secondly, flesh out further detail of the student visa reforms which take effect today.

And thirdly, share some information about work to improve the integrity of the system in relation to migration agents, lawyers and cracking down on unregistered people

who illegally take money to give migration advice and misuse the system.

So first, in essence, the Government’s latest round of reforms build on the 2023 strategy which is now largely implemented, and are about getting greater control over who arrives, who stays and who leaves, all in Australia’s national interest.

On who arrives, the big shift over recent decades has been the growth in temporary arrivals. In reality, no Government for decades has fully controlled arrivals, since John Howard put in place large demand driven parts to the system – student visas, temporary employer sponsored visas, working holiday makers etc.

The community’s view has changed though, and Australians now want and expect Governments to more tightly control temporary flows. So we are acting on multiple fronts to do so; though it would be better if legislative changes can be secured to give better tools to precisely manage temporary arrivals.

On who stays, one of the biggest problems has been the growth in ‘permanently temporary’ migrants. People who hop from visa to visa, who may have spent most of their adult lives here, with kids who are now Australian, but who will never make the cut for skilled migration or who wait for years on bridging visas for a permanent visa.

Over recent years we have taken strong steps to wind back permanently temporary visa holders, and the latest reforms continue this work.

Reducing and tightening pathways for onshore applications, and restoring the norm that when you come to Australia for a temporary purpose: we welcome you; you do the thing you’re here for; and then you leave before your visa expires.

When Australians go to another country they do not believe they have some God-given right to hop around from visa to visa for years or decades and game other nations’ appeals and courts systems – and neither should guests in our country.

In particular, Australia’s decency and generosity in providing asylum to those genuinely needing our protection should not be taken advantage of by those who misuse the protection visa system as a ‘visa of last resort’.

Australia is and will remain extremely kind and generous to genuine asylum seekers, and part of the social licence to do so is to reduce the abuse of the system. Currently 90% of protection applications are refused at primary stage as non-genuine, with a similar amount refused on appeal. When people lodge non-genuine applications, this wastes resources and leaves genuine cases in limbo for longer.

Restoring fairness and managing the number of people in the country on Bridging Visas, also means restoring the norm that more people apply for their Permanent Visa offshore. A visitor visa is for a visit – not a backdoor to come and stay for 30 years.

Reducing the unsustainable growth in the working holiday makers is being achieved by restoring sensible limits on how long backpackers can stay in Australia, returning the program to its original purpose as a short term cultural and work exchange.

Contrary to some of the hyperbole in parts of the media, there are currently around 95,000 more working holiday makers in Australia than at the start of the pandemic

6.5 years ago, with program participation at record highs at around 215,000 onshore. The aim is not to slash the program, but to stabilise it at around 200,000 or so people.

‘Who leaves’ is about boosting integrity, cutting off inappropriate onshore pathways, and restoring credible deterrents to people who overstay their visas.

While most people of course abide by their visa conditions, for those that don’t there have to be consequences and people need to know this.

A 250-bed boost to detention centre capacity will improve overall compliance by many thousands of extra departures each year and stem the growth in overstayers. Sending a signal to everyone and giving firm meaning to a visa’s expiry date.

It’s not a radical proposition and will restore integrity and the system that existed prior to 2015. This additional compliance effort is targeting anyone who overstays their view – not one particular group or asylum seekers as some have falsely claimed.

Last week, two new Ministerial Directions – 121 and 122 – have taken effect, sharpening the focus of the skilled migration program. Priority is now being given to healthcare, construction, teaching, resources, agriculture, aquaculture and fishing, helping direct skills to the parts of the economy where they are needed most.

The Government is also reforming the points test to lift the standard, better recognise high-demand skills, and select people who will make the strongest contribution to Australia's future.

In short, we're using scarce skilled migration places strategically, to deliver the greatest benefit for Australia's economy and workforce. We will support housing construction through a points boost for individuals with skills and qualifications in the trades necessary for home construction.

And a new Ministerial Direction 123, focused on character-related visa decisions, is due to come into effect in late October replacing MD110.

The Government expects that non-citizens who engage in serious criminal conduct should face serious consequences under Australia's migration laws.

The new Direction strengthens the system’s response to serious misconduct, including family violence, exploitation, other criminal offending and hate-motivated behaviour, while placing greater emphasis on protecting victims and the interests of children. It also provides clearer guidance in complex cases, helping support fair, consistent and well-informed decision-making.

Together, these measures continue our work to ensure the migration system is fair, predictable, and responsive to Australia’s needs, while preserving the clear economic and social benefits that migration brings.

We are not chucking the baby out with the bathwater. We are not being spooked by One Nation’s dishonest, damaging and dangerous populism. And Labor will never sell out Australia’s national interest, prosperity and security.

Decisions made today shape communities, labour markets, industries and families for decades to come. Long after governments have changed and policy settings have been revised, the effects of migration remain visible in our suburbs, regional towns, workplaces and institutions.

At its heart, migration is also about belonging. It is about people choosing to become part of Australia's future and about our responsibility to ensure that the systems governing migration remain worthy of the trust that migrants and the broader community place in them.

I want to emphasise that point. Trust is key. If Australians sense that a government is not in control of our nation’s borders or the system, then anger rises and trust falls.

That’s why our political opponents keep peddling their giant lie about ‘mass migration’ and spread all that AI slop and misinformation on social media to make Australians think there are millions of people arriving, out of control.

Australia does not of course suffer from mass migration – large-scale uncontrolled movements of people – like is being seen in other parts of the world.

Our borders and arrivals are very tightly controlled.

But improving integrity, meeting our forecasts and boosting community confidence matter enormously in this volatile global environment and the Government is acting.

All but one of the new student visa rules take effect as of today.

This means that after a student starts their principal course there are now only 3 ways to change while onshore:

1. An extension to a visa to allow more time to complete a course - e.g.  if a student gets sick, fails a subject or their provider goes broke.
2. An onshore transfer, or
3. After completing a course, to progress with further studies a student will have to apply for a new student visa, for a course that must be HIGHER in the

Australian Qualifications Framework. Onshore applications from Higher Education to higher VET courses will be explicitly not allowed.

With respect to transfers, from 1 July 2027 where a student wants to transfer to a different provider they will need to be granted a new student visa (via a new transfer stream). They will need to have commenced at the provider who issued their Certificate of Enrolment for their visa and study their principal course for at least 6 months (the longstanding rule). Young people do sometimes pick the wrong course and there are legitimate reasons to transfer, but the quantum and pattern has been unacceptable raising integrity concerns hence this new requirement.

Importantly it comes with integrity rules:

1. A student will not be able to commence at a new provider unless and until a new visa is granted
2. The new visa will retain the same end date as the original visa - this prevents rorting and ensures students can’t just not turn up for the first 6 months, fail their subjects then go to a cheaper provider (a current problem).

3. The transfer stream will only allow a student to transfer SIDEWAYS or UP the AQF - not down, and not from higher education to VET. Students will no longer be able to come to study Higher Education and transfer to VET onshore.
4. Students will not be allowed to transfer into more packaged courses.

As a transition measure I have also made an interim change in the Education portfolio rules (ESOS Code) to not allow transfers within the first 12 months of commencing a principal course between now and 1 July 2027 when the new transfer visa comes in.

Onshore pathways from temporary visas to student visas have been closed, so people will no longer be able to apply for a student visa while in Australia from working holiday maker visas, training visas, temporary employer visas and so on.

As well, the ability of international students to bring family members has been curtailed.

From today, students will only be allowed to bring dependent family members in limited circumstances, including for PhD students, foreign government or Australian government scholarship students, and those from ASEAN or Pacific Island nations.

Students now have to apply for secondary dependent family members with their primary application, and no students will be permitted to add subsequent entrants after their initial visa is granted. This is to boost integrity and prevent fake relationships from being used to get people into Australia after a student has commenced their studies.

The same rules will apply to Temporary Graduate Visas.

Families already in Australia will be grandfathered as an exception as the Government is not in the business of breaking up families already here.

Australia welcomes genuine students seeking a premium Australian education but the Government will not back down from seeking to manage the size and the shape of the onshore student market.

Continued success in international education requires a ruthless focus on integrity and a great student experience, and must be measured in the quality not just the quantity of students Australia attracts and welcomes.

Most registered migration agents and legal practitioners do the right thing, and will welcome the work underway to refresh the competency standards that set out what migration agents need to know and be able to do. Consultation began earlier this year and will continue throughout 2026, so industry and community stakeholders will can help to shape these reforms.

But increasingly sophisticated forms of migration-related misconduct and a small number of bad actors cause disproportionate harm.

Often targeting people at vulnerable points in their lives when they are highly susceptible to misleading claims, false promises and unrealistic assurances.

Taking cash in those circumstances is not helping people – it’s exploiting them and selling false hope.

People are persuaded to pursue visa pathways that offer little prospect of success. False documentation is prepared or misleading information is provided. Excessive fees are charged for services that either should never have been offered or are highly unlikely to achieve the promised outcome.

Honest practitioners see their reputations affected by the actions of others, and integrity in the migration system suffers. Trust hard won can be easily lost.

The Government has strengthened capability and resources in OMARA which is showing results, with increased capacity to monitor compliance, enforce standards and take action against misconduct. You have seen greater enforcement action including cancellation of registration, suspension and other sanctions.

The recent crackdown on the practice of ‘ghost agents’ or ‘front agents’ where registered agents are letting other non-registered professionals provide migration assistance or use their registration number should put everyone on notice –

Australians expect migration assistance will be provided by a registered agent – not their employee, friend or family member.

All this has helped significantly, but further action is needed which I’ll outline now.

Under the current Migration Agents Code of Conduct, a RMA can proceed with an application they consider futile if the client acknowledges that advice in writing that the assistance is futile and still decides to continue.

Proposed changes to the Code will establish a clearer standard whereby a RMA would be prohibited from assisting with an application they know, or reasonably ought to know, does not have a reasonable factual or legal basis.

The assessment would focus on whether the application had a reasonable basis at the time the RMA provided assistance, rather than on the outcome of the application.

The changes to the Code are not intended to prevent RMAs from assisting with legitimate applications that are complex, novel or unusual where there is a reasonable factual or legal basis for an application.

Of course, it is not just rogue agents who do the wrong thing.

Some of the worst, sharpest practice I see in my electorate office and ministerial work is actually by lawyers.

Just three recent examples the Department identified:

• A lawyer was linked to the lodgement of several temporary protection visa applications for undocumented air arrivals across multiple States and Territories. The applications all contained broadly similar claims and raised serious integrity concerns.

• A lawyer was linked to a cluster of Sponsored Parent visa applications involving applicants from a specific country. Integrity concerns were identified with identity and other supporting documents. The lawyer’s involvement in these applications was not declared to the Department.

• A lawyer lodged a high volume of employer-sponsored visa applications across multiple occupations and industries. Caseload analysis identified multiple sponsoring entities operating from the same premises, including businesses linked to previously sanctioned or liquidated entities. Documentation relating to changes in business operations was not identified in the applications. Some of the sponsoring entities had appointed temporary visa holders as company directors.

We have also seen some pretty outrageous online advertising by lawyers. Ads that appear to coach people on how to claim they're bisexual when they’re not, or how to convince the Department they're being persecuted when they're not, in order to support a protection claim.

That's not legal representation. It's a misuse of the migration system for profit.

More fundamentally, the current system for lawyers authorises and arguably requires them to act for clients in ways that damage the administration of and public confidence in Australia’s migration system.

Let me read you a specific quote from a letter from a lawyer to the Department with a visa application that I came across in a constituent file last week:

“The applicants seek to lodge a valid application for a Confirmatory (Residence) Subclass 808 visa in the knowledge that they are ineligible for the grant of the visa. The reason for submitting the enclosed application is … the applicants are ultimately seeking to lodge an application for Ministerial Intervention. Therefore, the enclosed application is being submitted openly with the intention of it being refused so that a review application for appeal can be submitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and [be refused and] then an application lodged to request Ministerial Intervention.”

The lawyer may be acting in the best interests of their client and being transparent and courteous in doing so. This is, regardless, in my view, a subversion of the migration system and needs to stop. Supporting unmeritorious claims comes at a very real cost to Australia – to the taxpayers who are funding the primary, the merits and the judicial review systems, to public confidence and perhaps most importantly – to the other genuine applicants in the system, who see their wait times blow out.

As we tighten the professional requirements on agents it will be increasingly obvious, problematic and unfair if lawyers are not held to a similar expectation as agents.

When a lawyer has a matter before a Court, they have professional obligations to their client, but also to the Court which prevents them from filing claims without merit.

Yet when a lawyer lodges a primary application there is not an equivalent concept to support the integrity of the migration system. They are free to charge fees and support clients seeking to game the system for personal advantage.

Of course, since 2021 lawyers have been regulated differently to agents when responsibility for regulating migration-related legal practice shifted away from the OMARA framework. 1,706 unrestricted legal practitioners were removed from the Register of Migration Agents and lawyers, and are now regulated under State and Territory regimes.

Where the Department identifies concerning conduct, referrals are made to relevant professional or licensing bodies. They operate under a myriad of different regimes and there appears to be no systemic transparency or report backs regarding the outcomes of such referrals.

Ultimately, I do not have confidence in the policy regime around how lawyers interact with the migration system.

The Department has been asked to consider policy options to address these issues. Of course, we will work with the Attorney General and, through her, the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in considering the appropriate responses.

Finally, and this is my last substantive point, I want to update you on further action being taken to go after people who are unlawfully providing migration assistance.

These are ‘fake agents’, operating in breach of the law, taking money from often vulnerable people for migration advice or assistance without being registered agents or lawyers legally able to provide advice.

You’ve probably seen them lurking in Facebook groups or on social media, or your clients have reported getting and paying for advice from strangers on the internet.

So I’m pleased to announce that we have now stood up a dedicated team to investigate and disrupt these rogue operators.

The first step is this small taskforce to examine the issue more closely and get creative in disrupting their illegal trade. Prosecutions are important but they are slow and expensive and the current laws make it hard to provide the crime.

So the taskforce will identify, coordinate and apply a range of techniques and administrative measures against their targets including but not limited to the infringement notice framework. I’m not going to telegraph what’s in their toolkit, but the focus is on disrupting business models in multiple different ways.

Home Affairs is working closely with the Australian Border Force in this work, and of course criminal investigations of offences under the Migration Act will continue to be led by ABF Investigations.

I really encourage everyone here to make confidential reports of suspected illegal activity and fake agents via Border Watch. More intelligence will help to target our efforts, and we will learn along the way. And I don’t rule out modernising the law where required as this work progresses.

Just a final note that ‘fake agents’ are not to be confused of course with ‘scam agents’ who generally advertise immigration services online but who just take the money without actually providing the promised services or lodge the applications.

These matters typically involve potential criminal or consumer law issues and fall outside the Department's jurisdiction under the Migration Act 1958 and are referred to law enforcement or consumer protection agencies.

In essence, if you're taking money from people and unlawfully providing migration advice, Home Affairs will be paying a lot more attention and coming after you.

Thank you for your attention. I’ve spoken for longer than I usually do but Peter wanted me to convey sufficient detail to inform our ongoing discussions and feedback.

A well targeted and administered migration system will help to build modern Australia, strengthen our economy and enhance public trust.

Trust that the system is fair. Trust that migration continues to operate in the national interest. Trust that people seeking to exploit migrants will be identified and held accountable. And trust that governments, regulators and the profession are committed to the integrity of the system

The work undertaken by all of you in the MIA remains so important and I thank you for it.