Warnings Labor's plan to delay family reunions could be human rights issue

Former officials warn Labor's unfinished plans to reduce migration laced with risk Wed 5 Aug 2026 at 3:16pm In short: Experts are divided on the government's plan to increase its control over net migration figures, warning the devil is in the detail. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke postponed a planned press club appearance, with some details yet to be finalised. What's next? Cabinet colleague Chris Bowen said the family reunion program was "very important", particularly in his electorate in Western Sydney. Labor's plan to gain control of net migration figures could be derailed by the High Court or have unintended consequences if badly designed, migration experts have warned. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke's quiet preparations for drastic changes to visa rules were thrust into the spotlight this week when he suddenly cancelled plans for a launch at the National Press Club on Thursday. Cabinet sources told the ABC the package was close to completion and its broad strokes were agreed, but that some details were not ready and that the Labor leadership team thought it better to hold off. The speech will still be delivered soon. Mr Burke's goal is to gain more power to shape the number of migrants who arrive in the country from year to year. The common metric for this is net migration, which tracks arrivals and departures of both Australians and migrants. While the government directly controls the number of permanent visas it issues each year, it has relatively little influence over temporary visas, many of which are driven by demand rather than limited by policy. Net migration exceeded half a million in a year for the first time in 2023, and has continued to outpace Treasury projections since then. Sources said Mr Burke wanted to ensure the projection of 225,000 for the 2027–28 financial year could be met. Among the measures expected to be announced are a crackdown on asylum seeker work and appeal rights, limits on the number of backpackers allowed to extend their stays beyond a year, and a move to ban visitors from applying for family visas. On Wednesday, Energy Minister Chris Bowen, a former immigration minister, described the family reunification visa scheme as "very important" for Australia. "Bringing parents to Australia, for example, bringing loved ones who then go on to contribute huge amounts," he said. "Every program will have elements where you need to ensure compliance, of course … but the family reunion program is a very important one, and a very successful one." Partner visas a 'human rights issue' Any changes to family visa rules are likely to be highly contentious, given the years-long wait times that already await those seeking to be reunited with their Australian partners. Under the Migration Act, eligible partners and dependent children of Australian citizens and permanent residents who apply for permanent family visas must be given them. But in practice, approval can take a long time, because of annual limits on visas granted. Faced with this delay, many partners and children come to Australia on visitor visas and then apply for family visas, at which point they are transferred to bridging visas and can work and access Medicare in Australia until their permanent visa is granted. Several sources said Mr Burke planned to impose new conditions preventing this, which would reduce net migration by requiring spouses and children to remain overseas until they were approved. Last week, Mr Burke also moved to deprioritise those who applied for family visas from offshore, which in combination could see partners and children face even longer waits away from their families. The latest departmental figures show there are nearly 400,000 people on bridging visas, a record figure which is more than double the levels seen before the pandemic. The department cites family visa applications as one factor behind this increase. Migration experts who spoke to the ABC agreed that this figure was too high and that it was legitimate for the government to seek to reduce it, but were divided on whether targeting family visa applicants was an appropriate way to do this. Peter van Vliet, the chief executive of the Migration Institute of Australia, a peak body for migration agents and lawyers, said this was a "human rights issue". "They've gone too far in terms of what they're trying to do. If you're an Australian citizen and you meet the love of your life overseas, and they do the right thing and apply for a partner visa and wait for it to be processed, they could be waiting for five years," he said. "I think the impact of partner visa applicants on net migration is fairly low and they need to be taken out of this policy equation. For an Australian to live with their long-term partner of choice is a fundamental human right, not a planning question." Former senior immigration official Abul Rizvi said he believed the government was already acting "illegally" by making partner applicants wait for several years to be accepted and that these measures would add to that legal risk. "The government says they manage partner visas on a demand-driven basis, but that is the most obvious lie you can imagine … At some stage, there will be a class action and the government would lose within hours. It is not a complicated legal decision," he said. Section 85 of the Migration Act allows the minister to set limits on the number of permanent visas granted, but Section 87 clarifies this should not stop partners or dependents from being granted visas. A court challenge would hinge on the question of whether the government could delay approval of those visas indefinitely without being in breach of Section 87. Michael Pezzullo, the former secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, said he did not believe this was a legal risk. "I think generally speaking it's very safe," he said. "The High Court would otherwise essentially become administrative managers … what reasonable time period [for granting visas] would you pick?" Mr Pezzullo said it was a "really good idea" to close the bridging visa loophole for families. '"My view would be, come here on a short-term visa, it's wonderful for family bonding … But if you want to transition into another visa stream, you've got to go home." Andrew McKellar from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry told the ABC the government should "proceed with caution" and that constrained family reunions would make Australia "more difficult and less attractive" as a destination for skilled migrants. "A move like that would make it that much harder to attract the kind of skilled migrants Australia needs, so from a business perspective there are real risks associated. "It would curtail and undermine the objectives of Australia's broader migration program." Risk of unintended consequences from humanitarian crackdown Another move expected to be contentious is a crackdown on the rights of humanitarian visa applicants to appeal their claims and to work while those appeals are heard. Beyond this broad intention, the details are unclear. Once again, the motive is to reduce the number of people able to stay in Australia on bridging visas, which has consequences for net migration figures. Here the concern is people making frivolous or false claims for asylum to prolong their stay, either as soon as they arrive or when other visas such as student visas expire. The lengthy processing backlog and appeals process can extend stays for several years. Mr Pezzullo acknowledged the issue but said the success of any crackdown would depend on its design. "You do have a risk of driving people into underground employment," he said. "Be careful you don't trigger adverse behaviours." Mr Van Vliet said the government did "have a problem with so many people on bridging visas who've applied for humanitarian visas and been knocked back", but that changes were needed to protect "genuine applicants" whose asylum claims were well-founded. Mr Rizvi said he was broadly supportive of the government's aspiration to achieve a set level of net migration, and that a figure broadly in the range of 200,000 to 250,000 was appropriate. "I think the approach to managing net overseas migration should be similar to the way the Reserve Bank manages inflation, where you have a long-term target range and you try to get as close to that range as often as possible," he said. "At the moment there isn't a plan … The minister needs to explain to the Australian public a long-term plan that makes sense. You can't just say, we've thought up some little tricks [to limit net migration], ta-da. You need to explain some rationale." A spokesperson for the minister said the speech would cover "the migration system as a whole".