New Character Grounds for Visa Refusals
In January 2026, the federal government passed legislation to address antisemitism, hate and violent extremism in response to the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi in December 2025. Among the changes that were introduced, were amendments to the Migration Act 1958, allowing visas to be refused or cancelled on the basis that a person had engaged in hate-related conduct. This page outlines those changes.
Legislation
The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate, and Extremism Act 2026 made changes to the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Migration Act 1958.
Cancellation of a visa based on character
Under section 501 of the Migration Act, a visa can be refused or cancelled on the basis that the applicant or holder does not pass the character test.
Previously, the character test has included matters such as:
- whether the person has a substantial criminal record
- whether the person has been assessed as posing a security risk
- whether there is a risk that the person, if allowed to remain in Australia, would be likely to engage in criminal conduct, incite discord, or vilify segment of the community.
Under the 2026 changes, a visa can now also be refused or cancelled on the basis that the person has been involved in hatred or extremism.
Under section 501 as it now stands, a person fails the character test if:
- they have been a member of a terrorist organisation, state sponsor of terrorism, or a prohibited hate group
- they have been associated with a terrorist organisation, state sponsor of terrorism, or a prohibited hate group
- they have been involved in conduct constituting a hate crime (regardless of whether or not there has been a conviction)
- they have publicly made or endorsed statements about racial superiority or racial hatred (or encouraged others to do so) and if they were allowed to enter or remain in Australia, there would be a risk of harm to the community
No criminal findings necessary
The minister for immigration may make a decision under section 501 administratively. This means that there is no need for a criminal conviction in relation to a relevant offence. The minister can make a decision based on an assessment of a person’s conduct, association, or public statements that are judged to present a risk of harm.
Public responses to the changes
The changes to the Migration Act 1958 have received a lot of criticism, principally on two bases.
Firstly, the changes represent an increase in administrative power, giving broad discretion to the minister with very limited procedural guardrails. A person who fails the character test can be permanently excluded from entering Australia on that basis. With the addition of hate-related conduct as a ground for refusing or cancelling a visa, a person can now be permanently excluded from the country on the basis of things they have said or people they have associated with.
Secondly, as the character test is assessed based on ‘risk’ rather than criminal findings, there is a concern that non-citizens could face visa consequences from engaging in otherwise lawful conduct such as political communications, especially when doing so in a way that is critical of the government.
The legislation has also been criticised as containing insufficient definition as to what constitutes ‘hate-related conduct’ or ‘risk’.
The government has defended the migration reforms, saying serious hate or extremist conduct doesn’t always lead to criminal prosecutions, yet such individuals could still pose a risk to community safety or social cohesion if allowed to enter or remain in Australia.
By adding hate-related conduct and extremist association to the character test, the government says it can act pre-emptively by refusing or cancelling visas.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
Fernanda Dahlstrom is a writer, editor and lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (Latrobe University), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (College of Law), a Bachelor of Arts (The University of Melbourne) and a Master of Arts (Deakin University). Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal law, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory, and in family law in Queensland.