Long residence and close family connections will move out of the primary considerations in certain Australian visa character decisions from 31 October 2026. Direction 123 retains those ties among other considerations, while placing greater emphasis on community protection, domestic or family violence, community expectations and children.
The change is important for a person whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation on character grounds. It is not a new visa category, a new application form for all migrants or a general instruction that every student and worker must reapply before the end of October.
As at 23 October, the new direction has not commenced. Its stated start date is Saturday, 31 October 2026, when it replaces Direction 110. The distinction between signing an instrument and bringing it into operation matters for people with decisions pending.
What does Direction 123 change?
It changes the framework that departmental delegates and the Administrative Review Tribunal use in relevant decisions under sections 501 and 501CA of the Migration Act 1958. The decision still has to be made under the Act.
The instrument was signed by Tony Burke, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, on 18 September 2026. A reproduced copy of the signed direction sets out its commencement, scope and considerations. The copy is hosted by a migration practice, rather than on the department’s public website.
The Migration Act supplies the relevant powers and character provisions. Section 499 authorises written directions and requires those exercising relevant functions to comply with a valid direction. That is different from Parliament creating a new visa subclass or replacing every existing eligibility requirement.
What is a ministerial direction?
It is a written instruction governing how relevant decision-makers exercise powers under migration law. Its scope depends on the instrument and the legislation; the word “direction” alone does not tell a traveller which visa requirements have changed.
Which factors become primary considerations?
Four matters are listed as primary: community protection, domestic or family violence, community expectations and the best interests of minor children in Australia, including child victims.
The reordering is significant because primary considerations generally receive greater weight than other considerations. Protection of the Australian community is generally given greater weight than the other primary considerations. The exercise is still based on the evidence and circumstances of the individual matter.
| Issue | Direction 110 | Direction 123 from 31 October 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Ties to Australia | A primary consideration | An other consideration |
| Domestic and family violence | Family violence is primary | Domestic or family violence remains primary, with a broader definition |
| Minor children in Australia | Their best interests are primary | Their best interests remain primary, expressly including child victims |
| Australian business interests | Listed among other considerations | No longer separately listed |
The comparison is with the department’s published Direction 110. Removing an item from a particular list should not be paraphrased as proof that all evidence associated with that subject becomes legally irrelevant.
The practical question for someone making submissions is how the evidence relates to the framework that will govern their decision. A bundle of documents prepared under an earlier direction may need to be reviewed for that purpose, rather than simply re-sent unchanged.
Do family ties and years in Australia stop counting?
No. They remain relevant, but move into the category of other considerations. Describing them as abolished would misstate the change.
The direction addresses matters such as the impact on immediate family members and, in relevant cancellation or revocation cases, the person’s residence history, contribution and family or social connections. The weight given to those matters cannot be calculated by counting relatives or years alone.
For a household facing a character decision, the distinction is consequential. A long period in Australia is evidence to explain, not an automatic answer to the decision-maker’s concerns. Equally, moving ties into another category does not justify ignoring the actual effect a decision could have on family members.
A useful submission needs to connect documents to the particular issue being decided. Evidence about a child’s circumstances serves a different purpose from evidence about employment or community involvement. A general statement that a family will be distressed does not explain every relevant consequence.
What changes in the treatment of domestic or family violence?
The direction uses a detailed definition that reaches beyond physical assault. It includes coercive or controlling behaviour and forms of technology-facilitated abuse, including stalking and image-based abuse.
That broader framing makes it important to read the allegations and evidence accurately. A person should not assume that the absence of a particular criminal conviction answers every question a migration decision-maker may lawfully consider. Nor should a report describe an allegation as a proven criminal offence.
The government’s 17 September policy announcement said it intended to update the character framework to better protect children and victims of domestic and family violence, and to address hatred. The announcement described the policy objective; the direction and Act determine the legal task.
Public safety is the government’s stated reason for the change. The corresponding issue for an affected individual is whether the decision-maker has considered the correct material, applied the correct framework and given any available opportunity to respond. Those are questions about an actual decision, rather than a prediction that can be made from a headline.
Does this create a new character test for every visa applicant?
No. The statutory character requirements and the decision-making direction are related but distinct. A direction should not be described as if it alone inserted every character provision into the Act on its commencement date.
The Department of Home Affairs’ character guidance already tells applicants to declare relevant criminal charges awaiting legal action and convictions in any country, answer questions truthfully and supply requested information. The department may request police certificates and further character information.
That guidance is directly relevant to Indian applicants as applicants, without requiring a claim that Indian citizens have been singled out. Nothing in the verified material establishes an India-specific restriction starting on 31 October.
A person with an ordinary visa application should answer the questions in that application and respond to any departmental request. The direction is especially relevant where a character refusal, cancellation or revocation issue is actually engaged. It should not be used to invent a universal extra document requirement.
What should someone with a pending matter do now?
Check the notice, decision and response deadline first. Then seek advice on which framework applies to the decision and whether the existing evidence addresses it.
Keep the complete notice and the message or envelope that delivered it. A summary forwarded by a friend may omit a deadline, an explanation of the decision or the part describing a review right. The document issued in the case is more useful than a general online explanation.
Prepare a chronology separating charges, convictions, sentences, applications and departmental correspondence. Where a fact is disputed, identify the dispute instead of quietly presenting one version as agreed. If a court document is available, provide the actual document to the adviser rather than relying on a personal summary.
Ask the adviser to check the date and nature of the decision, not only the date the application began. An unresolved matter approaching a change of direction raises a different question from a decision already finally made. This article does not supply a universal review deadline because the correct route and time limit depend on the decision.
Do not assume that a planned holiday or an approaching expiry date suspends an existing response deadline. If the notice is unclear, seek a precise explanation promptly. The point of early advice is to identify the real decision and available action, not to promise a particular outcome.
How is this different from Australia’s arrival-control powers?
Character decisions and arrival-control measures are separate legal mechanisms. A report about one should not be used as evidence that the other automatically applies.
The separate arrival-control explainer discusses a different issue, including the status of a particular order. Readers comparing Australian policy changes should keep the instrument, affected visa group and commencement date beside each claim.
The visa section brings together reporting on several routes, but a change in processing priority, an entry restriction and a character cancellation have different effects. A faster or slower processing queue does not decide whether a person passes the character requirements.
For an employer-sponsored worker, an employer’s involvement also does not settle a character matter. The application, evidence and departmental decision remain matters to check through the appropriate official process and, where necessary, a qualified adviser.
What should Indian applicants and families ask an adviser?
Ask which provision is being used, what decision is proposed or already made, what deadline applies and what evidence is missing. Those questions turn a broad concern into a matter that can be assessed.
If an adviser proposes a response, ask how it addresses the relevant considerations and any adverse material in the notice. Keep copies of what is submitted and confirmation of delivery. Do not treat payment for advice as confirmation that a deadline has been met.
Where family circumstances are relied on, establish whose evidence is needed and what it can show. The interests of a child, the effect on a partner and the person’s own account should not be collapsed into one unsupported assertion. An adviser should explain the relevance of each to the specific case.
What happens next, and how should this guide be used?
Direction 123 is scheduled to commence on 31 October 2026. People with pending character matters should check the operative instrument and their own correspondence as that date approaches.
Use this guide to identify the distinction between the statutory character requirements and the considerations governing a decision. The Department of Home Affairs is the official source for application requirements; a registered migration agent or an Australian legal practitioner can assess an individual matter. The framework described here was checked on 23 October 2026 and should be rechecked before relying on it in a live case.
