Editing Australian migration zone (section)

{{short description|Territory in which Australia's visa policy applies}}
{{Refimprove|date=August 2011}}
{{Use Australian English|date=May 2018}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2018}}
[[File:Karte_Migrationszone_Australien.svg|right|thumb|Australian migration zone{{clarify|reason=What's the difference between the water areas shaded yellow and the water areas shaded brown?|date=April 2025}}]]
The '''Australian migration zone''' is a legal device created by the [[Australian Government]] for the purpose of [[Visa policy of Australia|Australia's visa policy]] and [[Immigration to Australia|immigration policy]], as the territory in which Australia's visa policy applies. The Australian migration zone covers such [[States and territories of Australia|Australian controlled territories]] as the government may determine. Prior to 2001, the Australian migration zone consisted of the mainland, as well as some [[Dependent territory#Australia|external territories]].<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ma1958118|Migration Act 1958|5}}.</ref> [[Norfolk Island]], for example, was not part of the Australian migration zone until 2016.<ref name=Norfolk>[https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L01117/Explanatory%20Statement/Text Norfolk Island Legislation (Migration) Transitional Rule 2016]</ref> Under Australia’s universal visa policy, a non-[[Australian nationality law|citizen]] must hold an Australian visa within the Australian migration zone.<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ma1958118|Migration Act 1958|13}}.</ref> Without such a visa, or a bridging visa, the non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ma1958118|Migration Act 1958|14}}.</ref> and treated as an "[[unauthorised arrival]]". However, the main effect of the migration zone is that unauthorised arrivals outside the zone have very limited access for review by [[Australian courts]].

In the Australian government’s strategy to stem the [[Illegal immigration to Australia|flow of unauthorised arrivals into Australia]], in September 2001, the government passed the ''Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act'' 2001<ref>[http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A00887 ''Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act'' 2001]</ref>  and the ''Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Act'' 2001<ref>[http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0102/02bd070 ''Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Act'' 2001]</ref> which removed ("excised") a number of external territories from the Australian migration zone. The excised territories included [[Ashmore Island|Ashmore]], [[Cartier Islands|Cartier]], [[Christmas Island|Christmas]] and [[Cocos Islands]], which lie in the Indian Ocean between Indonesia and Australia. The effect of the change was to limit the ability of unauthorised arrivals arriving there, termed "offshore entry persons", to apply for a visa on arrival. However, the Minister was still empowered to grant a visa to such persons “in the public interest”.<ref>Section 46A, inserted by the 2001 Act.</ref> In 2010, a landmark [[High Court of Australia|High Court]] ruled that the processing procedures on Christmas Island were unlawful and unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite AustLII |HCA|41|2010|litigants=Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia}} {{cite web |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2010/hca41-2010-11-11.pdf |title=judgment summary |publisher=[[High Court of Australia]]}}</ref> 

After these territories were excised, increasing numbers of asylum seekers attempted to reach the Australian mainland by-passing those islands. To combat this tactic, on 30 October 2012, the Australian government excised the entire Australian mainland from the Australian migration zone.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/labor-caucus-accepts-move-to-excise-mainland-from-migration-zone-20121030-28ggu.html |title=Labor caucus accepts move to excise mainland from migration zone |author= Dan Harrison, Phillip Coorey |accessdate=30 October 2012 |date=30 October 2012 |newspaper=Brisbane Times |publisher=Fairfax Media}}</ref> The objective of the change was to limit [[judicial review]] for boat arrivals.<ref name="ccd"/> The legislation to excise the mainland itself from the migration zone was passed by Parliament on 16 May 2013.<ref name=abcnews>{{cite news|last=Barlow|first=Karen|title=Parliament excises mainland from migration zone|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/parliament-excises-mainland-from-migration-zone/4693940|accessdate=18 May 2013|date=17 May 2013}}</ref><ref>[http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013A00035/Html/Text#_Toc356901685 Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Act 2013]</ref> Before the excise, asylum seekers who reached the mainland by boat could not be sent for immigration processing to offshore [[Australian immigration detention facilities]] on [[Nauru]] or Papua New Guinea's [[Manus Island]].<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/parliament-excises-mainland-from-migration-zone/4693940 Parliament excises mainland from migration zone]</ref> 

The excising of islands from the Australian migration zone was and remains a controversial aspect of [[Australian immigration policies|Australian immigration policy]]. Refugee advocates argue that Australia is not meeting its obligations under international law to protect refugees. This was not accepted by the [[Howard government]], which contended that international law obliged Australia to provide temporary protection only and not necessarily permanent settlement.<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ma1958118|Migration Act 1958|9A}} Migration zone etc.--offshore resources activities.</ref>