Ministerial Direction 123 starts on 31 October: what changes for character refusals and visa cancellations?

MD123 is not a new visa subclass and it is not a skilled-visa processing direction like MD121 or MD122. It addresses decisions with much more serious consequences: how Departmental delegates and the Administrative Review Tribunal should weigh community protection, domestic and family violence, the interests of children, a person's ties to Australia and other matters when character concerns engage section 501 of the Migration Act.

When was MD123 signed and when does it commence?

Which decisions does MD123 cover?

• visa refusal decisions made under section 501 of the Migration Act;
• visa cancellation decisions under section 501;
• decisions under section 501CA on whether to revoke a mandatory character cancellation; and
• relevant merits-review decisions made by a Ministerial delegate or the Administrative Review Tribunal within its jurisdiction.

Section 499 allows the Minister to give written directions to people or bodies exercising powers under the Migration Act and requires compliance with a valid direction. A direction guides the exercise of statutory discretion. It cannot contradict the Act or Regulations and does not itself rewrite the character test in section 501(6). Section 501(6) addresses whether a person passes the statutory test; MD123 principally affects how the competing considerations are organised and weighed once a character issue is engaged.

Four primary considerations: the major structural shift from MD110

For a person who arrived in Australia as a young child and has spent decades here, ties to Australia do not disappear. They are, however, reported to move from a primary to an other consideration. That may reduce their relative place in the balancing exercise. Public summaries also indicate that disruption to an Australian employer or business will no longer appear as its own listed consideration.

Risk of reoffending: why the reported change from would or will to might matters

Public summaries indicate that MD123 frames future risk around whether a person might reoffend, rather than the stronger language of whether they would or will reoffend. If the published text confirms this wording, a decision-maker may give greater weight to a lower but still real risk and need not wait until future offending appears probable.

A broader approach to domestic and family violence

A clearly announced purpose of MD123 is stronger protection for victims of domestic and family violence. Public summaries indicate that the new framework expressly extends beyond physical assault to coercive or controlling conduct, emotional and psychological abuse, economic abuse, image-based abuse, online harassment or monitoring, stalking, breaches of protection orders, exposing children to violence, and neglect or deliberate withholding of care.

Character decision-making is therefore not confined to a final criminal conviction. Protection orders, police attendance records and other authoritative information may be considered, subject to relevance, reliability and procedural fairness. An affected person must ordinarily have a meaningful opportunity to respond to the substance of adverse information, but the absence of a conviction does not end every character-risk inquiry.

Hate-based conduct, extremism and non-criminal behaviour move into sharper focus

The Minister's 17 September announcement expressly says the replacement of MD110 will reflect modern Australia's commitment to stamping out hatred. Public summaries add that MD123 places greater emphasis on hate crimes, public promotion of racial or ethnic superiority, endorsement of hate-based views, incitement of discord or racial disharmony, support for extremism and associations with prohibited hate groups.

The point is not that every controversial statement automatically creates an immigration consequence. It is that public statements, online activity, organisational associations and conduct that did not result in conviction may still become relevant material if there is a lawful connection to the decision and procedural fairness is provided. The precise limits must be checked against the published Direction, the current Migration Act and the evidence in the individual case.

How are children's interests expected to change?

The Government has expressly confirmed that the new Direction is intended to better protect children who are victims of crime. Public summaries indicate that the best-interests analysis will more clearly separate different risks: harm to the child by the person concerned, exposure to domestic violence or other serious conduct, the effect of refusal or cancellation on care and relationships, and the child's position as a victim or witness.

Having an Australian child is therefore not a one-way favourable factor. A decision-maker must consider both the harm caused by separation and the harm that may arise from continuing exposure to risky conduct. Evidence should focus on the child's own safety, age, dependency, living arrangements and professional assessments rather than treating the child only as an extension of the adult's migration outcome.

Which serious conduct may carry greater weight?

In addition to violent and sexual offending, public summaries indicate that MD123 expands the treatment of very serious conduct to include hate crime and certain drug or property offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least five years. It is also reported to apply sentence length more consistently as an indicator of seriousness across offence types. The final definitions of very serious and serious conduct must be checked in the published instrument.

The practical questions for matters already on foot

1. Identify the procedural stage: a natural justice process, a refusal, a cancellation, a section 501CA revocation response or an ART matter can carry different and sometimes very short statutory time limits.
2. Do not rely only on long residence and employer support. Those matters may remain relevant, but their reported structural weight falls under MD123. Evidence should also address community protection, children, domestic and family violence and community expectations.
3. Reassess the risk evidence. Psychological or psychiatric reports, treatment and rehabilitation records, time without reoffending, supervision arrangements and practical safety plans should directly address whether future harm remains possible.
4. Respond carefully to non-conviction material. If police records, protection orders, online statements or associations are relied upon, check accuracy, context, reliability and whether a fair opportunity to respond has been provided.
5. Watch the decision date, not merely the lodgement date. MD123 is scheduled to commence on 31 October, but the complete text and any transitional provisions are not yet public. A pending case should not be assigned to one Direction on the strength of an online summary alone.

What does MD123 not change?

• It does not automatically convert every charge, protection order or controversial statement into a visa refusal or cancellation.
• It is not a new criterion for every visa subclass and does not alter the ordinary requirements for skilled, family or employer-sponsored visas.
• It does not automatically reopen a decision that has already been finally made.
• It cannot replace the character test in section 501(6) or operate inconsistently with the Migration Act or Regulations.
• It is not a processing-time or priority direction and cannot predict when a matter will be decided.

When does MD123 commence?

Public information states that MD123 was signed on 18 September 2026 and will commence on 31 October 2026, when it will replace MD110. Signature does not mean the Direction is already in force.

Does MD123 change the section 501 character test?

It does not directly rewrite the statutory test in section 501(6). It principally directs how discretion is exercised and how considerations are ordered and weighed in section 501 and 501CA decisions. Any issue involving a new statutory character ground must still be checked against the current Migration Act.

Will a pending section 501CA or ART matter use MD110 or MD123?

The lodgement date alone does not safely answer the question. A decision-maker generally applies the valid direction governing the decision, but the complete MD123 text and transitional provisions have not yet been made public. Anyone with a pending matter should re-check the published instrument as soon as it becomes available rather than calculating an outcome from summaries.

Can MD123 matter where there is no criminal conviction?

Potentially. Character decisions are not confined to conviction records. Public summaries indicate that protection orders, police information, hate-based statements, organisational associations and other non-criminal conduct may be considered where relevant and procedurally fair. Whether that material supports an adverse decision still depends on legal power, reliability, the response and all facts of the case.