Migration Amendment (Realigning the Community Support Program) Regulations 2026

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Issued by the Minister for Home Affairs

Migration Act 1958

Migration Amendment (Realigning the Community Support Program) Regulations 2026

The Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) is an Act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and the departure or deportation from Australia of aliens and certain other persons.

Subsection 504(1) of the Migration Act provides that the Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with the Migration Act, prescribing matters required or permitted to be prescribed, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for carrying out or giving effect to the Migration Act.

Subsection 31(3) of the Migration Act provides the regulations may prescribe criteria for a visa or visas of a specified class. Subsection 46(3) provides the regulations may prescribe criteria that must be satisfied for an application for a visa of a specified class to be a valid application, while subsection 46(3) provides the regulations may also prescribe the circumstances that must exist for an application for a visa of a specified class to be a valid application.

Purpose

The Migration Amendment (Realigning the Community Support Program) Regulations 2026 (the Amendment Regulations) amend the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Migration Regulations) to implement certain criteria relevant to making a valid application and satisfying eligibility criteria for the grant of a Subclass 202 (Global Special Humanitarian) visa (Subclass 202 visa), where the application includes a proposal by an Approved Proposing Organisation (APO). In particular, the Amendment Regulations:

• prescribe a new Schedule 1 criteria applicable to applications for a Subclass 202 (Global Special Humanitarian) visa that contain a proposal, requiring that the application must not exceed the maximum number of persons that can be proposed by the APO in a financial year;
• establish an instrument-making power enabling the Minister to specify, by legislative instrument, the maximum number of persons each APO can propose each financial year;
• allow applicants who were initially proposed by one APO to instead be proposed by a different APO;
• clarify that the permanent settlement of the applicant in Australia must be consistent with the priorities of the Commonwealth as specified in an instrument; and
• establish an instrument-making power enabling the Minister to specify, by legislative instrument, those Commonwealth priorities.

Background

The Community Support Program (CSP) is part of Australia’s humanitarian visa program. The CSP is intended to enable the resettlement of working-age primary applicants in humanitarian need, who have adequate English language skills and who can become financially self-sufficient within 12 months of arrival in Australia.

Eligible persons and their eligible family members may access the CSP by making an application for a Subclass 202 visa and including a proposal by an APO. The Subclass 202 visa is a permanent visa.

An APO, as defined in Part 202 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, is an organisation who has entered into a Deed of Agreement with the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), where that deed is in effect and not suspended. Under the deed, the APO is required to provide 12 months of settlement support from the time of the applicant’s arrival in Australia.

Due to its targeted scope and the number of allocated visas under the Department’s Humanitarian Program, the CSP has a very limited number of places available each year. When balanced against the significant take up of the program, the CSP currently operates over capacity. The demand for places has contributed to extended processing timeframes and has put pressure on the operation of the Humanitarian Program. This presents administrative and operational considerations for APOs and for the Department’s delivery of the humanitarian program, limiting the ability of the CSP to deliver a specialist humanitarian visa pathway for eligible persons.

The amendments include three measures that are intended to align the CSP with its original policy intent, which is to provide a resettlement pathway for working-age applicants in humanitarian need.

The first is a reduction in the number of CSP applications that can be made each financial year. Prior to the amendments, APOs were able to propose an unlimited number of persons for a Subclass 202 visa, which contributed to backlogs and extended processing times. The amendments insert a new criterion into Schedule 1 of the Migration Regulations, which requires that in order for the visa application to be a valid application, the number of applicants included in the application must not exceed the maximum number of proposals that can be made by the APO in a financial year.

As a result, where a CSP application is made that contains a proposal by an APO that has exceeded its limit for that financial year, the application will be invalid and will not be considered (see subsection 46(3) and 47(3) of the Migration Act). The limit applies to both primary and secondary visa applicants, as detailed in Attachment B.

To give effect to the new validity criterion, the amendments also enable the Minister to make a new legislative instrument that would set out the number of proposals each APO could make in a program year. APOs will be responsible for planning and managing their proposals within the allocated places. The instrument may make additional provisions for calculating whether the limit is exceeded.

The second measure is intended to support CSP applicants who are awaiting a decision on their visa application. This is achieved by updating the Schedule 2 criteria that requires an applicant who is proposed by an APO at the time of making an application to continue to be proposed at the time a decision is made on the visa application. Prior to the amendments, the applicant was required to be proposed by the same APO at both time of application and time of decision. The amendments to Schedule 2 now enable an applicant to ‘transfer’ their application prior to a decision being made, so that it is proposed by a different APO. The amendment ensures applicants are not disadvantaged by any changes in circumstances, such as the APO choosing not to continue its deed with the Department but is otherwise consistent with the original policy intent of the CSP that eligible persons would settle into the Australian community with the support of an APO.

The third measure gives clarity as to how the Minister is to assess whether the resettlement of the applicant is consistent with Commonwealth priorities. This was an existing criterion in Schedule 2. The amendments substitute a new criterion that is expressed is very similar terms, but which also enables the Minister to make a legislative instrument setting out those priorities from time to time. Priorities may relate, for example, to an applicant’s employment experience or English language level skill. Where the resettlement of the applicant would not be consistent with those priorities, the application may be refused.

Consultation

The Department has consulted affected external (non-government) stakeholders on proposed measures to reform the CSP. This includes the 11 APOs. The Department has also consulted with the Refugee Council of Australia, the Settlement Council of Australia and the Community Refugee Sponsorship Australia, who also provided stabilisation proposals. Additionally, the Department consulted with the Australian Refugee Advisory Panel and the Home Affairs-NGO Dialogue on Refugee and Humanitarian Issues, which includes participants from the non-government organisations in the refugee and humanitarian sector, relevant international organisations and representatives from refugee-led networks.

Public input was also gathered through the Humanitarian Program consultation process in relation to both program years 2025–26 and 2026-27.

Details and operation

The Amendment Regulations commence on 1 July 2026.

The Migration Act specifies no conditions that need to be satisfied before the power to make the Regulations may be exercised.

Details of the Amendment Regulations are provided in Attachment B.

Parliamentary scrutiny and other matters

The Amendment Regulations are a disallowable legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act.

A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights has been completed in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. The overall assessment is that the Amendment Regulations are compatible with human rights, as they do not raise any human rights issues. A copy of the Statement is at Attachment A.

The matters dealt with in the Amendment Regulations are appropriate for implementation in regulations rather than by parliamentary enactment. It has been the consistent practice of the Government of the day to provide for detailed visa settings in the Migration Regulations rather than in the Migration Act itself. The Migration Act expressly provides for these matters to be prescribed in regulations, as can be seen in the authorising provision. Providing for these details to be in delegated legislation rather than primary legislation gives the Government the ability to effectively manage the operation of Australia’s visa program and respond quickly to emerging needs.

The Amendment Regulations amend the Migration Regulations, which are exempt from sunsetting under table item 38A of section 12 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015. The Migration Regulations are exempt from sunsetting on the basis that the repeal and remaking of the Migration Regulations:

• is unnecessary as the Migration Regulations are regularly amended numerous times each year to update policy settings for immigration programs;
• would require complex and difficult to administer transitional provisions to ensure, amongst other things, the position of the many people who hold Australian visas, and similarly, there would likely be a significant impact on undecided visa and sponsorship applications; and
• would demand complicated and costly systems, training and operational changes that would impose significant strain on Government resources and the Australian public for insignificant gain, while not advancing the aims of the Legislation Act 2003 (Legislation Act).

The Amendment Regulations will be repealed by operation of Division 1 of Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Legislation Act. Specifically, section 48A in that Division operates to automatically repeal a legislative instrument that has the sole purpose of amending or repealing another instrument. As the Amendment Regulations will automatically repeal, they do not engage the sunsetting framework under Part 4 of the Legislation Act.

ATTACHMENT A

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

Migration Amendment (Realigning the Community Support Program) Regulations 2026

This Disallowable Legislative Instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Overview of the Disallowable Legislative Instrument

The Community Support Program (CSP) is part of Australia’s humanitarian visa program. The CSP is intended to enable the resettlement of working-age primary applicants in humanitarian need, who have adequate English language skills and who can become financially self-sufficient within 12 months of arrival in Australia. Eligible persons and their families may access the CSP by making an application for a Subclass 202 (Global Special Humanitarian) visa (Subclass 202 visa) and including a proposal by an Approved Proposing Organisation (APO). The Subclass 202 visa is a permanent visa.

An APO, as defined in Part 202 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Migration Regulations), is an organisation who has entered into a Deed of Agreement with the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), where that deed is in effect and not suspended. Under the deed, the APO is required to provide 12 months of settlement support from the time of the applicant’s arrival in Australia.

The Migration Amendment (Realigning the Community Support Program) Regulations 2026 (the Amendment Regulations) amend the Migration Regulations to:

• prescribe a new Schedule 1 criteria applicable to applications for a Subclass 202 visa that includes proposal by an APO, requiring that the application must not exceed the maximum number of persons that can be proposed by an APO in a financial year;
• establish an instrument-making power enabling the Minister to specify, by legislative instrument, the maximum number of persons an APO can propose each financial year;
• allow applicants who are initially proposed by one APO to instead be proposed by a different APO;
• clarify that the permanent settlement of the applicant in Australia must be consistent with the priorities of the Commonwealth as specified in an instrument; and
• establish an instrument-making power enabling the Minister to specify, by legislative instrument, those Commonwealth priorities.

Further details regarding each of the measures in the Amendment Regulations are set out below.

Measure 1 – Annual Applicant Limits

The CSP enables APOs to propose those outside of Australia to make an application for a Subclass 202 visa. A person can only make a valid application under the CSP if they have been proposed by an APO.

The Amendment Regulations insert a new criterion into Schedule 1 of the Migration Regulations, which requires that in order for the visa application to be a valid application, the number of applicants included in the application must not exceed the maximum number of proposals that can be made by the APO in a financial year.

As a result, where a CSP application is made that contains a proposal by an APO that has exceeded its limit for that year, the application will be invalid and will not be considered (see subsections 46(3) and 47(3) of the Migration Act 1958). The limit applies to both primary and secondary visa applicants, as each of these applicants are counted towards the limit for the APO that proposed them.

Prior to the amendments, APOs were able to propose an unlimited number of persons for a Subclass 202 visa, which contributed to backlogs and extended processing times amendments. Oversubscription of the CSP has extended processing timeframes to around eight years for new applicants. Delays to CSP visa processing undermine key program settings – job offers expire and applicants who were once working age may reach retirement age, meaning the program no longer targets those who can become financially self-sufficient.

This measure introduces a lodgement limit to allow the Department to control oversubscription and limit APO lodgements.

Measure 2 – Changing APOs

Prior to these amendments, the Migration Regulations required the APO that proposed the applicant for the original application to be the same APO proposing the applicant at the time of decision.

If an APO was no longer an APO due to their deed expiring, being suspended or terminated, the applicant would no longer satisfy the CSP criteria, and their visa application would be liable to refusal.

The second measure updates Schedule 2 criteria that requires an applicant who is proposed by an APO at the time of making an application to continue to be proposed at the time a decision is made on the visa application. The amendments to Schedule 2 enable an applicant to ‘transfer’ their application prior to a decision being made, so that it is proposed by a different APO. The amendment ensures applicants are not disadvantaged by any changes in circumstances, such as the APO choosing not to continue its deed with the Department, but is otherwise consistent with the original policy intent of the CSP, which was that eligible persons would settle into the Australian community with the support of an APO.

Measure 3 – Priorities of the Commonwealth

An applicant whose entry to Australia has been proposed by an APO must be outside of Australia at the time of application and time of grant. The applicants are non-citizens who are outside Australia’s territory and jurisdiction.

The permanent resettlement of CSP applicants in Australia must align with the priorities of the Commonwealth. These priorities are expressed in a procedural instruction and prior to the amendments decision-makers were encouraged to consider, as a matter of policy, factors such as whether the applicant is of working age, and whether they have the personal attributes, or an offer of employment, that make them likely to become financially self-sufficient within 12 months of arrival.

The Amendment Regulations insert an instrument-making power into the Migration Regulations providing clarity as to how the Minister or a delegate is to assess whether the resettlement of the applicant is consistent with Commonwealth priorities. An instrument-making power provides flexibility in the factors considered by decision-makers when assessing the resettlement of an applicant.

Human rights implications

The Amendment Regulations do not engage any of the applicable rights or freedoms.

Conclusion

The Disallowable Legislative Instrument is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.

The Hon Tony Burke MP

Minister for Home Affairs

ATTACHMENT B

Details of the Migration Amendment (Realigning the Community Support Program) Regulation 2026

Section 1 – Name of Regulations

This section provides that the name of the instrument is the Migration Amendment (Realignment of the Community Support Program) Regulations 2026.

Section 2 – Commencement

This section provides that the instrument commences on 1 July 2026.

Section 3 – Authority

This section provides that the instrument is made under the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act).

Section 4 – Schedules

This section provides that each instrument that is specified in a Schedule to this instrument is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this instrument has effect according to its terms.

Schedule 1 – Amendments

Migration Regulation 1994

Item [1] – At the end of subitem 1402(3A) of Schedule 1

This item inserts new paragraph 1402(3A)(d) into Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations. Subitem 1402(3A) applies to an application for a Subclass 202 visa that includes a proposal by an approved proposing organisation (APO), as described in Part 202 of Schedule 2. Applications made in this way form part of the Community Support Program (CSP). New paragraph 1402(3A)(d) provides that an application, including (if applicable) any combined applications by eligible family members, must not cause the number of applicants proposed by an APO to exceed an applicable maximum number of applicants set out in a legislative instrument.

The use of applicants in this context encompasses all persons who make an application for a Subclass 202 visa under the CSP program, whether they are a primary or secondary applicant. A secondary applicant is a person who is a member of the family unit of the primary applicant who seeks to satisfy the secondary criteria for the grant of the visa.

The inclusion of this provision in Schedule 1 has the effect that an application which does not satisfy the criterion will not be a valid application. This includes any secondary applicants who make a combined application with the primary applicant. For example, if a primary applicant, their spouse and their three children make a combined visa application, then there are five applicants. Each of these applicants is counted towards the limit for the APO that proposed them.

Where the total number of applicants would cause the relevant limit to be exceeded, both the primary applicant’s application and any combined applications would be invalid. In other words, paragraph 1402(3A)(d) is determined on a “one fail, all fail” basis. This prevents an outcome where the primary applicant and one or some of the secondary applicants might be taken to have made a valid application, and yet other additional secondary applicants would be taken not to have made a valid application. This also avoids a situation in which families might be separated if some family members were able to make a valid visa application and subsequently be eligible for the grant of the visa, while other family members would not.

Paragraph 1402(3A)(d) is not intended to affect the operation of regulations 2.08 or 2.08A. In the event that an additional family member later makes a secondary application in the circumstances contemplated by those regulations, the additional applicant would be counted towards the total number of applicants proposed by the APO, relative to any applicable maximums; however, paragraph 1402(3A)(d) would not prevent the additional family member from making an application, even if the limit on the number of applicants specified for that APO had been exceeded. This is because paragraph 1402(3A)(d) does not apply to regulations 2.08 or 2.08A.

This is intended to prevent family separation in limited and exceptional circumstances, such as where the primary applicant becomes the parent of a child born after the visa application is made but prior to a decision being made (see regulation 2.08). An application that fails the criterion at new paragraph 1402(3A)(d) will be treated as invalid. This means that the Minister will not consider the application, as provided for by subsection 47(3) of the Migration Act. Applicants may be eligible for any visa application charges to be repaid.

Applicants who lodged an application that was invalid on the basis it did not meet new paragraph 1402(3A)(d), would not be prevented from making a future Subclass 202 visa application under the CSP after the beginning of the next financial year. This is because the limits will operate for a financial year and reset at the beginning of each new financial year (1 July to 30 June).

The limits on the number of applicants an APO can propose may be specified by the Minister in a legislative instrument made under new subitem 1402(3D) (see below).

Item [2] – After subitem 1402(3C) of Schedule 1

This item inserts subitems 1402(3D) and (3E) after subitem 1402(3C) of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations, to give effect to new paragraph 1402(3A)(d).

Subitem 1402(3D) provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify a limit on the number of applicants that an APO may propose in a financial year. It is intended that a limit will be specified for each APOs based on:  

• volumes of applications awaiting decisions;
• compliance with the Deed of Agreement;
• financial viability;
• geographic reach (including whether the APO operates nationally or within particular states or territories);
• capacity to support a broad range of individuals in humanitarian need.

Subitem 1402(3E) provides that without limiting subitem 1402(3D), the instrument may make provision for working out which applicants are to be counted, and which applicants are to be disregarded, in calculating whether a specified limit would be exceeded. Subsection 504(2) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that section 14 of the Legislation Act 2003 does not prevent, and has not prevented, regulations whose operation depends on a matter being specified or certified by the Minister in an instrument in writing made under the Migration Regulations.

It is intended that all applicants are to be counted in calculating whether a specific limit is reached for a particular APO. However, there may be instances where it may be necessary to disregard certain applicants from being counted towards the limit to ensure there are no unintended consequences. For example, ensuring that family members (such as newborn babies) can later be added to the application in excess of the limit (in circumstances where the regulations permit this) or where the applicant has changed APOs (as permitted by amended paragraph 202.212(c) and new subclause 202.221(3)) and has already been counted towards the limit of the first proposing APO. Subclause 1402(3E) enables the Minister to specify in the instrument whether such applicants should be counted towards the limits in these circumstances.

Item [3] – Subparagraph 202.111(a)(ii)

This item amends the definition of approved proposing organisation in clause 202.111 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. The amendment omits the wording “that it has proposed” and substitutes it with, “whether the applicant was proposed by the organisation or another approved proposing organisation”. This amendment is necessitated by item 5, which allows an applicant to update the APO that is proposing their visa application.

Item [4] – Paragraph 202.212(c) of Schedule 2

This item amends the time of application criteria that applies to an application that includes a proposal by an approved proposing organisation, as required by clause 202.212. This amendment omits the words, “the approved”, and substitutes “an approved” proposing organisation in paragraph 202.212(c).The effect of this amendment is that an applicant must still be proposed by an APO, but it need not be the same APO. This amendment is necessitated by item 5, which allows an applicant to update the APO that is proposing their visa application.

Item [5] – Subclause 202.221(2) of Schedule 2

This item repeals subclause 202.221(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and substitutes it with new subclauses 202.221(2) and (3). These subclauses specify criteria which must be satisfied by the primary applicant at the time of decision, if the time of application criteria in clause 202.212 applies. Clause 202.212 will apply if the application includes a proposal by an APO, and requires:

(a)   the applicant is subject to substantial discrimination, amounting to gross violation of human rights, in the applicant’s home country and is living in a country other than the applicant’s home country; and

(b)   the proposal is not made on behalf of another person who is mentioned in subregulation 2.07AM(5); and

(c)  the applicant is still proposed by an approved proposing organisation.

New subclause 202.221(2) provides that if clause 202.212 applies, and there has been no change to the approved proposing organisation proposing the applicant, the applicant continues to satisfy the criteria in clause 202.212. The effect of this is that where the APO that proposed the applicant at the time of application continues to propose the applicant at the time of decision, there is no substantive change to the criteria that must be satisfied between time of application and time of decision. This is consistent with the arrangements prior to these amendments, which requires continuity of the APO from time of application through to time of decision.

In contrast, subclause 202.221(3) provides that if clause 202.212 applies, but another approved proposing organisation is proposing the applicant, the applicant may still satisfy the criteria in clause 202.212. The effect of this is that where the APO that proposed the applicant when the visa application was made is no longer proposing the applicant, and a different APO is now instead proposing the application, the applicant can still meet the relevant time of decision criteria.

The process of taking over a proposal is to be managed by the APOs with oversight by the Department. Paragraph 202.221(3)(b) requires that the new APO must submit a form 1417 to formalise their proposal of the new applicant.

The effect of this amendment is that an applicant may change APOs after their visa application is made but before it is decided. The amendments are intended to ensure that applicants are not disadvantaged by the change in circumstances of an APO, including where an organisation ends their deed of arrangement enabling it to make proposals.

Item [6] – Subclause 202.223(2) of Schedule 2

This item repeals subclause 202.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and substitutes it with new subclauses 202.223(2) and (3).

New subclause 202.223(2) provides that if the application includes a proposal by an APO, the permanent settlement of the applicant in Australia would be consistent with the priorities of the Commonwealth as specified in an instrument made under subclause (3). New subclause 202.223(3) empowers the Minister to set out the priorities of the Commonwealth, by legislative instrument.

While the Migration Regulations previously required the permanent settlement of the applicant to be consistent with the priorities of the Commonwealth, this amendment enables those priorities to now be specified in a legislative instrument. This is intended to provide clarity to the assessment of this criterion.

Item 6 also repeals the note that explained the commencement of previous subclause (2) on 1 July 2017 as part of the Department’s Community Support Program. The note is no longer necessary in light of the length of time for which the program has been running and the additional amendments now made to subclause (2).

Item [7] – In the appropriate position in Schedule 13

This item inserts Part 161 into Schedule 13 to the Migration Regulations. Schedule 13 sets out the application and transitional provisions that apply to amendments of the Migration Regulations.

Clause 16101 provides that the amendments made by Items 1, 2 and 6 apply to visa applications made on or after the date that this instrument comments. In contrast, the amendments made by Items 3, 4 and 5 apply to both applications made on or after commencement of this instrument, as well as applications made prior to commencement, but which are not yet finally determined.

In this context, retrospective commencement delivers a wholly positive benefit to persons who made an application prior to the commencement of the Amendment Regulations, by enabling (but not compelling) an applicant to update the APO that is proposing their application. This is intended to provide applicants with flexibility, including in circumstances where the APO that originally proposed the applicant is no longer an APO within the meaning of paragraph 202.111(b) because the relevant deed has ended. Without retrospective commencement, the applicant’s application would otherwise not meet the relevant criteria (that the APO who originally proposed the applicant continues to propose that applicant) and would be liable to refusal.