Prepared on 25 October 2026. Ministerial Direction No.123 is due to commence on 31 October 2026.
You have lived in Australia for years. Your partner and children are here. If a criminal or family violence matter puts your visa at risk, how much protection do those connections provide?
They still matter. But their relative weight is changing.
Ministerial Direction No.123 (MD123) replaces Direction No.110 on 31 October 2026. Its most significant structural change is to move a person’s ties to Australia from a primary consideration to an other consideration in character-related visa decisions. The new direction also gives more detailed attention to domestic and family violence, child victims and hate-related conduct.
What does Direction 123 actually govern?
MD123 is a direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958. It guides ministerial delegates and the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) when considering character-based visa refusal or cancellation under section 501, and revocation of a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA.
It is not a student-visa processing-priority direction or a change to the skilled migration points test. Nor does it replace the statutory character test. Whether a person fails that test and how an available discretion should be exercised are distinct questions. Failing the test does not mean every case results in automatic cancellation.
The central change: Australian ties move down a category
Direction 110 treated the strength, nature and duration of a person’s ties to Australia as a primary consideration. Under MD123, those ties become an other consideration under paragraph 9.1.
The number of primary considerations falls from five to four: protection of the Australian community; domestic or family violence; expectations of the Australian community; and the best interests of minor children in Australia, including child victims.
Primary considerations generally receive greater weight than other considerations. The practical implication is that the same evidence of long residence, family relationships and community contribution may have less relative force against serious character concerns.
However, ties have not become irrelevant. Paragraph 9.1 retains consideration of immediate family, residence, childhood arrival, community contribution and social connections. Paragraph 5.2(6) also retains the principle that Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance to people who have lived here for most of their lives or arrived very young. This is a change in relative weight, not the wholesale abolition of long-residence considerations.
Children remain a separate primary consideration
The demotion of ties to Australia does not demote the best interests of minor children. Those interests remain primary, with express reference to child victims.
It is therefore not enough simply to state that a person has Australian children. Evidence should explain actual care arrangements, the likely consequences of separation, developmental needs and any risk arising from the person’s conduct. Where several children are affected, their interests may differ and require individual consideration.
For one child, separation from a parent may be profoundly harmful. For another, safety from further violence may be the central concern. The direction makes it particularly important to address the circumstances of each affected child rather than treating the family as a single undifferentiated factor.
Domestic and family violence: a broader and more explicit framework
MD123 expands examples of relevant conduct and covered relationships, including image-based abuse, stalking, breaches of relevant court orders, coercive conduct and caregiving relationships. A character assessment is not limited to physical injury or a particular conviction.
That does not make an allegation a proven fact. The quality and context of independent evidence, the conduct it actually establishes and procedural fairness remain important. Police material, court orders and sentencing remarks must be considered for what they do—and do not—demonstrate.
Hate-related conduct and business interests
The community-expectations consideration expressly addresses hate speech, incitement of violence or discord, and related advocacy. Annex A explains statutory hatred and extremism grounds. Their specific elements still matter: an association ground can require an intention to support terrorism, extremism or hatred, while particular public-statement grounds include a risk-of-harm requirement. Mere contact or an unpopular opinion should not be presented as automatically sufficient.
MD123 also removes the separately listed consideration concerning Australian business interests. This weakens the express footing for that argument. However, the other-considerations list remains non-exhaustive. Removal of a named factor is not an absolute prohibition on considering relevant employment or community-contribution evidence.
Why has the balance shifted?
The recent history is one of adjusting the balance between Australian connections and community protection. Direction 99 elevated ties to a primary consideration. Direction 110 retained that status while giving community protection generally greater weight than other primary considerations. Direction 123 now moves ties into the other category.
Community safety is therefore not a new priority invented by MD123. The change reduces the relative counterweight provided by settlement ties within an already safety-focused framework.
In his official Migration Institute of Australia speech on 2 October 2026, Julian Hill described the objectives as stronger responses to family violence, exploitation, criminal offending and hate-motivated behaviour; greater protection for victims and children; and clearer guidance for complex decisions.
Expected benefits are not yet demonstrated outcomes
The likely immediate consequence is that some people with serious character concerns will find it harder to rely on long residence and family ties to retain a visa or obtain revocation of cancellation. More explicit treatment of non-physical abuse and child victims may also improve the visibility of harm.
Potential costs include family separation, more complex disputes over contested evidence and disagreement about the context, translation or intention behind statements. Clearer categories do not make every case straightforward.
More cancellations, more actual removals and lower crime are separate propositions. As MD123 has not commenced at the preparation date, this article does not claim observed improvements in cancellation outcomes, removals or reoffending. Those effects require subsequent evidence.
What should people with an existing character matter do?
Check the response deadline and which direction will govern the decision. Submissions prepared around Direction 110 should be reviewed against the new primary and other considerations rather than simply reused.
Organise the evidence around the actual issues: each child’s care and safety; the nature and reliability of conduct evidence; rehabilitation, treatment and behavioural change; and the concrete consequences for dependent family members.
The future-risk ground is not an invitation to speculation. Annex A requires evidence of more than a minimal or remote chance of specified future conduct, and past conduct alone is insufficient for that particular ground. Other character grounds and discretionary considerations remain separate; low reoffending risk is not a universal answer to cancellation.
Time spent in Australia still matters. The task is to explain precisely what those connections mean, who depends on them and how the current risks should be assessed.
This article provides general information, not advice on an individual matter. Obtain advice on the applicable law, evidence, deadlines and review rights if you receive a refusal or cancellation notice.
Sources and limitations
Direction 110 was checked against the Department’s published document. Direction 123 was reviewed through a third-party copy which No Worries Migration says was obtained from LEGENDcom and published unaltered; its identity with a government-hosted original was not independently authenticated. Professional commentary was used for cross-checking. The policy discussion above is prospective analysis, not a claim of measured effectiveness.