Direction 123 and the character test: what changed on 31 October 2026

What a Direction is, and who has to follow it

Section 501 gives the Minister and the Department a discretion. If a person doesn't pass the character test, a visa may be refused or cancelled, but it doesn't have to be. A Direction made under section 499 of the Act sets out how that discretion is to be exercised. Under section 499(2A), decision-makers must comply with it.

Direction 123 defines a decision-maker as a delegate of the Minister or a body such as the Administrative Review Tribunal. So it governs the officer who first decides a case and the Tribunal member who reviews it.

It covers three kinds of decision: refusing a visa under section 501(1), cancelling a visa under section 501(2), and deciding under section 501CA whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation. The Direction contains no transitional carve-out for matters that were already underway on 31 October.

What changed from Direction 110

We compared the two instruments side by side. These are the differences that matter most to an applicant, a visa holder or a sponsoring employer.

• Ties to Australia dropped a tier. Under Direction 110 the strength, nature and duration of a person's ties to Australia was one of five primary considerations. Under Direction 123 it is an "other consideration". The Direction says primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations.
• Community expectations moved up and widened. It was listed fifth and is now third. The new text adds that the presence of a non-citizen of serious character concern harms "the social fabric" of the community, and that the expectation applies whether or not the person will remain in Australia on a temporary visa.
• Family violence became domestic or family violence, with a far longer definition. It now names coercive control, economic abuse, image-based abuse, stalking or monitoring through phones and other devices, neglect, breaching court orders and exposing a child to the conduct. The relationships covered include any intimate personal relationship "regardless of duration", in-laws and step-family, people who share domestic life, and carers.
• Police attendance records are named as evidence. The domestic or family violence consideration applies where independent and authoritative sources indicate the person "is, or has been, or may have been" involved, and those sources include police records of attendance "regardless of whether charges were brought". The person must have been given procedural fairness.
• Child victims are written in. The best interests of minor children in Australia now expressly includes the interests of child victims of the person's conduct.
• The short-stay factor for visa applicants is gone. Direction 110 told decision-makers considering a refusal to look at the length and purpose of the intended stay, the type of visa, and whether there were strong or compassionate reasons for a short stay visa. Direction 123 has no equivalent paragraph.
• The business interests consideration is gone. Direction 110 listed "impact on Australian business interests" as an other consideration. Direction 123 does not list it.
• Two new entries on the "serious" list. Conduct constituting a hate crime, or advocacy that might lead someone else to commit one, and any drug or property damage crime where the sentence was five years or more.

The four primary considerations

A decision-maker must take these into account where relevant:

• Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. This one is "generally to be given greater weight" than the other primary considerations. It looks at the nature and seriousness of the conduct and the risk if it were repeated.
• Whether the conduct was domestic or family violence. A conviction is not required.
• Expectations of the Australian community. Decision-makers are told to proceed on the Government's stated view of those expectations, without assessing community opinion in the individual case.
• The best interests of minor children in Australia, including child victims.

The other considerations are ties to Australia, the legal consequences of the decision (including Australia's non-refoulement obligations), and the impediments a person would face if removed. The list is expressed as "include (but are not limited to)", so other relevant matters can still be put forward.

One principle carries over from Direction 110 and is worth reading twice. Some conduct may be so serious that "even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient" to avoid refusal or cancellation. Direction 123 applies that to domestic or family violence and now also to conduct affecting minor children, even where the person is not assessed as a measurable risk of physical harm.

How ties to Australia are weighed now

Ties still count. The decision-maker must consider the impact on immediate family in Australia who are citizens, permanent residents or have an indefinite right to stay. For cancellation and revocation cases they must also look at how long the person has lived here, any positive contribution, and family and social links.

Two details changed inside that consideration. Less weight is generally given where the offending or other serious conduct began soon after arrival "or soon after reaching 18 years of age", which is new. And Direction 110's line that more weight should be given to time spent contributing positively has become a plain requirement to have regard to any positive contribution.

The principles still say Australia "may afford a higher level of tolerance" to people who have lived here most of their life or from a very young age, and has a low tolerance for conduct by visa applicants, people on limited stay visas, and people who have only been in the community a short time.

The character test: the hatred and extremism ground

The Direction's annex explains each ground of the character test in section 501(6). Most are familiar: a substantial criminal record (a sentence of 12 months or more, or two or more sentences that total 12 months, with concurrent sentences each counted in full), offences in immigration detention, criminal associations, involvement in people smuggling, trafficking or war crimes, past and present conduct, future risk, child sex offences, adverse ASIO assessments and certain Interpol notices.

The annex to Direction 123 adds a section that Direction 110 did not have, on section 501(6)(baa) and section 501(6A) of the Act. A person does not pass the character test if the Minister reasonably suspects that they:

• are or were a member of a terrorist organisation, a state sponsor of terrorism or a prohibited hate group;
• associated with one, intending to support terrorism, extremism or hatred. A single meeting or communication can be an association;
• have been involved in conduct constituting a hate crime, whether or not anyone was convicted; or
• publicly made, endorsed or encouraged statements, including online and overseas, that spread ideas based on superiority over or hatred of others on the basis of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, where there is a risk of harm to the Australian community or part of it.

Home Affairs lists the same ground on its character requirements page. For visa applicants, the practical point is that what a person has said publicly online is within what a character assessment can look at.

What this means in practice

Visa applicants. The low-tolerance principle was already there. What has gone is the express instruction to weigh a short, purposeful visit against the risk. An applicant with a record should assume the conduct itself will be the centre of the decision, and put forward evidence on seriousness, time elapsed and rehabilitation.

Temporary and permanent visa holders. Long residence, family here and community links remain relevant, but they now sit in the second tier. Evidence on the primary considerations, particularly risk of reoffending, rehabilitation and the interests of any children, does more work than it did.

Anyone with a domestic or family violence history. The definition is broad, a conviction is not required, and police attendance records and protection orders are named as sources. The Direction also lists rehabilitation factors a decision-maker must consider: accepting responsibility, understanding the impact on the people affected, and efforts to address what contributed to the conduct.

Employers. If a sponsored worker faces a character decision, the effect on your business is no longer a listed consideration. It can still be raised, but the Direction gives it no named place.

If a notice arrives

Character matters usually start with a written notice inviting comment before a decision, or with a cancellation notice. Each carries a deadline. Home Affairs says a person whose visa is mandatorily cancelled has 28 days to request revocation, and that review rights and time limits are set out in the decision letter. A decision by a delegate can generally go to the Administrative Review Tribunal. A decision made by the Minister personally cannot, and can only be challenged in the courts for legal error.

The consequences reach past the visa in question. Home Affairs says that after a character refusal or cancellation since your last arrival, the only visa you can apply for in Australia is a Protection visa, and that a person refused or cancelled on character grounds who has left Australia cannot meet Special Return Criterion 5001, which many visas require, unless the decision is revoked or the Minister grants a permanent visa. Our guide to what to do after a refusal or cancellation covers review more broadly.

The Direction does not decide any individual case. It sets what must be weighed and roughly how heavily. That is why the response to a notice matters: it is the main chance to put evidence in front of the decision-maker on each consideration the Direction names.

General information only, current at 12 November 2026. Not immigration assistance or advice for your circumstances. Visacorp Pty Ltd — MARN 0317382 · 1799004.