{"id":"BILL-s1138","name":"Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018","slug":"plebiscite-future-migration-level-bill-2018","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":445963,"registerId":"commonwealth-BILL-s1138-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-05-05","status":"introduced","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[],"analysis":{"summary":{"status_summary":"The bill has been introduced in the Senate and the second reading was moved and debated on 26 November 2025.","complexity_score":2,"likely_questions":["What exact question would Australians be asked in the plebiscite?","What would be required for the plebiscite to go ahead if the bill passes?"],"complexity_factors":["Sets up framework for national plebiscite","Coordinates with general election"],"plain_english_summary":"The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 would create a legal framework for a national plebiscite held alongside the next general election, asking eligible Australian voters whether they think the current rate of immigration is too high. It applies nationwide to all federal electors and governs organisation and conduct of the vote.\n\nIntroduced in the Senate in 2018, the bill lapsed and has been restored to the notice paper multiple times; it was debated again in November 2025 and still requires further parliamentary steps before it could take effect."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Bill remains aligned with its core purpose: to create a legal mechanism for a single national plebiscite asking whether the current rate of immigration is too high. It does not expand into wider migration policy-making or directly change migration settings; it is limited to establishing the consultative vote and associated administrative arrangements."},"complexity_factors":["Single-issue, single-question structure reduces structural complexity","Short statutory text with few defined technical terms compared with omnibus legislation","Cross-references/delegation to electoral administration (increases conditionality because conduct must align with electoral law and AEC procedures)","Operational details (timing with the next federal election) create coordination requirements with existing election machinery","Potential campaign/disclosure provisions and offences (if present) add modest compliance and enforcement complexity"],"plain_english_summary":"**What the Bill does (mechanics)\n\n- Creates a legal framework to hold a national plebiscite (a nationwide public vote used for consultation rather than for directly changing law) on a single question: “Do you think the current rate of immigration to Australia is too high?”.\n- Requires the plebiscite to be held in conjunction with the next general election (so the vote would be conducted at the same time as polling for the House of Representatives/Senate).  \n- Sets out how the plebiscite is to be run — the form of the question, timing, and administrative arrangements — and assigns responsibility for conduct to the electoral authority and related agencies.  \n- Provides for the public dissemination of results and the reporting process once votes are counted.  \n\nWho it affects\n\n- All enrolled federal electors (adult Australian citizens on the electoral roll) who will be eligible to vote in the plebiscite.  \n- The Australian Electoral Commission (or the statutory body/authority tasked by the Bill) and its staff, who administer the plebiscite alongside the election.  \n- The Commonwealth budget/taxpayers, because the plebiscite’s administration will be publicly funded.  \n- Political parties, interest groups, community organisations and other campaigners who may spend time and money to influence the public vote.  \n\nWhy it matters (official rationale and practical effects)\n\n- Official rationale: the Bill is presented as a way to obtain a direct measure of public opinion on the future level of immigration.  \n- Practical effects and trade-offs: the plebiscite is a consultative instrument; it does not itself change migration law or set visa numbers (those remain decisions for Parliament and the executive unless separate statutory changes follow). Holding the plebiscite imposes a direct cost (administration, staffing, publicity) and an indirect cost (public attention and campaign resources directed at the question instead of other issues). The measure concentrates benefits for organised campaigners who can mobilise resources to influence the single question while the financial and logistical costs are spread across the entire taxpayer base.\n\nImplementation and incentive effects to note\n\n- Who pays: the Commonwealth pays the administrative cost out of public funds.  \n- Who decides: enrolled voters cast a yes/no response; the plebiscite produces a public result that may inform, but does not automatically alter, migration settings.  \n- Behavioural incentives: the plebiscite creates incentives for advocacy groups, political parties and media to invest in campaigns; it may alter the political salience of immigration in the immediate term and could influence subsequent legislative or administrative action by signalling public sentiment.  \n\nCosts, risks and trade-offs (mechanical and institutional)\n\n- Fiscal cost: running a nation-wide poll concurrently with an election still consumes resources (printing, staffing, counting, compliance and reporting).  \n- Opportunity cost: time and attention diverted to the plebiscite question may displace other policy debates during the election period.  \n- Administrative complexity: synchronising a plebiscite with an election requires extra planning and may increase the AEC’s workload.  \n- Campaign dynamics and disclosure: a single-question plebiscite concentrates campaigning; without stringent disclosure and funding limits (depending on the Bill’s provisions), well-resourced actors may exert outsized influence relative to more diffuse constituencies.  \n- Legal effect: unless further legislation is enacted, the plebiscite result is consultative only and does not itself change migration law or quotas (the Bill sets out a mechanism for consultation rather than a rule change).\n\nSource claims vs. trade-offs\n\n- The Bill’s stated purpose is to gauge public opinion. That claim is straightforward and the Bill implements a mechanism to gather a clear binary response. Against that purpose, the concrete trade-offs are taxpayer cost, campaign concentration, and the risk that the public result will be interpreted politically in ways that do not translate into careful, evidence-based policy changes. The Bill changes the information environment available to decision‑makers but does not itself allocate migration places or alter statutory migration powers.\n\n(References: Bill text and Explanatory Memorandum establish the plebiscite question, timing with the next general election, and administrative arrangements.)"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/plebiscite-future-migration-level-bill-2018","history":"/api/acts/plebiscite-future-migration-level-bill-2018/history","analysis":"/api/acts/plebiscite-future-migration-level-bill-2018/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/plebiscite-future-migration-level-bill-2018/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/plebiscite-future-migration-level-bill-2018/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/plebiscite-future-migration-level-bill-2018/documents"}}