Migration (Australian Values Statement for Public Interest Criterion 4019) Instrument 2025

The instrument rests on a small number of interlocking concepts, embodied in particular provisions and schedules.

• Approval of a values statement: s7 formally approves the content to be used as the "values statement" for specified subclasses. Approval is textual: Part 1 is the core statement; Part 2 is an addendum required for the subclasses in table 2 (s7(1)-(2); Schedule 2).

• Applicability by timing and subclass: s5 limits application to visa applications lodged on or after commencement, and only where the application is for a subclass listed in Schedule 1. The instrument therefore operates prospectively from its commencement date and according to a defined catalogue of visa subclasses (s2, s5; Schedule 1).

• Two-tiered content: Schedule 2 divides the approved statement into two parts. Part 1 is a declaration of receipt/explanation of government-provided information and a list of values (including respect for freedom and dignity, freedom of religion/speech/association, commitment to rule of law, parliamentary democracy, equality of opportunity, mutual respect/tolerance/compassion, and the English language as national language), followed by an undertaking to conduct oneself in accordance with those values and to obey Australian laws (Schedule 2 Part 1). Part 2 adds an undertaking to make reasonable efforts to learn English if it is not the applicant’s native language and an acknowledgement about the future civic pledge upon naturalisation (Schedule 2 Part 2).

• Substantive lists of visa subclasses: Schedule 1 contains two tables. Table 1 lists 29 subclasses for which only Part 1 applies; Table 2 lists 38 subclasses for which Part 1 plus Part 2 apply. The instrument therefore distinguishes between categories of visas for the purpose of what the applicant must acknowledge (Schedule 1; s7).

• Repeal of prior instrument: Schedule 3 expressly repeals the previous Migration (LIN 20/166: Australian Values Statement for Public Interest Criterion 4019) Instrument 2020 in full (Schedule 3).

These concepts are administrative and textual: the instrument does not supply definitions beyond referencing the Migration Regulations 1994 in s4 (where "Regulations" is defined as that instrument). It does not itself define enforcement mechanisms, evidence standards, or registration procedures for the statements; those matters remain outside the four corners of the instrument and would be implemented through other regulatory or administrative instruments or processes.

Directly affected persons are applicants for the visa subclasses listed in Schedule 1 where their application is lodged on or after the instrument’s commencement (s5; Schedule 1). The instrument divides those applicants into two groups:

• Table 1 applicants: persons applying for any of the 29 subclasses listed in Table 1 of Schedule 1 must be presented with, and the approved form of the values statement is the text in Schedule 2 Part 1 (s7(1); Schedule 1 Table 1). Table 1 includes a mix of temporary and provisional business, family, work, student and protection-related subclasses as named in the Schedule (for example, subclasses 500, 485, 820 appear in Table 1).

• Table 2 applicants: persons applying for any of the 38 subclasses listed in Table 2 of Schedule 1 must be presented with the approved form consisting of Schedule 2 Part 1 together with Part 2 (s7(2); Schedule 1 Table 2). Table 2 contains a wide range of permanent and protection-related subclasses and other visa types as listed (for example, subclasses 100, 200, 189, 190, 866 appear in Table 2).

Indirectly affected parties include the entity or official responsible for providing the government materials that applicants must "read, or had explained to me" (Schedule 2 Part 1). The text presupposes that "information provided by the Australian Government on Australian society and values" will be available, and that applicants will either access it or have it explained to them. The instrument does not specify which agency supplies that material, but it does create an expectation that such material exists and will be used in the application process (Schedule 2 Part 1).

Administrative actors who will implement the statement (for example by incorporating it into application forms, guidance, and information materials, or by collecting the declared undertakings) are affected operationally, because they must align forms and processes to the approved wording. The instrument itself is silent on which office performs those tasks; it does identify the authorising official (the Assistant Minister) and the statutory authority for making the instrument (s3 and introductory material), and it requires that the instrument commence by registration (s2).

Finally, anyone responsible for pre-application advice (immigration advisers, lawyers, agents, sponsors, educational institutions) will need to be aware of the split in obligations between Table 1 and Table 2 subclasses, because applicants for Table 2 subclasses are required by the approved statement to undertake reasonable efforts to learn English if it is not their native language (Schedule 2 Part 2), a step that may impose time and cost obligations on applicants and their advisors.

The instrument primarily establishes the content of a statement that applicants are to acknowledge; the "duties" created are undertakings within that approved text. The instrument itself does not create discrete statutory powers or penal provisions, but it records declaratory commitments that an applicant is to make.

Declared undertakings (the applicant’s duties in the text)

• Read or have explained Government-provided information and acknowledge understanding of the listed values (Schedule 2 Part 1). The opening sentence of Part 1 is: "I confirm that I have read, or had explained to me, information provided by the Australian Government on Australian society and values."
• Undertake to conduct oneself in accordance with those values during the applicant’s stay and to obey Australian laws (Schedule 2 Part 1, concluding sentence).
• For Table 2 applicants, undertake to make reasonable efforts to learn English if it is not the applicant’s native language (Schedule 2 Part 2, first sentence).
• For Table 2 applicants, acknowledge understanding that if they later meet legal qualifications for citizenship and their application is approved, they will need to pledge loyalty to Australia and its people (Schedule 2 Part 2, second sentence).

Expressed rights or societal values (as described, not created)

• The approved statement lists specific values that the applicant is to understand: respect for individual freedom and dignity; freedom of religion (including freedom not to follow a particular religion), freedom of speech, and freedom of association; commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy in which laws made by elected parliaments are paramount; equality of opportunity regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, race, or national or ethnic origin; a “fair go” expressed as mutual respect, tolerance, compassion for those in need, and equality of opportunity; and the English language as the national language and an important unifying element (Schedule 2 Part 1).

Rights versus undertakings

• The text describes values and states the applicant’s understanding of them. It does not, within the instrument itself, create enforceable individual rights or procedures for vindicating those rights. The instrument approves the wording of the statement that an applicant must be presented with; it does not create a parallel body of rights or remedies in the instrument’s text.

What the instrument does not prescribe

• The instrument does not set out how an applicant must show compliance with the undertakings, who will verify them, or what consequences follow if an applicant refuses to make the declaration or breaches the undertakings after making them. Those operational matters are not within the instrument’s text (see s6-s7; Schedule 2).

In short, the instrument establishes the textual form of duties applicants will be required to acknowledge in relation to specified visa subclasses, and it lists the values and additional obligations that applicants must accept as part of that statement. It leaves how those acknowledgements will be collected, evidenced, and used in decision-making processes to other administrative instruments and procedures.

The instrument contains no penalties, sanctioning provisions, or enforcement mechanisms. It approves wording that an applicant must be presented with and, for Table 2 applicants, additional undertakings, but it does not prescribe remedies, refusal grounds, civil consequences, or criminal penalties for failing to provide the statement or for later conduct inconsistent with the undertakings (see s6-s7; Schedule 2).

Consequently, there are several points to note about enforcement as a matter of the instrument’s text:

• Absence of enforcement language: Nowhere in the instrument is a consequence specified for an applicant who refuses to sign, who provides false information in relation to the statement, or who subsequently acts contrary to the stated undertakings. The instrument approves the wording only (s7; Schedule 2).

• Reliance on external regimes: Any use of failure to comply with the values statement as a factor in visa decision-making, or any penalty linked to the statement, would need to be founded on other provisions of the Migration Regulations or primary legislation. The instrument does not itself create or refer to such provisions beyond the authority citation (s3).

• Operational enforcement likely outside instrument: The instrument presumes that administrative systems will present the statement and that applicants will make the relevant undertakings, but it does not provide the mechanisms by which those propositions will be operationalised. The means of collecting, storing, checking, or challenging an applicant’s acknowledgement are not established here.

• Evidentiary gaps in the instrument: Because the instrument does not set standards for evidence (for example, what constitutes proof an applicant "had explained to me" the government materials, or what suffices for "reasonable efforts" to learn English), decision-makers will have to look to other instruments, agency guidance, or case-by-case administrative practice to supply those standards.

• Repeal without transition details: The instrument repeals the 2020 instrument in full (Schedule 3). That repeal is textual; the instrument does not specify transitional arrangements, or whether earlier statements supplied under the repealed instrument continue to be recognised for outstanding applications lodged before commencement (Schedule 3).

In short, the instrument approves content of statements but leaves enforcement, evidentiary standards, and the effects of non-compliance to other instruments or administrative practices that are not set out in this instrument.

The instrument is made under the Migration Regulations 1994: s3 states that it is made under clause 3.1 of Part 3 of Schedule 4 to those Regulations. That establishes the instrument’s legal pedigree as subordinate legislation under migration law governance (s3). The instrument’s name explicitly references "Public Interest Criterion 4019" in the title, which signals an intended connection with the migration decision-making framework (instrument name), but the body of the instrument itself does not elaborate on how the approved statements interact with other provisions of the Migration Regulations or primary legislation.

Interactional points evident in the instrument text:

• Authorising provision: The instrument explicitly cites its statutory authority in s3. The text of the instrument does not contain other direct cross-references to specific sections, criteria, or decision-making rules beyond that authority citation and the title. How the values statement approved here will be used in relation to Public Interest Criterion 4019, or in broader visa assessment, is not spelled out in the instrument itself (s3 and instrument name).

• Procedural and evidentiary gap: The instrument approves the values statement wording but does not address procedural integration,how the statement will be included in application forms, what role it will play in merits assessments, or how evidence will be handled. Those matters will therefore be governed by other legislative, regulatory, or administrative instruments or by departmental practice, none of which are contained in this instrument (s6-s7; Schedule 2).

• Repeal of prior instrument: Schedule 3 repeals the 2020 instrument in its entirety. That repeal may have the practical effect of replacing previous wording and practice associated with that earlier instrument, but the 2025 instrument does not set out transitional rules or how existing applications are to be treated. The interaction with any existing or previously collected declarations is therefore left unspecified (Schedule 3).

• Government-provided materials: Schedule 2 Part 1 presumes the existence of "information provided by the Australian Government on Australian society and values." The nature, format, or legal status of those materials is not set out here. Interaction with other laws that might guarantee language assistance, translation services, or non-discrimination in access to government information is not addressed in the instrument; any such intersection will rely on other legal instruments or administrative policy.

• No modification of substantive visa criteria: The instrument does not itself add to or subtract from substantive legal visa criteria within the Migration Regulations and does not amend substantive eligibility requirements. It approves a statement of values and specifies which applicants should be presented with that statement (s7 and Schedule 1). Any use of an applicant’s acknowledgement within decision-making will rely on other statutory or regulatory provisions.

In sum, this instrument’s legal interaction with other laws is primarily by reference to its authority under the Migration Regulations and by replacing the prior instrument. It sets approved text, while procedural integration, evidentiary standards, and substantive legal effects will depend on separate regulatory, administrative, or legislative measures not contained in this instrument.

The instrument itself contains its principal amendment action in Schedule 3: the prior Migration (LIN 20/166: Australian Values Statement for Public Interest Criterion 4019) Instrument 2020 is repealed in its entirety (Schedule 3, item 1). The instrument is dated and signed by the Assistant Minister for Immigration, Matt Thistlethwaite, dated 10 September 2025 (introductory material), and s2 provides that it "commences on the day after registration."

There are no other amending provisions in the instrument. Section 6 provides a general rule for how items in the Schedules operate: each instrument specified in a Schedule is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in that Schedule, and any other item in a Schedule to this instrument has effect according to its terms (s6). In practice, Schedule 3 contains the sole repeal and the instrument otherwise supplies new approved text and a new Schedule 1 list of affected visa subclasses.

What the instrument does not record about amendment history

• The instrument does not contain earlier amendments to itself (it is a standalone instrument). It does not contain a series of prior versions or an amendment log beyond the explicit repeal of the 2020 instrument (Schedule 3).
• The instrument does not set out transitional provisions for applications made under the 2020 instrument prior to repeal. Section 5 confines application of the 2025 instrument to visa applications made on or after its commencement date where those applications are for subclasses in Schedule 1 (s5). It therefore implies, by omission, that applications lodged before commencement fall outside the instrument’s prospective operation.

Administrative takeaways for practitioners from the amendment text

• The 2020 instrument is formally revoked. Anyone relying on the wording or procedural approaches created under that older instrument should expect that the Departmental processes and any forms will need to be updated to reflect the 2025 approved wording (Schedule 3).
• Because the instrument commences the day after registration (s2) and applies only to applications made on or after commencement (s5), practitioners should check registration timing to know whether a particular application is governed by the 2025 wording or the earlier regime that existed prior to the repeal.

No other amendments or historical changes are recorded in the instrument itself. The instrument’s amendment history is therefore limited to its formal repeal of the 2020 instrument and its own making in September 2025.

The instrument contains no mention of litigation, judicial review proceedings, or any court decisions. It does not cite or refer to case law, nor does it describe any ongoing or concluded legal proceedings relating to its subject matter. The text is a straight legislative instrument that approves wording and repeals a prior instrument (see s7; Schedule 2; Schedule 3).

Consequently, within the instrument’s four corners there is no litigation history to summarise. The instrument does not record prior adjudications concerning the substance of the approved statements, their validity, or the legal weight to be placed on an applicant’s undertaking. It likewise does not contain guidance on how courts or tribunals should treat the statements where they arise in litigation, nor does it provide for a statutory appeal or review mechanism tied specifically to the statements.

For practitioners seeking litigation-relevant points arising from the instrument’s content, the following features of the instrument are salient, although they do not themselves record litigation:

• The instrument approves wording that includes declaratory undertakings and acknowledgements. How decision-makers use those declarations in merits assessments, and whether they are treated as legally binding promises, is not set out in the instrument. Absent statutory direction in this instrument, such issues would be determined by other statutory provisions or would be the subject of administrative practice, which could in turn become the subject of judicial review or merits review,none of which is recorded here.
• The instrument does not specify evidentiary standards for how the declared undertakings are to be established or contested. That evidentiary gap could give rise to disputes in practice about what constitutes proof of an applicant’s understanding, effective explanation, or "reasonable efforts" to learn English, but any litigation on those points would arise from application and interpretation of other legal instruments, not directly from this instrument’s text.

Because the instrument contains no litigation record, practitioners should look to administrative guidance, procedural materials, and other provisions of the Migration Regulations and relevant primary legislation to trace any litigation or review avenues that may arise in the future. The instrument itself provides no litigation history.

The instrument is compact, but it produces several practical and legal points of friction or uncertainty that practitioners, sponsors, and applicants should note. Each point is grounded in the instrument’s text and the gaps it leaves.

1. Two-tiered application of the statement

• The instrument splits visa subclasses into Table 1 and Table 2 (Schedule 1) and applies different approved wording accordingly (s7(1)-(2)). Practitioners must ensure the correct wording is used for the correct subclass. Applying Part 2 to a Table 1 applicant, or failing to apply Part 2 to a Table 2 applicant, would be a procedural mismatch with the instrument.

2. Prospective-only operation and timing risk

• s5 ties application to the application date: the instrument applies to applications made on or after commencement. Because s2 fixes commencement to the day after registration, applicants who lodged immediately before registration will not be captured. Practitioners must check registration timing and be careful with lodgement dates.

3. Ambiguity of "read, or had explained to me"

• Part 1 opens with "I confirm that I have read, or had explained to me, information provided by the Australian Government on Australian society and values" (Schedule 2 Part 1). The instrument does not define who may explain the material, in what language, whether translator or interpreter services suffice, or what documentary proof is needed. The phrase invites administrative discretion and potential dispute.

4. Undefined "reasonable efforts" to learn English

• Part 2 requires Table 2 applicants to "undertake to make reasonable efforts to learn the English language, if it is not my native language" (Schedule 2 Part 2). The instrument does not specify what level of effort is "reasonable," over what timeframe, or how to prove such efforts. It does not define "native language." These are open terms that will require administrative policy or adjudicative interpretation.

5. No enforcement or consequences set out

• As noted, the instrument contains no penalties or procedural consequences. That creates uncertainty about the legal significance of the undertakings. Practitioners should not assume that refusal to provide the statement is in itself a statutory ground for refusal unless supported elsewhere.

6. Repeal without transitional detail

• Schedule 3 repeals the 2020 instrument entirely but supplies no transitional provisions for applications lodged under the older instrument. Systems and forms that previously relied on the 2020 text will need updating; there is no automatic continuity clause within this instrument.

7. Government must provide information but format is unspecified

• Part 1 presupposes the existence of government-provided information on Australian society and values, but the instrument is silent on form, languages, and distribution channels. Operational responsibility and resourcing for producing and disseminating such materials is unaddressed here.

8. Content of the values statement contains potentially tension-creating phrasing

• The Part 1 list includes a clause that parliamentary laws are "paramount and overriding any other inconsistent religious or secular 'laws'" (Schedule 2 Part 1). The statement is declaratory and may prompt applicants from jurisdictions with alternative legal orders to seek clarification; the instrument gives no guidance on how such conflicts are to be assessed in visa decision-making.

9. The English-language emphasis

• The statement describes English as "the national language, and as an important unifying element of Australian society" (Schedule 2 Part 1). Combined with Part 2's undertaking for Table 2 applicants, this signals an expectation of language acquisition, but the instrument does not tie language proficiency to visa eligibility or specify acceptable evidence.

10. No specification of signatory or method of attestation

• The instrument approves wording but does not state whether the undertaking must be signed, electronically acknowledged, witnessed, or administered by a particular official. That procedural silence may create inconsistency in how different offices or application streams gather the statement.

In short, the instrument sets approved wording and categorises visas, but it leaves many implementation details open. Practitioners should pay close attention to subclass lists, lodgement timing, form of explanation and language supports, and any departmental guidance that fills the evidentiary and procedural gaps left by the instrument.

The instrument prescribes what is to be conveyed to applicants and requires that applicants for listed subclasses acknowledge the approved wording. Compliance for relevant stakeholders will focus on three groups: applicants, advisers/agents, and administrative bodies responsible for accepting and processing visa applications. The instrument provides text but leaves process to those actors; below are practical, source-grounded compliance steps.

For applicants (those lodging applications for subclasses in Schedule 1):

• Confirm whether your visa subclass is in Schedule 1 and whether it appears in Table 1 or Table 2. Table 1 applicants are to be presented with Schedule 2 Part 1; Table 2 applicants are to be presented with Schedule 2 Part 1 plus Part 2 (s5; s7; Schedule 1).
• Ensure the application is lodged on or after the instrument’s commencement date if the new statement is to apply to your application. The instrument commences on the day after registration (s2) and applies only to applications made on or after commencement (s5).
• Read, or have explained to you, the Australian Government’s information on Australian society and values before making the declaration in Schedule 2 Part 1. The Part 1 text begins with a confirmation that the applicant has read or had explained to them the government information (Schedule 2 Part 1).
• If you are a Table 2 applicant and English is not your native language, be prepared to undertake "reasonable efforts" to learn English. The instrument does not define "reasonable," so keep records of enrolments in courses, attendance, or other objective evidence of study or practice, which may be useful if administrative practice requires proof later (Schedule 2 Part 2).
• Be prepared to acknowledge that if you later become eligible for Australian citizenship and your application is approved, you will have to pledge loyalty to Australia; Part 2 contains that statement (Schedule 2 Part 2).

For advisers, agents and sponsors:

• Update advisory materials and checklists to ensure the correct version of the values statement is used for the correct subclass,Part 1 for Table 1 subclasses; Part 1 plus Part 2 for Table 2 subclasses (s7; Schedule 1).
• Assist applicants in locating and understanding the Government-provided information on Australian society and values that the applicant must read or have explained to them. Because the instrument does not prescribe the content or format of that material, confirm with the relevant administrative body which materials are official and should be relied upon (Schedule 2 Part 1).
• For Table 2 applicants whose native language is not English, advise on accessible English training pathways and keep contemporaneous records of enrolment and attendance as potential evidence of "reasonable efforts" (Schedule 2 Part 2).
• Verify lodgement timing against the instrument’s registration and commencement dates to determine whether the 2025 wording or prior wording applies (s2; s5; Schedule 3).

For administrative bodies (those implementing forms, guidance, and processing):

• Incorporate the approved wording exactly as set out in Schedule 2 into the relevant application forms, digital acknowledgement screens, applicant checklists, or client-facing materials for each subclass set out in Schedule 1. s7 approves textual content; the instrument requires no modification of that content.
• Ensure departmental information materials referred to in Schedule 2 Part 1 are prepared, accessible, and identifiable as the official source applicants are to read or have explained to them. The instrument presumes such materials exist but does not prescribe their form, so responsible bodies should publish them and specify how an applicant can access them.
• Decide and document the procedural standard for "had explained to me" (for example, who may provide the explanation, whether it can be provided orally via an interpreter, or whether it must be in writing). Because the instrument is silent on process, establishing a consistent administrative approach will reduce disputes.
• Establish a policy on evidentiary standards for "reasonable efforts" to learn English for Table 2 applicants, including the types of evidence that will be accepted, timeframes for demonstrating effort, and whether non-attendance for legitimate reasons is accommodated. The instrument provides the commitment text but not the evidentiary rules.
• Update internal training, standard operating procedures and IT systems to reflect the repeal of the 2020 instrument (Schedule 3) and the new approved text. Check existing case records and application pipelines for transitional handling where applications straddle the repeal and commencement dates (Schedule 3; s2-s5).

Record-keeping and proof

• Because the instrument does not specify the method of attestation, adopting a consistent practice,such as capturing an electronic declaration at lodgement, maintaining a signed page in the application pack, or recording an oral explanation with witness confirmation,will mitigate later evidence disputes. Keep records of the government materials provided and of any explanation given.

In short, compliance requires attention to subclass lists and lodgement timing, ensuring applicants have access to and have read or been explained the government material, and documenting English-language learning efforts for Table 2 applicants. Administrative agencies will need to fill in procedural gaps left by the instrument to ensure consistent and defensible application.