Gaza ban proposal sparks Liberal leadership crisis

Published: 16 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A fierce political debate has erupted after details of the controversial Gaza ban proposal emerged from within the federal opposition. The leaked document, drafted before the recent Liberal leadership change, outlined plans to prohibit migrants from specific regions across thirteen countries. Among the most sensitive inclusions were Gaza, Afghanistan and Somalia, sparking alarm within party ranks and across the broader political landscape.

The Gaza ban proposal was reportedly developed under the former leadership of Sussan Ley before she was removed as Liberal leader. According to sources familiar with internal discussions, the plan identified thirty-seven regions where listed terrorist organisations were believed to exercise territorial control. These areas spanned parts of Afghanistan, Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Palestine, the Philippines, Somalia and Yemen.

Senior Liberal figures have since distanced themselves from the plan. Angus Taylor, who replaced Ley as opposition leader, stated publicly that he had neither seen nor endorsed the proposal. Speaking to national media, he insisted the document had not reached shadow cabinet and carried no formal status. His comments signalled a clear attempt to contain the fallout and stabilise the party following a turbulent leadership transition.

The shadow immigration minister until Friday, Paul Scarr, expressed strong reservations once the details became public. He said he never agreed to any such measure and maintained serious concerns about imposing a regional ban. Insiders indicated that Scarr had privately raised objections when the idea first circulated, reflecting unease among moderate factions of the party.

The proposed restrictions would not only target new arrivals from designated regions but also accelerate the removal of up to one hundred thousand asylum seekers and international students. Visa holders facing refusal or cancellation could have their appeal rights curtailed, while pathways to alternative visas might be blocked. These measures formed part of a broader strategy aimed at tightening immigration settings and reshaping migration flows.

The timing of the policy’s intended release has also drawn scrutiny. Ley had planned to unveil the package in December, but the announcement was postponed following the Bondi terror attack. A revised launch date of 16 February had been pencilled in, with plans to use the week to intensify pressure on the government over border security. However, Ley’s leadership defeat interrupted those plans, leaving the document unpublished until it surfaced through leaks.

Central to the Gaza ban proposal was a principle of enhanced vetting for visa applicants. Draft provisions suggested that social media activity and public commentary could be examined to identify extremist sympathies. Supporters argued such checks would safeguard democratic values and prevent individuals with violent ideologies from entering Australia. Critics warned that sweeping scrutiny risked undermining privacy and civil liberties while fuelling perceptions of collective suspicion.

As of 31 January, official figures showed more than fifty thousand appeals lodged with the Administrative Review Tribunal concerning study visa decisions. In addition, over forty-eight thousand rejected asylum seekers were challenging visa refusals through the same body. The tribunal reported that half of protection visa reviews finalised in the latter half of 2025 concluded within three years and six months, while ninety-five per cent were resolved within five years and five months. These lengthy timelines have intensified debate about efficiency and fairness within the migration system.

Taylor has positioned migration as a defining issue of his leadership. In his first address after assuming the role, he argued that intake numbers had been too high and standards too low. He stressed that individuals unwilling to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law posed an unacceptable risk. Yet he also suggested that shutting doors entirely was not necessarily the answer, emphasising the importance of careful assessment rather than blanket exclusion.

Within the Liberal Party, expectations are growing that Taylor will recalibrate rather than abandon the core themes behind the Gaza ban proposal. One senior MP predicted the rhetoric would become firmer, though perhaps framed in broader security language. The party had already considered reducing permanent migration, student visas and net overseas migration. Internal discussions reportedly examined a range between 160,000 and 220,000, compared with the government’s projected 260,000 net overseas migration figure for the current financial year.

The government’s permanent migration program for 2025-26 stands at 185,000 places, marking a significant decline from post-pandemic peaks. Officials have argued that calibrated migration supports economic growth and offsets demographic ageing. Researchers commissioned by the immigration department have attempted to estimate levels that would optimise GDP per capita growth while maintaining labour market stability. These findings formed part of the background context against which opposition figures debated their own targets.

Legal experts note that recent amendments to the Migration Act, introduced after the Bondi attack, already strengthened powers to refuse or cancel visas when individuals endorse hateful or violent statements. The leaked opposition document appeared to go further, proposing additional screening mechanisms and potential limitations on appeal rights. Human rights advocates have cautioned that expanding executive authority without proportional safeguards could erode procedural fairness.

Community leaders from affected regions have also voiced concern. They argue that targeting entire areas risks stigmatising innocent families fleeing conflict or persecution. Many emphasise that extremist organisations do not represent the vast majority of people living under their control. For them, the Gaza ban proposal symbolises a broader tension between national security priorities and humanitarian obligations.

Taylor is expected to announce a reshuffled shadow cabinet in the coming days. Moderate MP Tim Wilson is widely anticipated to take on the shadow treasurer role. Observers believe the composition of the new frontbench will indicate how firmly the party intends to pursue stricter migration controls. Whether the Gaza ban proposal survives in revised form may depend on internal negotiations and public reaction over the coming weeks.

The unfolding episode illustrates the delicate balance facing policymakers in an era of heightened security anxiety. Voters demand protection from violence, yet they also expect fairness and respect for democratic norms. The debate over the Gaza ban proposal has exposed divisions not only between government and opposition, but within the opposition itself. As Australia approaches the next election cycle, migration policy will remain a defining and contested battleground.

Check our latest news