870 visa in 2026: previous visa compliance and outstanding public health debt checks

Two eligibility items sit quietly among the subclass 870 criteria and tend to decide applications late in processing. Under the Department of Home Affairs' Sponsored Parent (Temporary) visa (subclass 870) page, as of October 2026, you must have met and complied with any previous visa obligations, and if you owe the Australian Government money or have a public health debt, you must have paid it back or have arrangements in place to pay it back. In the Migration Regulations 1994 the same requirements sit in clause 870.225 — substantial compliance with the conditions of the last substantive visa and any bridging visa held after it — and clause 870.227, which requires that there is no outstanding public health debt, or that any such debt has been paid in full or covered by appropriate arrangements.

Both are criteria, not optional extras. If either one is not met at the time of decision, the application can be refused even when the sponsorship, funds, health insurance and health and character requirements are all in order.

What does "previous visa obligations" actually cover?

The department's public page uses the broad phrase "met and complied with any previous visa obligations". The regulation is narrower: clause 870.225 looks at the last substantive visa the applicant held and at any bridging visa held after that visa ceased. The focus is the most recent substantive visa and whatever followed it, not every visa you have ever held.

The practical point is that a bridging visa counts. A period on a bridging visa after the last substantive visa is part of the compliance picture, so a gap in that period is not ignored just because the visa was temporary and granted while you waited.

How is compliance assessed, and what happens if it is not met?

The department's Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) guidance lists substantial compliance with earlier visa conditions among the points a case officer reviews under clause 870.225, on the basis of departmental visa and bridging visa records. Where any criterion is not met, the application is refused under section 65(1)(b), and the applicant is notified of the decision and of review rights.

PAM3 also states that the manual is policy rather than law, and that a case officer may depart from policy on the facts of a case after discussing it with a supervisor and recording the reasons. That cuts both ways: policy wording is a guide to how the criterion is examined, not a guarantee of an outcome.

What is an outstanding public health debt under clause 870.227?

Clause 870.227 requires that the applicant have no outstanding public health debt, or that any debt has been paid in full or covered by appropriate arrangements. The department's page states the same test in plainer words and applies it to money owed to the Australian Government as well: the debt must have been paid back, or arrangements must be in place to pay it back.

Neither the department's page nor the clause sets out a full list of what counts as a public health debt. Treat any unpaid amount arising from public health care as potentially in scope and check the department's current guidance, since the wording leaves the edges open.

Why these two checks tend to surface late

PAM3 records that an outstanding public health debt triggers a check and that the case officer verifies departmental system records. It also notes that there is currently no information-sharing agreement between the health department and the immigration department. Without an automatic feed, a debt can sit outside the department's view at lodgement and still be identified during assessment — which is why evidence you lodge yourself is what puts repayment, or a repayment arrangement, on the record.

Compliance under clause 870.225 works the same way in practice: it is assessed against records during processing rather than at the counter. Suppose an applicant had a public health debt that has since been repaid in full. That applicant can still meet clause 870.227, but only if the repayment is evidenced in the application rather than assumed to be visible elsewhere.

If you have held a 870 before: the 90-day rule and the 10-year cap

Two further limits turn on your earlier 870 history. Clause 870.223 applies where you apply outside Australia and have previously held a 870: except in exceptional circumstances, you must have been outside Australia for at least 90 consecutive days since the previous 870 ceased. PAM3 notes that the way those days are counted depends on where you were when the visa ceased, and that exceptional circumstances are escalated inside the department rather than decided at the desk.

Separately, the total time spent holding 870 visas must remain under 10 years, and the 18-month COVID-19 extensions are not counted toward that total. Both are worth calculating before lodgement, because neither can be fixed after the fact.

What to put together before you lodge

List every visa you have held since your last substantive visa, including bridging visas. Note the conditions attached to each of those visas. Obtain written evidence that any public health debt has been paid in full. If a debt remains, obtain written confirmation of the repayment arrangement. Lodge that evidence with the application rather than holding it back.

This article describes published criteria in general terms and is not advice about your circumstances; for a specific situation, rely on the official pages current at the time and on advice from a registered migration agent or lawyer. Clause numbers and practice notes cited here come from the Migration Regulations 1994 and PAM3 guidance, and figures and commencement status should be confirmed against the official publications.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does an old visa condition breach still count against a 870 application?

Clause 870.225 is concerned with the last substantive visa and any bridging visa held after it, so a breach from much earlier travel is not what the clause targets. What matters is whether the conditions of that most recent visa, and of any bridging visa that followed, were substantially complied with.

What if I have already paid the public health debt?

Clause 870.227 is met if the debt has been paid in full. Keep the payment evidence, because the check is made against departmental records during processing and the repayment is easier to accept when you have lodged proof yourself.

Is a repayment plan enough if the debt is not finished?

The department's page states that a debt must have been paid back or that arrangements must be in place to pay it back, and clause 870.227 refers to appropriate arrangements. A documented repayment plan can therefore meet the criterion, provided you can evidence it.

Do I need to raise a debt if nobody asks me about it?

The criterion applies at the time of decision whether or not a question is asked. PAM3 notes that there is no information-sharing agreement between the health department and the immigration department, so the safer course is to lodge repayment or arrangement evidence with the application instead of waiting.

Can a bridging visa condition breach affect the outcome?

Yes. Clause 870.225 covers any bridging visa held after the last substantive visa, so conditions attached to that bridging visa are part of the compliance assessment.

What can I do if the application is refused on one of these criteria?

A refusal for an unmet criterion is made under section 65(1)(b), and the applicant is notified of the decision and of review rights. A sponsorship approval decision is handled separately by the department and is not part of that review.