Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion, and I commend the member for Curtin in relation to this motion. It is a really important question, and it's incredibly disappointing to see how few members of this newly elected government are here to show interest in the types of laws that they are going to be putting their names to. This motion calls on the government to apply greater scrutiny to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 to ensure that, in removing noncitizens who have committed crimes, we do not unfairly impede fundamental human rights.

In Warringah, we have a community that cares deeply about fairness and the rule of law. Over the last couple of days I've heard from many constituents—lawyers, advocates, families—who have raised serious concerns about the human rights impacts that will be raised by this bill. It's a serious responsibility of this parliament to consider where the balance lies between protecting our community and upholding our legal and moral obligations.

This bill was introduced with the intention of strengthening border security integrity and dealing with the difficulties arising from the High Court case—specifically, to ensure that people without a right to remain here, who have committed crimes within Australia, cannot remain here. That is a legitimate and important goal. Australia absolutely has the right and responsibility to manage its borders and to decide who can remain in the country. Our communities must feel safe and our laws must protect Australians. While this intention is sound, this bill has been introduced with limited explanation, limited consultation, little public discussion and little assessment of its unintended consequences and how broadly it will impact other visa categories. It has not been accompanied by the careful scrutiny and community engagement that legislation with such profound consequences deserves.

The Australian Human Rights Commission, Liberty Victoria and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre—among others—have all raised deep concerns about this bill. It must be stated that these concerns are not with the principle that serious offenders should not remain in Australia—instead, the concerns are with how the bill proposes to achieve that aim by stripping away essential safeguards of procedural fairness and natural justice in our legal system. Procedural fairness is not a box-ticking exercise. It is a fundamental protection against error, injustice and abuse of power. It ensures that decisions are transparent, that they are evidence based, and that individuals have the right to be heard before life-changing decisions are made about them. When we weaken these principles we set a precedent that extends beyond any one group. What today is applied to noncitizens could tomorrow be normalised in other areas of law. In this case, there are grave concerns about the number of additional visa categories that will be impacted by this change.

We need a better balance to ensure that we contain our strong borders and domestic security while also making sure we have appropriate consequences for all those who commit serious crimes within Australia—there is no question about that. We also have to ensure that our processes are robust, fair and consistent with our obligations under international human rights law. This is where appropriate, independent oversight is crucial. Without it, we risk unchecked executive power. We also need more greater transparency of the memorandum of understanding signed by the minister and the Nauru government, to understand what the Australian public are now paying for. This bill should be carefully scrutinised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Human Rights. With this approach it will highlight the major concerns, ensure proper consideration of any amendments needed and reaffirm procedural safeguards.

I want to be really clear, especially for the new members of this Labor government who will be endorsing this legislation and who may not have taken the time to properly reflect on and consider what they are endorsing. This bill raises serious human rights concerns, and must be subjected to proper scrutiny. We must not lose sight of the fact that protecting our communities and upholding human rights are not opposing goals. They can and must be pursued together. I urge the government to engage with stakeholders, to listen to the concerns of experts and advocates, and to amend this bill and agree to this motion to have it referred to the human rights committee. We must ensure that any question of legislative and retrospectively eroding principles of procedural fairness and natural justice are carefully considered. These are cornerstones of our legal system, and setting them aside should be done with incredible caution.

Finally, I have a real fear that the concerns I have about this process and this bill around setting aside procedural fairness have undertones of the incredibly troubling process that is occurring in the US under their ICE division. The activities there of grabbing people and having them removed from the country without procedural fairness is incredibly troubling, and we all watched that on our screens with horror, thinking how could that possibly happen in Australia? But the risk is that this legislation before the House is the very first step of the path that the Albanese government is setting on. I commend the motion to the House and urge the government to support it.

See this speech in context