Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that, in this parliament, our first priority must be to keep communities safe, and I recognise that the government is trying to pass legislation in an attempt to do so, following deep concern about the release of detainees from the NZYQ cohort following the High Court's 2023 decision on indefinite detention. I stood very clearly against indefinite detention, but I do recognise that there are some in the NZYQ cohort who have committed serious crimes. In some of those cases, there are security concerns which must be dealt with within this cohort. It is absolutely appropriate to ensure we have measures to keep our community safe. However, the government is responding to these issues, once again, with rushed legislation and a rushed response, and that is not the solution. My community values fairness, values due process and values the rule of law as well as security and compassion.

I'm first and foremost concerned about this legislation in terms of that due process and the lack of consultation on this bill, the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. We received a briefing on this bill just last week, and the government is expected to move to vote on it today. As we know too well, rushed legislation on issues that are critical, like immigration, which is policymaking about peoples' lives and peoples' futures, must be heavily scrutinised and reviewed in full. This bill is just that: yet another piece of rushed legislation as part of an entirely shambolic patchwork that the government has been pushing through this parliament, and the previous one, following the High Court's NZYQ decision in 2023. Last term, we had a suite of measures that were introduced and passed without consultation. This legislation had to be patched up and fixed progressively when it inevitably resulted in unintended consequences. Legal experts and refugee advocates warned us against that process then and are doing so once again with this bill.

It is unclear to me why this legislation must be rushed through so quickly. I hold concerns that legislation so rushed may not solve the problem and could also have other implications, and I believe this to be an inappropriate way to legislate, considering how serious the impacts could be on peoples' lives and on our legal system. I'm concerned that this bill has the capacity to cause additional harm, removing the court's ability to apply natural justice when a decision has been made to remove an individual with a third-country reception agreement by legislation and having unintended consequences on lawful noncitizens outside the NZYQ cohort. Where these harms are possible, parliament has the responsibility to review the legislation in full, with public and stakeholder input. That is why I supported the member for Curtin's motion yesterday to refer this bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and why I will continue to call for this to be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with adequate time for stakeholders to contribute and respond to any inquiries.

Let's go to these concerns—in the first instance, the ability to impact larger cohorts. I am concerned with the ability of this legislation to have ongoing ramifications for those outside the NZYQ cohort, including those on a bridging visa E. Some of these individuals have lived in Australia for a substantial amount of time, some with Australian partners or children. I understand that the government may not intend to include this cohort, nor deport them without natural justice, but this legislation gives them the ability to do so, and this is deeply concerning. The second issue has been the removal of natural justice provisions. I'm concerned that this legislation has a capacity to set dangerous precedents in our legal system, eroding a cornerstone of our justice system with the removal of the right to natural justice and procedural fairness. Natural justice is a basic right to fairness and underpins Australian law, including being informed of and being able to respond to government decisions that determine a person's future.

The removal of this right to natural justice from decisions about deportation to a third country sets a precedent for the removal of basic legal protections for certain groups of people. The Law Council has said they are concerned about the removal of any kind of natural justice requirement by legislation. Therefore, the bill deserves careful scrutiny. Although I understand the government awards opportunities for procedural fairness throughout the visa cancellation process, I'm concerned that it is unjust to ask an individual to rely on previous documents or information without any opportunity to submit anything additional.

Finally, on retrospective validation, I understand that this bill also has a capacity to validate previous decisions made by the government, which would now be incorrect following the NZYQ High Court decision. Decisions made based on wrong information or outdated law are then placed under review again in general legal proceedings. This is how our justice system functions. Any retrospective lawmaking should not be considered lightly, if at all, and I found this element deeply concerning, as it lies in conflict with the regular rule of law.

All these issues and concerns are significant and require time. Again, I am deeply frustrated with the process that the government has undertaken with this bill. I have consulted with legal experts and refugee advocates, and they share my concerns that this legislation has not been adequately scrutinised. Proper scrutiny should include, but not be limited to, referral to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That is necessary. The result is human lives. Policy which concerns migration and, indeed, the principles of our legal system, such as natural justice, should take great consideration and be part of an inquiry or, at the very least, public consultation and scrutiny before being put to the House or Senate.

I urge the government not to rush through this amendment and to consider how this bill could be opened up for future violations. I urge the government to take time to consider the impact of this bill and refer it to the parliamentary committees. I cannot support this bill without the full consideration of its wide-ranging implications.

See this speech in context