Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 23), omit "one or".

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "may", substitute "would".

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "would".

The crossbench received this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, five minutes before the government briefed us yesterday morning—five minutes! The government introduced this legislation to the House one hour later. Members of the crossbench sought the call during the second reading to raise our significant concerns about it, but the government denied us the opportunity to speak. This bill was drafted for introduction only 10 days after the war began in Iran. The explanatory memorandum claims that this bill is designed to maintain the integrity of our migration system. Integrity requires proper consultation, transparency and debate, none of which have occurred on this bill. If the government is serious about integrity, it should start by upholding the integrity of this parliament and of our legislative processes.

This bill seeks to introduce significant changes to Australia's migration regime. It empowers the minister to suspend classes of temporary visas held by people offshore through so-called arrival control determinations. This is a sweeping power, one which could affect thousands of people who have already followed our migration rules in good faith and who have already obtained temporary visas in good faith. The amendments I have circulated in my name seek to strengthen the test for making these arrival control determinations to ensure that the minister will satisfy a higher and more proportionate threshold before exercising this extraordinary power. My amendments will ensure that determinations meet both limbs of the test under section 84B, ensuring that there is a reasonable probability that a controlled determination is actually necessary.

There are still significant issues with the drafting of this legislation. I'm concerned that the government's arrival control determinations are not disallowable instruments; they should be. They will not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; they should be. I'm concerned that the minister can re-issue control determinations seemingly indefinitely. That is wrong. There is no upper limit on the number of times a class of temporary visitors might have their visas suspended. That shows contempt to people who have legally obtained temporary visas to visit this country. It means that those offshore who already have a valid visa may be deprived of any possibility of ever entering this country. Just think about the individuals affected by that. And there's no sunset clause on this bill, which would be a very appropriate parliamentary safeguard for legislation which has been rushed through to this extent.

We know what has prompted this legislation. Today there are more than 7,000 Iranians holding visitor visas. Many of them cannot safely return or remain home due to ongoing conflict and instability in their country—conflict and instability to which we are potentially contributing. Under this bill, their temporary visas, which they have obtained validly, often at considerable personal cost, could be suspended overnight. These are people who have already spent years waiting for the chance to visit family or to reunite with their loved ones, yet this temporary visa subclass 449 followed by a temporary humanitarian concern visa subclass 786 approach has removed the dignity and integrity from our migration regime.

Instead, today, thousands of people who are overseas face the prospect that their already granted visas may be rendered unusable overnight, sometimes in circumstances where they don't feel that they can safely return home. If the government is committed to integrity in our migration regime, it should commit to special migration arrangements to those who are affected by this bill.

See this speech in context