Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

You have too; I do know that you have as well; thank you—and lived in refugee camps. And I represent a very diverse and multicultural community in Fowler. Our community has a lot of temporary-visa visitors—people who come to speak and to engage with our communities; students; relatives—coming. Instead of giving this bill the scrutiny it deserves, the government has really used its numbers to shut down any discussion and has silenced us here. I'm sure lawyers in the House would question it, as to the natural justice and the rule of law that are, basically, missing in this piece of legislation. When legislation has consequences as far-reaching as this—legalising mass suspension of travel rights—Australians expect their representatives to debate, question and examine every detail, not to be forced into silence.

We all want a secure border and a migration system with integrity. But this bill isn't just about security; it's about an unprecedented grab for executive power. At its core, this bill grants the Minister for Home Affairs extraordinary ministerial powers to suspend the travel rights of entire classes of people. It is not based on what an individual has done; it is not based on the risk a specific person poses; it is simply because they belong to a category the minister chooses to switch off, as the member of Warringah says, with the stroke of a pen. This moves us away from a robust visa system with integrity and towards at-scale exclusion.

The architecture of this bill is designed to be opaque and unaccountable. There's no parliamentary veto. These determinations are not subject to disallowance. Once the minister signs, this House and the Senate are effectively locked out. There's no natural justice. This bill explicitly states that the rules of natural justice do not apply to the making of these determinations. Those affected have no right to be heard before their lives are up-ended—no recourse. While the bill mentions a permitted travel certificate, the minister has no duty to even consider an application for one. It is entirely discretionary and non-appellable. There's no access to courts. By designating these as privative clause decisions, the government is pushing legal challenges solely to the High Court, making justice too expensive for almost anyone to reach.

Consider the unintended consequences of this rushed job. Imagine a skilled worker or a student—and, as I mentioned before, I have a lot of those, on visitor visas, coming to Fowler. They board a flight to Australia with a valid visa, but, while they're in mid-flight, the minister signs a determination. When they land, they're no longer a welcome guest; they're an unlawful non-citizen. The bill itself admits these people could be hauled off to mandatory immigration detention—not for any crime, but because the rules changed while they were in mid-air!

And what signal does this send to the rest of the world? This legislation signals a shift towards a closed-door policy that undermines our reputation as a reliable partner. It tells the world that visa security is illusory and that a validly-granted visa can be suspended at any moment, based on political discretion. It suggests that executive whim now overrules the rule of law.

I understand the intent of this legislation, but consider all of the visitors from Iran and Iraq. There are many coming to my community. This will have unintended consequences for those visitors. Like your electorate, Minister, mine is very multicultural. And my migrant and refugee communities would question: How could their relatives not join them? How could their relative's visa have been cancelled? As the member for Warringah just mentioned, the process to apply for a temporary visa is so complex. It's not easy. It's not easy at all. So any legislation meant to protect our nation must be done in a transparent, accountable and fair way. Integrity does not come from concentrating power in the hands of the executive. It comes from the light of parliamentary scrutiny—something that the Albanese government has desperately tried to avoid today. We should be extremely cautious about handing any minister powers that are this broad, this discriminatory and this difficult to reverse.

See this speech in context