Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are again—a new parliament but the same shambolic handling of Australia's migration system from the Albanese Labor government. Another bill introduced at the eleventh hour, subverting proper parliamentary scrutiny, as Labor tries to patch over its own failings. Again, it has fallen to the coalition to help clean up Labor's mess.

This will be the fifth bill Labor has introduced in an attempt to fix the chaos it created when it released hundreds of dangerous criminals onto our streets after it lost the NZYQ case almost two years ago. Make no mistake, it is the Labor government's successive policy failures that have brought us to this position in the first place. It's not the High Court, it's not the coalition or the Greens. This mess sits at Labor's feet alone. When the High Court handed down its ruling in the NZYQ case in November 2023, this government was caught flat-footed when it should have had the laws drafted and ready to go. Instead, this panicked government released hundreds of criminal noncitizens into the community with no plan to manage the very serious risks to public safety.

On 14 November 2023 the hopeless former minister for home affairs and the hopeless former minister for immigration said that the released detainees were 'subject to a range of strict mandatory visa conditions'. But as it turns out, no visas were in place at all. According to documents obtained by the coalition under FOI, this government released at least 83 detainees from immigration detention into the community without any visa conditions, meaning they were roaming about freely and completely unchecked.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You couldn't make this stuff up. This was the first of many times the coalition would help to clean up the government's mess—in this instance, by facilitating the urgent passage of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023 on 18 November 2023 so that strict visa conditions could be imposed. Immediately after the NZYQ ruling the coalition called on the government to implement a preventive detention regime to re-detain the most serious risk-offenders that had been released. After the member for Hotham suggested, 'You can't out legislate the High Court,' the government was dragged into finally passing new laws to implement a community safety order scheme—after we'd been demanding it for weeks.

In March last year, the member for Scullin was forced to admit that the government had issued invalid visas to nearly 150 people released from immigration detention because of a technical legal error. As a result, our law enforcement agencies were forced to withdraw charges, for alleged visa breaches, against 10 hardened criminals in the NZYQ cohort. Then, in an extraordinary revelation in Senate estimates, the Department of Home Affairs admitted that murderers and sex offenders were being released by the government without being subject to electronic monitoring, meaning they were free in the Australian community without any surveillance at all. They were let loose on the Australian people.

Who could forget the member for Scullin's bizarre interview on Sky News, where he claimed this cohort were being monitored under an imaginary drone surveillance program, which he was forced to admit didn't exist? I think he's been watching too many Hollywood movies in his spare time!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he is still a minister.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's still a minister. Tragically, it is the Australian community that has borne the very real consequences of this government's dysfunction. We will never forget the tragic image of the front page of the West Australian that showed a cancer survivor and grandmother who, allegedly, had been bashed at the hands of a freed immigration detainee who'd had his ankle monitor removed despite already facing charges for visa breaches and other offences.

This came after repeated warnings from the coalition for the government to move quickly to re-detain the highest-risk offenders. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister jettisoned the member for Hotham and the member for Scullin from the Home Affairs portfolio, after their chaotic and dysfunctional approach to Australia's immigration and border protection regime.

The member for Watson's test as the new Minister for Home Affairs was to fix this mess and restore order to our immigration system. But, evidently, he has failed too. More than 18 months after the parliament passed legislation to create the community safety order regime, the minister has still not lodged a single application for a preventive detention order, despite the member for Scullin promising in May last year that six applications were nearly ready and a further 26 were in the advanced stage of preparation. This is a shocking failure on community safety from the Albanese Labor government.

Tragically, we have seen very real consequences for this inaction. On 15 June, a 62-year-old man was, allegedly, viciously assaulted in Melbourne by an immigration detainee freed by this government. The victim died from his injuries in hospital and the perpetrator has since been charged with his murder. This terrible situation could have been avoided if the government had used its preventive detention powers to put this dangerous criminal behind bars before he had harmed an innocent Australian.

Later, in June, the Minister for Home Affairs effectively admitted he had given up on his own preventive detention regime, saying, 'No-one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation.' But instead of seeking to fix the problem by, for example, changing the law to lower this threshold, the minister has thrown up his hands and put it in the too-hard basket. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised. When the member for Watson last held the immigration portfolio, in 2013, in just 80 days he allowed 83 boats carrying 6,634 people into our country and put 1,992 children in detention.

Things aren't looking much better this time around. The minister needs to pull his act together and use the powers the parliament gave the government to get these high-risk offenders off the streets before they commit more crimes against innocent Australians. There is no reason he can't do this at the same time he pursues avenues for deportation, like the third-country arrangements dealt with by this bill.

The need for action has never been more acute. As at 31 July, there were 354 dangerous criminals free in the community following the NZYQ decision. Of these, only 90—less than a third—are subject to electronic monitoring and only 45 individuals are subject to a specified curfew. This means that there are well over 200 dangerous criminals free in the community without ankle bracelets or curfews—basics, really. If you're letting criminals out into the community, you'd think you'd put them under some sort of surveillance—not this government; not the Albanese government. We also know, from previous evidence given by the Department of Home Affairs, that there are child sex offenders free in the community who are not subject to electronic monitoring, curfew or any form of surveillance. Because of Labor's botched legislation, multiple criminals convicted for visa breaches received suspended sentences despite the parliament legislating mandatory 12-month minimum sentences shortly after the NZYQ fiasco began. This minister is asleep at the wheel, and his negligence is putting the Australian community at risk.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's putting lives at risk.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lives at risk—exactly, the member for Riverina. Sadly, these are just the latest in a litany of failures from the Albanese Labor government on immigration and community safety, including the former minister for immigration's direction 99 debacle, which saw 97 criminal noncitizens avoid deportation from Australia because of the government's capitulation to pressure from the New Zealand government, and the Minister for Home Affairs' humanitarian program on the run, wherein he admitted he had been personally interviewing Palestinian families before granting them humanitarian visas. This comes after the government granted thousands of tourist visas to people in a war zone controlled by a terrorist group before they were referred to ASIO for proper security checks.

The Albanese Labor government is undermining Operation Sovereign Borders by overseeing a 21 per cent decrease in aerial flying hours and a 16 per cent decrease in maritime patrol days compared to 2020-21. We've seen at least 35 illegal people-smuggling ventures carrying more than 600 illegal boat arrivals make the journey to Australia since the Albanese Labor government came to power. At least five ventures have made it to the Australian mainland, at least two of which deposited their passengers and escaped undetected by Australian authorities, something that was almost unheard of in the decade before Labor took government.

The current bill seeks to address legal arguments being used by NZYQ affected individuals to prevent their removal from Australia to Nauru under a third-country reception arrangement. They have mounted two types of legal challenge: firstly, by claiming that they were owed procedural fairness before the Commonwealth took the decision to apply for a Nauruan visa; and secondly, by claiming that there was an error in an old visa decision relating to them. The bill seeks to address these lines of argument by putting beyond doubt that the Commonwealth does not need to afford an individual procedural fairness when taking action in relation to third-country reception arrangements, disclosing information about removal-pathway noncitizens to foreign governments and issuing removal-pathway directions requiring noncitizens to take certain steps to facilitate their lawful removal from Australia. These provisions are primarily directed to noncitizens who have exhausted all legitimate avenues to remain in Australia and for whom removal is the only remaining outcome under Australian law. The bill also removes legal uncertainty created by the NZYQ decision by validating relevant visa decisions so they are taken, for all purposes, to have always been valid, as if they had been made in accordance with the current law established by NZYQ.

The coalition has always sought to work constructively with government to fix the immigration mess of the Labor government's own making. We'll always act in the national interest, and this is absolutely in the Australian peoples' interest. We cannot have criminals roaming freely without surveillance in our community any longer. I understand the net effect of this bill is to provide legal certainty which will minimise delays in removing NZYQ affected individuals from Australia, meaning that people with no legal right to be here will be removed as soon as possible. Basic rules of hospitality apply. If you're in this country, you do the right thing. If you don't, you're gone.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Out!

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're out. It's how we'd operate with our own homes. This country has the same standards.

Given this imperative and the fact that this bill is constrained in its scope to addressing specific legal challenges relating to noncitizens on a removal pathway, the coalition is facilitating the urgent passage of this bill through the House, despite Labor's rushed and dysfunctional process. We will interrogate this bill via an inquiry in the other place to ensure there are no mistakes or unintended consequences, given this government's atrocious track record when it comes to this kind of legislation. Remember, this is the fifth bill Labor has introduced to manage its NZYQ disaster. We would not be doing the right thing by the Australian people if we did not insist on an inquiry in the other place, even if we are committed to facilitating the urgent passage of this bill.

I want to restate that the only reason we are here today is that Labor failed to get it right the last four times. Again, it is Labor that has botched its handling of Australia's immigration system, and, again, it has fallen to the coalition as the adults in the room to clean up Labor's mess. We will clean up Labor's mess, and that is why we will support the passage of this bill through the House.

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

I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. It is our government's job to ensure national security by controlling who and what enters our country. It must protect our nation, it must enforce our laws and it must manage our borders. But balanced against those demands is the duty of a democratic government to deal fairly and with justice with some of the most consequential decisions that a government can make—decisions regarding detention, deportation and transfer of individuals who lack the power or the platform to defend themselves.

This bill follows the November 2023 High Court ruling on the NZYQ cohort that it was unlawful for the government to indefinitely detain a person if there was 'no real prospect' of them being removed from Australia 'in the reasonably foreseeable future'. In the recent Federal Court decision, it was held that actions in relation to third-country reception arrangements do not require procedural fairness to be afforded. The proposed amendments seek to codify that recent decision by the Federal Court.

This bill is aimed at allowing the government to more quickly deport members of the NZYQ cohort—a group of what we call noncitizens, a somewhat dehumanising term—currently living in the Australian community whose visas were cancelled on character grounds. This cohort previously faced indefinite immigration detention. They cannot be removed to their home countries, because they face persecution or because those countries have refused to accept them. The amendment now before the House explicitly removes procedural fairness in decisions to remove these noncitizens to a third-country reception arrangement and with respect to the sharing of their personal information with those third countries.

The government, in effect, is continuing to double down in pursuing its desire to deport this cohort of individuals by any means possible—by means of legislation which flies in the face of the values and the fundamental tenets of our legal system. Procedural fairness is a foundational principle in Australian administrative law. It ensures that decisions made by public authorities are conducted through fair and unbiased procedures. Procedural fairness is vital to public trust in government decision-making and to upholding the rule of law. One of its two core elements, the right to be heard, is specifically negated by this legislation. Under the proposed changes, procedural fairness will not apply to decisions relating to third-country reception arrangements.

We claim to live in a strong democracy which respects the individual, but this bill denies individuals who are noncitizens of this country what we regard for ourselves as unalienable rights. A human right is universal; it can't be assumed for some and denied for others purely on the basis of their visa status.

The bill is presented as a technical fix relevant to a very small number of individuals, but it could in fact potentially be applied to thousands of people—I'm told potentially as many as 80,000 individuals—who are currently seeking residence in this country. Concerns about the bill are shared by legal experts, by refugee advocates and by community organisations across the country—people who see, every day, the human cost of bureaucratic overreach and who deal with the harm and the hurt that it causes. Just today, the Refugee Council has contacted me to describe this bill as 'unbelievably cruel and extraordinarily costly'. The ASRC has called it 'rushed, reckless and dehumanising'.

Last week, we learnt that the government has quietly, sneakily signed a $408 million deal, plus $70 million annually, with Nauru. The deal will allow the government to send those members of the NZYQ cohort to Nauru, at a cost of $2.4 million per person in the first five years after that transfer. This payment comes on top of a $100 million treaty signed between the two countries last year, and it is separate from the funding that Australia is already giving to Nauru to run its offshore detention regime. That revelation sets a very stark backdrop to today's debate. What we're talking about is vulnerable people, stateless individuals, refugees and survivors of torture and trauma who will, as a result of this bill, be sent offshore with no public explanation, no proper oversight and no legal recourse.

A number of these people previously committed very serious crimes. Some have reoffended. But some have never been convicted of a crime. Some have spent five times as long in immigration detention as they were originally sentenced to serve in prison. Some are frail, some are sick, and some are elderly. They could die in Nauru without proper care. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has previously issued a non-binding order for the federal government to stop one of those deportations on the grounds that the government has legal responsibilities not to deport people to countries where they could face cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or death. That is exactly what we propose to do with this legislation.

The government claims that its memorandum of understanding with Nauru contains undertakings for the proper treatment and long-term residency of people who have no legal right to stay in Australia, and that Australia will provide funding to underpin this arrangement and support Nauru's long-term economic resilience. But the fact is that we know that refugees and people transferred to Nauru have experienced violence in the past. Just this month, the Age carried a report detailing how private security and community safety in Nauru are being overseen by associates of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

Nauru is one of the world's smallest and most economically vulnerable countries. It has a population of fewer than 12,000. It is housed on an area of land which is smaller than the Tullamarine airport. Using a small island nation as a dumping ground for individuals that we don't want here is a disgraceful way to act. It makes Australia a Pacific bullyboy, buying our own piece of mind at the expense of a small and underresourced nation. This amendment risks placing Australia in breach of its binding commitments under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Our credibility abroad and our moral leadership are both diminished when we undermine the very human rights that we advocate for elsewhere.

I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Grandmothers for Refugees and the many community based organisations and legal advocates across Australia who have brought the gravity of this legislation to public attention and who continue to advocate for those rendered voiceless by systemic neglect and legal exclusion. Their unwavering commitment to justice, to compassion and to accountability strengthens our democracy.

I do not accept that a vision of Australia where the rights of the individual are predicated on where they were born, and where the vulnerable can be denied fair treatment and shuttled across borders in silence is the Australia that we wish to represent, so I urge this parliament to reject this bill and to reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law. If this bill passes, it is a mandate for injustice, paid for with our national reputation and our conscience.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It appears that the government is trying to do two things with the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. Firstly, it's trying to retrospectively fix any decision that was made before NZYQ based on the erroneous belief that indefinite detention was, at that time, legal. Secondly, it's trying to ensure that procedural fairness doesn't apply to certain types of executive power related to the removal of noncitizens in line with the TCXM decision.

I have four main concerns about this bill. My first concern is about the retrospective validation of unlawful decisions. As a rough estimate, there could be a hundred decisions made before the NZYQ decision that this could affect, where applicants may be hopeful that a reconsideration of their case could deliver a different outcome. The Minister for Home Affairs made visa decisions based on a series of factors, one of which was the belief that indefinite detention was legal. If this is not the case, then those decisions could be invalid. Changing the law to make these decisions valid retrospectively is convenient, but it's not great law. We should be really cautious before we endorse such a step. That's why I want to see this bill referred to a committee. When we're talking about decisions that deal with such fundamental issues such as individual freedoms, we shouldn't just paper over the cracks because it's expedient.

My second concern is that the bill declares that procedural fairness doesn't apply to certain types of executive actions. Any law that limits procedural fairness should be done carefully and with proper scrutiny. I understand that the people in question have had the chance to be heard, often numerous times before, and to appeal their cases before they get to the point where they're being removed from Australia, but procedural fairness is fundamental. It upholds the integrity, transparency and accountability of decision-making processes, and we shouldn't mess with it lightly. I'm not arguing that procedural fairness should never be removed from certain legal powers, but I believe that we always need proper scrutiny of the impacts when dealing with such a fundamental legal right.

My third concern is that, while the government says this bill is aimed at the NZYQ cohort, its scope is far wider. There could be tens of thousands of people covered by this bill who have no right to procedural fairness when the government is taking significant actions that affect their rights. There may be practical reasons why this pathway won't be used much, but I don't think we should pass laws comfortable in the belief that they won't be used. If we are going to pass a law that makes it clear that no procedural fairness applies to such a large number of people, it deserves scrutiny.

Finally, I'm concerned by the rushed nature of the bill. It was introduced last week without clear consultation and will likely be passed through the House today. The retrospective legalisation of all decisions made based on an erroneous understanding of the law deserves scrutiny rather than haste. The government is clearly desperate to deal with the NZYQ cohort, and this is reflected in the eye-watering sums of money that the government is reportedly paying Nauru to accept these people. After the TCXM case, procedural fairness has already been found, at least in the first-instance decision, not to apply to the exercise of executive power needed to remove the problem of this cohort to Nauru. If it's not needed, then what is the rush? Let's go through a proper review process. If there's doubt about whether procedural fairness should apply, then we should be treading very carefully. This is a complex area of law intersecting with constitutional principles, international obligations and human rights, and it should not be rushed.

Parliament works best when we take the time to scrutinise legislation carefully, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. Yesterday I moved a motion to refer this bill to committee, given that it deals with significant individual rights, and I stand by that as the best course of action. I understand the government's desire to deal quickly with the NZYQ cohort. Community safety is paramount, but, as legislators, we have a duty to make good law not just fast law. We need to balance security with fairness and efficiency with accountability. In the absence of a committee reviewing the bill to examine with adequate time whether we have that balance right, I will not be supporting this bill.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, another cruel attack on refugees and immigrants by the Labor government, removes their basic right to natural justice. Not content with their anti-refugee laws last term, passed through with the coalition, Labor are now doubling down. What does this bill actually do? It is designed to forcibly remove people to Nauru without their having any right to see the application that the government is making. It removes any right to an appeal process, with no opportunity for them to make representations about why their removal would be unsafe or explain to the government of Nauru why they shouldn't be deported there. Labor are making it retrospective as well to cover for previous, illegal breaches of procedural fairness that are being challenged in court. These are basic rights for procedural fairness that should apply to everyone—no exceptions. Everyone is equal under the law, no matter where they're born.

The Nauru president has made it clear that he intends to send people Australia deports there back to the country that they have fled. Make no mistake, this puts these refugees' lives in danger. It is unspeakably cruel.

This is Labor with a majority, 94 seats, attacking refugees and depriving them of basic procedural fairness and natural justice. The fact that there is no-one from the government speaking to this bill speaks volumes, doesn't it? It speaks for itself. They should be ashamed because, as long as they keep fanning the flames of anti-migrant and anti-refugee sentiment, they will keep seeing a rise in far-right extremism, and we'll keep seeing what we saw over the weekend.

It's the oldest trick in the book. Every time there's a crisis, Labor and the Liberals point their fingers at immigrants. Some do it overtly; others just dog whistle. But the intent is the same. The intent is to distract from the fact that it's tax breaks for investors that's driving housing unaffordability; distract from the fact that the major parties are not willing to tax massive multinational corporations to fund the public hospitals, the schools, the housing and the transport that we need; and distract from the fact that it's massive monopoly supermarkets that are driving surging supermarket prices. Just last year, Labor and the Liberals went after international students, scapegoating them for the housing crisis. Now they're cracking down once again on refugees, spending $400 million of taxpayer money to deport a few hundred refugees to Nauru. This is the tragic outcome of a bipartisan 'tough on borders' agenda.

Then they scratch their heads and wonder why Nazis feel emboldened to hold rallies in our cities. Labor and the Liberals put out strongly worded statements defending our 'social cohesion'. They should look in the mirror. If you govern for massive corporations, if you let life get harder for everyday people and if you dog whistle at immigrants, you are providing the oxygen for the far right. Shame on you.

I guess it's good to know who Labor and the Liberals will target and who they'll protect. Labor and the Liberals will break—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's outrageous. You cannot say we are protecting those people.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're breaking our own laws to indefinitely detain a refugee fleeing persecution.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Wannon, a point of order?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to assist the House, I think the member should withdraw the imputation that she's just made, because I think all of us think it was beyond the pale.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll withdraw and proceed. Labor and the Liberals will break our own laws to indefinitely detain a refugee fleeing persecution, but they will let the CEO who illegally fired 1,800 workers walk away with a $20 million payout. Labor and the Liberals will subject refugees to systemic abuse in detention centres in places like Manus Island, but will give less than a slap on the wrist to the big banks found to be engaging in systemic misconduct and exploitation. Labor and the Liberals are now deporting hundreds of refugees to Nauru, a very poor country in the Pacific, but they are giving gas corporation Santos, who let a methane leak go on for 20 years, a huge tax break. It's about hypocrisy; Labor and the Liberals protect the rich and powerful, and they throw the defenceless under the bus.

The great Tony Benn once said, 'The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.' That's Tony Benn, not me. Let's not let them get away with it—for refugees, for the rest of us. Do you know who's causing the housing crisis? Labor and the coalition. Do you know who's not? Immigrants.

Here are the facts. We had next to zero immigration during COVID. Did house prices fall or flatline? No. They increased dramatically. Over the past decade, the population has increased by 16 per cent and dwellings by 19 per cent. The truth is, it's incredibly convenient for the major parties to blame immigrants for the housing crisis because it lets the real culprits off the hook. Labor and the coalition are on a unity ticket, turbocharging the housing crisis via negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.

Labor and the coalition are on a unity ticket, abandoning any real effort to build public housing like governments used to. A quarter of the homes built post-World War II were public housing—that's 25 per cent public housing—and now it's just one per cent. Pathetic.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the states.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the federal government, the Housing Commission just after World War II, to set those facts straight. Labor and the coalition are on a unity ticket to do the bidding of the property industry, giving tax breaks to property developers to build unaffordable housing. Labor and the coalition want you to believe that migrants are causing the housing crisis, because it protects those really responsible—that is, their policies, the banks and the property industry.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No.1) Bill 2025. This bill is the latest in a long chain of legislation to the House in response to the NZYQ cohort decision made in November 2023. What this bill does, effectively, is to: (1) remove the right to procedural fairness for persons subject to removal to a third country, and (2) retrospectively validate relevant visa decisions made prior to the NZYQ case. I, along with human rights groups and the country's leading legal bodies, have serious concerns with this bill, on multiple fronts, which I will outline here.

In November 2023, the High Court overturned the Al-Kateb ruling, which had permitted indefinite detention. The court found that there was no real prospect of the removal of a detainee from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future. It was unconstitutional. There are now over 300 noncitizens from the NZYQ cohort in the Australian community on bridging visas. Many of this cohort do not belong in Australia, and I acknowledge their legal status is a wicked problem.

With no legal right to remain in Australia and the government unable to detain them or return them to their country of origin, clearly, there is no simple solution. But a wicked problem does not justify a wicked solution. We must remember the old legal adage, 'Hard cases make bad law.' An extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases.

The bill before the House will remove a bedrock of our rule of law. It seeks to remove the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, when trying to remove people from Australia and send them to Nauru or other undisclosed third countries. In the last parliament, in response to the NZYQ decision, the government rushed through legislation, with the support of the opposition, that meant any person released from indefinite detention must be subject to ankle bracelets and a curfew. I opposed this legislation at the time, in part, because I had concerns that it would not withstand a High Court challenge. It turns out I was right to be concerned, because the High Court then considered the case of YBFZ, an Iranian person released following the NZYQ decision who was subject to these restrictive curfew and ankle bracelet conditions. Like it found in the NZYQ case, the High Court ruled that in the case of YBFZ the government was, again, breaching constitutional principles of the separation of powers by imposing punishment on individuals when this is solely within the remit of the courts. This bill before us today is also likely to be subject to a High Court challenge, with a reasonable chance it too will be overturned. On that basis alone, I cannot support this bill.

We must remember that every High Court challenge to government legislation costs a significant amount of taxpayer dollars and uses valuable court time. I must be able to satisfy myself that the legislation I'm voting on has been protected as much as possible from this occurring. Right now, I cannot assure myself nor the people I represent that this is the case. It's not just for this reason alone that I will be opposing this bill. I am deeply concerned about the speed in which this government seeks to rush through this legislation and the lack of transparency around it.

When I'm deciding whether to support or oppose a bill, I ask a fundamental question: is this good governance? Good governance means good process. It means proper time for scrutiny, proper time for consultation and proper time for negotiation. This bill was only introduced last week, with a 10-minute briefing provided to the crossbench. It has not gone through a Senate inquiry nor the opportunity for scrutiny by legal experts who can determine its potential impacts beyond those in the NZYQ cohort.

I need to know what the impacts are that of the bill I'm required to vote on, and I cannot support a bill where the government has not allowed adequate scrutiny for me to understand and have confidence in this legislation. My crossbench colleague the member for Curtin moved a motion for this scrutiny yesterday—a motion that was voted down by all but the crossbench.

Then there is the content of this bill, which undermines vital principles of our legal system and the rule of law in this country. That is important. The decision to remove a person to another country is fundamentally distinct from the decision to approve, revoke or refuse the visa to be in Australia. This bill does not just have consequence for the NZYQ cohort but for others, and it could result in people subject to remove to a third country having no legal rights to be heard. This, according to the Refugee Council of Australia, means there would be no consideration of whether a person faces a real risk of persecution or harm if sent to Nauru or indeed any other country. There would be no consideration of whether they would receive adequate health care in the third country, for example.

While the government says that these people have already 'had their day in court', the decision to forcibly remove them to another country should not be brushed aside and has broader consequences, which this parliament is being given no opportunity to scrutinise. Refugee law experts say that this bill poses a real risk of chain refoulement, which means there is nothing preventing Nauru or other undisclosed third countries from sending people back to harm, persecution or death in their countries of origin. This would be a breach of Australia's international law obligations, a risk the Department of Home Affairs themselves have acknowledged. The simple fact is that Australia has legal obligations to ensure these people won't be returned to face persecution or death. It's absolutely not clear to me as a parliamentarian that the government can guarantee this. I have deep concerns about that.

The removal of due process would mean, if someone were wrongly sent to Nauru, including those who have not been convicted of any offence, they would have no way to challenge their removal. Just think about that for a moment—no way to be heard in court. No justice. It's a big decision we're making here. Legal bodies, such as the Law Council of Australia, also have serious concerns about the retrospective measures proposed in this bill. The Human Rights Commissioner said that the bill 'may give rise to retrospective criminal liability'. She continues:

This raises significant concerns about the rule of law and requires careful scrutiny.

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre says the bill would validate 'incorrect decisions that were made in the past, preventing the right for these decisions to be corrected'. It continues:

The Bill even allows the government to continue to prosecute criminal charges that were brought as a result of incorrect decisions.

Surely, colleagues, this cannot be the standard of legislating we hold ourselves to in this place—is it?

When the government introduced another bill last year relating to the NZYQ cohort, I said:

… under the bill the government can now pay countries to take people they're deported to. This could create a very real risk of a new offshore warehousing program. If the Australian public want to know how much the government is spending to do this, that will only be revealed by freedom-of-information requests or Senate estimates hearings.

At the time, I said:

I've got real concerns about ensuring the transparency of such a use of taxpayer money.

Well, here we are. We now know two things. Firstly, the government is creating a new offshore warehousing regime. Secondly, it's going to cost $400 million upfront and $70 million per year after that.

The Human Rights Law Centre has gone on to say that the legislation would save the government from having to even ask basic questions in relation to the people it's looking to deport to third countries forever. The Human Rights Commission has said that the bill 'raises significant concerns about the rule of law'. It said:

Rather than a patchwork of reactive responses, we need to ensure principled migration and asylum policies that maintain the integrity of Australia's migration system while also upholding our human rights obligations.

That sounds reasonable. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre is concerned that the bill is drafted so broadly that its removal of fair process could apply not only to the NZYQ cohort but also to anyone on a bridging visa issued on departure grounds, potentially thousands of people. Already they've told me about being contacted by people with no connection to the NZYQ cohort, terrified that this bill's removal of due process could in fact apply to them. And what reassurance can we give them?

Since this bill was introduced, many of my constituents have already phoned and emailed my office, one just a few minutes ago, urging me to oppose it. The rule of law either applies to us all or doesn't. We've said so many times in this place that in our country no-one is above the law. Well, this bill should remind us that no-one should be beneath the law. I urge the Senate to send this bill to a full inquiry for adequate scrutiny so that we can understand the full impact of these proposed laws. Until such a time, in its current form, I will not support this bill.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much has been said and written about the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, and I applaud my crossbench colleagues for doing a much better job than I would ever be able to do to explore particularly the legal dimensions of the bill. It is entirely understandable that the speeches that have been given by my colleagues have been needed, because this bill would be a fundamental departure from how Australian law currently operates by removing the right to natural justice. That we would even contemplate that, let alone have a bill before us, beggars belief and diminishes our country. But, because my colleagues have spoken at such length about such matters, I actually want to focus on some other dimensions of this that are perhaps a bit more gritty.

I was very pleased that the member for Indi spoke about international law, and that's where I'll start my contribution. If this bill becomes law, Australia will be in clear breach of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome statute was a statute agreed upon by our predecessors in this place and ratified by our predecessors in this place when they agreed that the forced removal of someone to a third country is a crime against humanity. That might sound a bit overly dramatic, but that's what we are contemplating today—to bring into law something that would have Australia stand guilty of crimes against humanity. This is another case of where we think that international law only applies to countries like Russia or China or Syria or Iran and that international law doesn't apply to good countries like us. It doesn't apply to the United States. It doesn't apply to Israel. It doesn't apply to Australia. It only applies to the countries that we want it to apply to. That is completely and utterly unacceptable, and that should worry us a lot. We should be the first country in the world, as an important middle power, to be advocating for international law and the rule of law, which have served this country so, so well ever since the end of the Second World War.

The other point I'll make is how this stands to be such a gross misuse of public funds. For a group of about 280 people, for there to be a political fix—let's face it: the government's in a hole. They've got to do something about this cohort. They're not getting much cooperation from the opposition, who sees everything through the prism of political opportunity. The government's in a hole, so it's going to throw, over a few years, about $2 million of Australian taxpayer money at each of these approximately 280 people. That's an appalling misuse of public funds. That should alarm us. Even the people who want to be rid of this cohort of people should at least be worried about how we're spending this money, and we're going to be giving it to a country which, when I look at a recent Transparency International report—they surveyed Nauruans, and 50 per cent of Nauruans surveyed said that they thought the Prime Minister and the officials in the Nauruan government are likely to be involved in corruption. But yet we're going to hand over $400 million in year 1 and, I think, $70 million every year after that for, presumably, as long as any of this cohort of people are living in Nauru. That's appalling. In fact, I'd liken it to a form of colonialism that we even think we have the right to ask the Nauruan government to take these people and that we are able to bring such financial force to bear to effectively force them to take these people.

I'm reminded of a previous life more than 20 years ago now. I remember reading a cable that came back to Canberra from our top diplomat or one of the diplomats in Nauru, and the cable explored all of the money and the assistance that we were pouring into Nauru. I can still remember the last sentence of that cable from more than 20 years ago, and it said, 'We have bought Nauru.' And you know what? We're doing exactly the same again. I think it is a form of colonialism.

I also want to pick up on the point that the member for Ryan made. The member for Ryan, I think bravely, raised the issue of racism. I note that the comment was withdrawn, but I don't think we should be so quick to—I wasn't doing so, but I don't think other honourable members should have been so quick to jump on the member for Ryan for floating the idea that there's an element of racism here. I put the question back to my colleagues. It's a genuine question. Would we be reacting the same way if this group of people had come from other countries? Admittedly, a lot of the other countries would take people back and would accept them being sent back, but not all. If these people in this cohort had come from other countries, would the government or the community have the same emotional response to this? I think it's a question that needs to be explored.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the member for Wannon has a point of order.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, the imputation being made is absolutely horrendous, and I would ask the member to reflect on what he said and to withdraw.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course I will withdraw it, but I think these are matters we sometimes should reflect on. I'm not saying that this group of people—let's face it: there are some very unsavoury people in this group. Mind you, some of them have never been charged or convicted of an offence. Some have been charged and convicted of an offence and have done their time and deserve a fresh start. Some of them have spent so long in detention in Australia that they have done multiples of the time they might have spent in prison if they ever had been charged and convicted. It's not 280 people all out of the same mould. This is quite a diverse group of people, and they are all being dealt with with the same blunt instrument.

To the degree that there are some members of this cohort who are unsavoury and judged to be a continuing threat to public safety, I'm the first to say they shouldn't be allowed into the community, but there are other ways to deal with those people rather than shipping them off—or flying them off, I suppose—to what I liken to a gulag, or a hulk that might be on the Thames. I haven't been to Nauru, but I know enough about it to know it is a tiny speck of an island almost on the equator in the middle of the Pacific Ocean—a hot, dry, harsh place. Hardy people live there; full marks to the Nauruans. But it's not where you would send people from this country to get rid of them. It's a horrid place in that regard. We should be looking at ways to deal with these people ourselves.

Deputy Speaker Chesters, you might remember, some years ago now, I tabled a bill that would have ended mandatory and indefinite detention. Even that bill—advised by human rights lawyers and other people and organisations—went to the point of saying that, if someone were a genuine threat to public safety, then an application could be made to a court, and a court could decide whether that person should continue to be detained. Why don't we do something like that? Instead of shipping our problems off to other countries and giving them almost half a billion dollars, why don't we deal with it ourselves? We are one of the wealthiest and cleverest countries in the world. We pride ourselves on being good international citizens that comply with international law. We're proud of the fact that we live by the rule of law in this country. Surely, if there's one country in the world that could set the example on how to deal with this, it's us.

I don't mind if the government and the opposition pull out my old bill that would end mandatory and indefinite detention and go to the relevant part—they could lift it, they could use it; I'd be delighted if they copied it—and, instead of these 280 people being treated as a job lot, go through them one by one and work out what the best solution and the best outcome is for each and every one of them. For those that do need to be kept in detention, we should frame our laws so they allow a court to make that decision. I think that would be the humane, legal and decent way to respond to this.

That would send a signal to people who might seek to come to this country via irregular means. Let's face it; our so-called border security policies—I'd call them our irregular immigration policies—are based on punishment and deterrence. They've been that way probably ever since a Labor government introduced mandatory detention decades ago. It might have been the Hawke government, if memory serves me correctly. So no side of politics has clean hands here—no side at all. In fact, I think the only people in this place who have got clean hands at the moment are the crossbench, who are fighting for natural justice, fighting for the rule of law and fighting for adherence to international law and for acting as a decent country with integrity.

What we've got instead is this political fix—a political fix because the government's in a hole. They're in a hole because they've got to do something with this group of people. They've got the opposition on their back, who never miss an opportunity to try and score political points when it comes to irregular immigration in this country. So we're going to ram this through with a bill of $400 million in the first year for 280-odd people, and $70 million a year every year thereafter—I assume until there are none of the 280 left.

This is an appalling turn of events. I certainly won't be supporting this bill. I would be happy to support another bill brought to this place that sought to come up with a humane, decent and principled way to deal with this cohort of people, one that would look at each on a case-by-case basis and ensure that there was some mechanism like a court making decisions on ongoing detention for anyone who was genuinely a threat to public safety.

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

This bill, the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, is incredibly problematic, as I commented yesterday in this place in relation to the motion. The motion should have succeeded, and this bill should have been referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

There are great concerns around intervention by government, around ministerial intervention into the judicial system. We have separation of powers for a very good reason in our liberal democracy, and that is to ensure there isn't overreach by the executive branch into decisions. We have the judicial branch there to implement, to ensure we have case law and to ensure that we have elements of natural justice, which includes procedural fairness as a fundamental principle. What is really concerning now is that question of trying to remove it in certain situations where it's simply inconvenient and maybe taking up a little bit too much time from the government's perspective. We have a situation where the High Court has already ruled that in some instances procedural fairness is not required. Why is it necessary for this legislation to go beyond that ruling, to extend it to further cases and to extend it retrospectively? I have a major issue with that aspect.

Ministerial intervention into the judicial system is incredibly concerning. Unfortunately we're seeing it all too often from this government around a number of issues. We have a fundamental judicial right in relation to natural justice and procedural fairness, and this attempt by the government to curtail it is incredibly concerning. I think it's important, because it is so significant, that all of this be very carefully scrutinised and that any unintended consequences be identified. It should be put properly to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I understand the government has a problem it needs to solve. The NZYQ decision left a group of people in our community with serious criminal histories, and, while the avenues through the Migration Act have been exhausted, the government now needs to look at other tools to deal with this group of people. It's a community safety issue, it's a political problem, and it gets weaponised all the time by the opposition. Of course I understand there needs to be a solution, but that does not mean you set aside key fundamental principles of our judicial system. So while I support the intention of the government to form a solution, I note there are serious concerns about the impact of this bill. These are not just my concerns. These are concerns being reflected by the legal fraternity and by many who are making submissions and urging the government to step with great care in this area.

Curtailing fundamental and crucial elements of our legal system is seriously not the best way to solve the political problem that they have at the moment. Of course, this has all come about as a result of indefinite offshore detention, which was an incredibly problematic and bad policy for so long. It remains a bad policy of the government. We finally had a High Court judgement that determined that indefinite detention was not legal and could not continue. This should have been a light bulb moment for both major political parties years ago; we finally had a High Court judgement that identified that. Rather than grappling with that question, with what that judgement meant, what we have seen from the Albanese government—in both the 47th Parliament and the 48th Parliament, time and time again—is ways of getting around the decision, of trying to accommodate the decision without fundamentally re-thinking the question around the rights and consequences of indefinite detention.

For Warringah, there is a real sense of the importance of the rule of law. I represent a community that values fairness. The rule of law—procedural fairness—is incredibly important. I've received a lot of correspondence, in the small amount of time we've had on this legislation, from across the electorate, raising serious concerns about the human rights abuses that may occur if this bill is passed. The Pacific solution, as it was once known, posed serious concerns. The Nauru files documented numerous instances of abuse, assault, self-harm and other severe forms of mistreatment and neglect against asylum seekers and refugees held on the island. The government and major parties were complicit in that by endorsing policy that continued it.

We now stand at another crossroads, where we're sending people back to Nauru for, essentially, what appears to be indefinite detention. We don't even know. What we have is an announcement in the media of huge sums of money being spent on a minor group of people, and we simply have no information about their rights. Are we just basically perpetrating more indefinite detention but sending it somewhere else and saying, at great cost: 'It's not our problem anymore. We will hand that problem over to Nauru'?

Back in November 2023, the High Court handed down the NZYQ decision. The court said that indefinite immigration detention isn't constitutional if there's no real prospect of someone being removed in the reasonable foreseeable future. That ruling meant the government could no longer keep certain noncitizens locked up indefinitely. Somewhere between 150 and 300 people had to be released as a result. This was quickly weaponised by the other side, as is the norm when it comes to anything to do with immigration. The group quickly became known as the NZYQ cohort, and some of them—yes—have incredibly troubling and dangerous criminal histories of violent and sexual offences. But that is why we have a judicial system. That is why we take proceedings. That is why we have prisons. We have a system to deal with that.

It left the government in a difficult position, so they've rushed their response and tinkered around the edges a few times. We keep having all these attempts. Every time you curtail trust, the public loses faith that the government actually has a cohesive plan and way of approaching and dealing with this. We've seen bridging visa Rs with strict conditions, ankle bracelets, curfews and regular reporting. Later, though, some of those measures were struck down by the courts, again for being unconstitutional. The government was advised that the legislation will only impact 200-odd people in respect to this one now. But the question is: what are the wide-ranging impacts of this legislation? What are we not aware of? Where is the slippery slope we're on when it comes to procedural fairness and natural justice? I understand that there is a huge amount of litigation in our courts around the Migration Act, and that is problematic, I believe, for the government. But, rather than looking holistically at the scale of the problem, the answer from the government is to set aside cornerstones of our judicial system, and I fundamentally disagree with that approach.

To me, this bill needs to be delicately understood and balanced. We have to find a better balance to ensure we contain strong borders, have domestic security and have a strong judicial system while also making sure we have appropriate consequences for all those that commit serious crimes within Australia, in particular when they are people that have no legal right to remain. But we also have to ensure we have robust and fair processes consistent with our obligations under international human rights law. These are not just things that are nice to respect when it is convenient and that you set aside when it is inconvenient. It's when it is inconvenient that they need to be respected and upheld the most. What I'm so incredibly concerned about with this legislation is that the government is choosing the other path. It is choosing to set aside those cornerstones. What we're seeing all too often is that, when inconvenient judicial decisions are handed down, the government tries to find a workaround. It doesn't want to grapple with the legal principle that a decision was unconstitutional—that the powers the executive government and the policy they implemented were beyond the bounds of the constitution. Rather than tackling that aspect, the government is constantly trying to work around and find a way of ignoring the constitutional question and just tinker around the edges to try and make it work. That is not good governance.

From my point of view, this legislation is deeply problematic. I move the amendment as circulated in my name, which raises these concerns in relation to this legislation. I acknowledge the need to find a solution but the need to respect procedural fairness and natural justice are cornerstones of our justice systems and should absolutely be upheld. We have to make sure that the breadth of this legislation, who will be impacted, the ramifications of the legislation to more groups and visa holders are properly understood and investigated. I intend to move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name, which raises these concerns in relation to the legislation. I acknowledge the need to find a solution, but the need to respect procedural fairness and natural justice are cornerstones of our justice system and should absolutely be upheld. We have to make sure that the breadth of this legislation, who will be impacted and the possible ramifications to more groups and visa holders are properly understood and investigated. I urge the government to ensure that this legislation is properly scrutinised. If not, we are on a very slippery slope of erosion of trust in government and the erosion of a cornerstone of liberal democracy, which is the separation of powers between the executive and our judiciary.

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) acknowledges that the government is looking to find a solution to ensure that people in the NZYQ cohort, who were seeking refugee status and broke Australian laws, are not able to stay in Australia; and

(2) notes that:

(a) procedural fairness and natural justice are cornerstones of our justice system, however this legislation has immense overreach by curtailing the Court's ability to apply these where a decision to remove a person to a third party has been made; and

(b) the ramifications of this legislation will be ongoing, with real-life application for all people on bridging visa E, including those on fast-track and transitory visas".

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment, and I reserve my right to speak.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Warringah has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with the view to substitute other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, I will proceed to putting the questions. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Warringah has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.