Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, and I thank all senators who have risen to speak on this bill. I seek to clarify what this bill does and what this bill doesn't do and to ensure that it's very clear what the intention of the government is in putting this bill forward today.

The amendments in this bill are directed at non-citizens who have come to the end of a visa process and are on a removal pathway. The provisions make targeted amendments to expressly exclude procedural fairness from applying to the exercise of specific powers which deal with the disclosure of information to foreign governments, the taking of action in relation to third-country reception arrangements and the issuing of removal-pathway directions.

Procedural fairness is a fundamental principle in many areas of decision-making. However, there are circumstances where it is neither necessary nor appropriate for it to continue to apply. This bill makes clear that any actions or things done in relation to third-country reception arrangements are not conditioned on an obligation to afford procedural fairness to an affected person. The amendments in the bill and the associated validation provisions reflect the law as it was declared by the Federal Court to be in TCXM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

The amendments will put beyond doubt that the Commonwealth does not need to afford an individual further procedural fairness before establishing an arrangement with a third country, making a visa application on their behalf with that country or directing them to take steps to cooperate with their removal to a third country. In such cases, the purposes and application of the law should be clear to give effect to removal as swiftly and effectively as possible. Excluding natural justice obligations from these provisions will reduce delays to removals of individuals pursuant to third-country reception arrangements. There are no changes to the protections established by the Migration Act for noncitizens who are owed protection. Australia does not remove people to countries in respect of which they have been found to engage with Australia's non-refoulement obligations. These amendments do not change that.

The amendments in this bill do not remove procedural fairness from the processes that support decisions for whether to cancel or refuse the granting of a visa, nor do they affect merits review. The amendments are directed to the final steps in the removal process, throughout which claims to remain in Australia have been considered and rejected at numerous opportunities. Other provisions validate certain decisions that may have been affected by a decision of the full Federal Court in AJN23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. In that case, the decision has created legal uncertainty for a range of decisions made by the minister, his delegates and the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where the decision-maker relied on an understanding of the law from a previous High Court decision.

The amendments in this bill will validate the relevant decisions so that they are all taken for the purposes to have always been valid. These amendments do not seek to alter the current law on immigration detention following the High Court's decision in NZYQ. The Australian community rightly expects that our migration laws are upheld and that those who have no legal right to remain in Australia will depart voluntarily or be removed as soon as possible. These amendments enable this expectation to be met without unnecessary or otherwise avoidable delays. In conclusion, again, I thank the chamber for its cooperation and for the contributions that have been made today. I commend this bill to the chamber.