David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Decisions on when people are able and not able to enter Australia are some of the most important decisions we make as a country. They affect liberty, families, livelihoods and safety. For that reason alone, any proposal to expand or reshape these powers deserves the most careful scrutiny from this parliament. As a number of experts, advocates and community organisations have pointed out, this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, contains complex and far-reaching provisions that would significantly alter our migration framework. Yet this bill has been brought forward with limited opportunity for proper examination.

Members of the crossbench were given the bill at 11 am on Tuesday, and here we are in a guillotine sometime this afternoon, being forced to vote on significant changes just two days later. I fear that this is not what Australians sent us here to do. In the short time available, a number of very significant concerns have been raised.

First, there are concerns about the breadth of the powers that would be created. Migration legislation already grants extraordinary powers to the executive compared with most other areas of Australian law. When new powers are proposed, the parliament has a responsibility to ask whether they are necessary, whether they are proportionate and whether they are subject to appropriate safeguards.

Second, there are concerns about transparency and accountability. Several provisions in the bill appear to concentrate huge amounts of discretion in the hands of the minister without sufficient oversight or review mechanisms. That raises real questions about how these powers might operate in practice and what protections will exist for those that are affected. I think, if we zoom out, this is a really important thing to look at. Look around the world. We're seeing what leaders and their executives are doing in their countries to their people. As a Senate and as a parliament, we need to take giving the executive of the day any more power very seriously. Rather than handing more extraordinary powers in perpetuity to the executive, those powers need to be justified and well thought through.

Third, there are concerns about the potential human consequences of these changes. Migration decisions shape the lives of those affected—students, workers, families and people seeking protection, many of whom have or seek to build lives in our communities. These concerns have been raised by migration experts and civil society groups who work directly with the people most affected by these laws. Their warnings deserve to be heard and taken seriously by this place.

It is also important that the parliament listens to the people we represent. Many Canberrans have contacted my office about this bill. Canberra is a community that values transparency. It values parliamentary scrutiny and the rule of law. People here understand that Australia needs a well-managed migration system, but they also expect that system to be humane, accountable and consistent with our values. The concerns raised are reasonable and reflect the broader expectations that Australians have, that their parliament will be cautious when legislating in areas that affect fundamental rights and freedoms.

Given that we are increasingly unlikely to have any time in committee, I foreshadow that I'll be moving amendments to this bill. These amendments build on the work of my colleagues in the other place, the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall; the member for Curtin, Kate Chaney; and the member for Kooyong, Dr Monique Ryan. They would strengthen the preconditions before the Home Affairs minister could make an arrival control determination to stop a group, such as a group of Iranians fleeing conflict, from entering Australia. They would provide natural justice for those prevented from entering the country so that they could challenge that decision. They would make the decision to prevent groups of people entering the country disallowable by the parliament. Surely this is the base level of oversight on what are extraordinary powers. Again, let's look at what is happening with some of our closest allies, at what is happening in the US with the executive and the harm that that is inflicting on people over there. We cannot go down that path of giving the executive unfettered powers.

The amendments would clarify the circumstances in which cohorts of people would be prevented from entering the country. One of my concerns with the migration changes that have been rushed through by the Labor government, backed in by the coalition and rammed through the parliament in the space of days over the past few years is just how loose some of the definitions are and how much discretion is built into these laws. You sometimes hear governments say, 'We need to futureproof this so it can't be abused by a future minister.' There seems no foresight on that possibility when it comes to migration changes.

The amendments would also ensure that parents, grandparents, siblings and partners of Australian citizens are not prevented from entering the country, even if they are a member of a cohort otherwise prevented from entering. We are dealing with the loved ones of Australian citizens, and this is a very blunt instrument. Surely, the least we can do is say, 'If you are an Australian citizen, we will at least be looking out for you and your family'? That would ensure that people in transit and on their way to the country are not prevented from entering because a decision was made while they were in transit. Surely that is also just common decency? They would ensure that the Minister for Home Affairs considers whether to allow individuals to enter the country even where they are members of a cohort otherwise prevented from entering and they would ensure that, where people are prevented from entering the country, their visas do not expire because of the prevention and they may be compensated for travel, visa processing and related costs. We have some of the highest visa application fees in the world. As a wealthy country, surely the least we could do is provide people a refund for taking this extraordinary action?

These are comprehensive amendments, and their breadth speaks to the huge issues with this bill. I understand the intent of the bill is to preserve the integrity of the humanitarian intake program. However, after considering the provisions of the bill in the short time available and listening to experts in my community, listening to Canberrans who I represent and vote on behalf of in this place, it's clear that this bill has significant shortcomings and that it should not be supported. This bill should not become law today, and I will be opposing it.

Australia's migration system must be effective, but it must also be fair and accountable. That is the standard the public expects us to deliver. It is the standard this parliament should actually seek to uphold. This bill does not meet that standard, and it certainly does not have my support.

I'm very concerned about the lack of consistency in the government's approach to dealing with laws and humanitarian crises around the world. There was absolutely no talk of this sort of legislation after Russia invaded Ukraine. We saw a far more generous approach, and I've met a number of Ukrainians who now live in Canberra and are contributing and who are grateful for the opportunity that we've given them. So it is very concerning that we now have a government that, under the cover of giving humanitarian visas to brave football players from Iran, is bringing this to the parliament. As I said earlier, I commend Minister Burke for his work with the Iranian women's team. I think it shows what Australia can and should be doing. It shows a minister who deeply cares, a minister who is in touch with what Australians want, a minister who is willing to go out of his way, to drop everything else, to actually rise to the occasion and deliver for people who need our support and for Australians. I fear that, at the same time that is rightly being shared on social media and rightly being covered in the media, we have this heinous bill being brought through here.

We should maybe do a tally. Maybe we can talk about this in the next sitting of the Senate. How many Labor MPs and senators post about this bill? How many of them front up to the community that they are meant to be representing and say: 'We saw what's happening in Iran, so we're giving ourselves the powers to cancel every single visa that we've issued. Yes, we already have extraordinary powers to cancel visas on security grounds and on character grounds—on a whole range of grounds—but that's not enough. Forever, going forward, we want the power, for some undefined events, to say, "No visas from that country—sorry if you paid money for the visa; sorry if you're on your way here; sorry if you're in transit; sorry if you're coming for the birth of a granddaughter or for your sister's wedding; we don't give a stuff because we do not want to give a visa to anyone from the country you come from."'

We can surely do better than this. It feels so ridiculous that this is what the Senate is debating—and, again, under the cover of a government that knows that Australians care. You know that Aussies care, that we have big hearts, that we see the suffering and we say, 'We're not the biggest country; we're a middle power; we can't stop the war, but we can play our part.' Increasingly, I don't think we're seeing those values being lived out. We talk about the land of a fair go, but this doesn't seem like it. This really does not seem like it.

I urge the government to think again when it comes to this. Let's actually come up with a consistent framework when it comes to conflicts. That's surely something we could be doing. Increasingly, I'm getting Canberrans ask me about that and say, 'Why was there such a discrepancy between the war in Ukraine—Gaza, Iran—and our response?' These are Australian citizens' families and loved ones. Honestly, we've got to do better than this.

I oppose this bill. I'll be moving amendments to try and make it a little bit better. I thank my colleagues in the other place who have, in a very short space of time, consulted, spoken to experts and had amendments drafted to try and make this terrible bill better, fairer and clearer and, importantly, to put some more checks on the executive. Yes, Labor have a whopping majority in the other house, but to the coalition I say: this is the place where we should not give up power to the executive, not just in this instance but in perpetuity. That is a very serious thing to grant to government, and it's my view that whenever we do that it should be very well thought out, consulted on and scrutinised. Then, in circumstances that warrant it, we should hand over that power. It doesn't seem like this is that situation. This is rushed. It's a knee jerk. Again, I see some of the arguments, but I just don't think they've been well enough made, so I'll be opposing this bill.