Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. This is an important piece of legislation. Yes, I accept that there has been not as much time as one would like to examine this legislation, but, as I think many of the contributors to this debate and certainly the public commentary on this legislation will indicate, it was urgent legislation that needed to be dealt with.

In short, this legislation enables the government of the day to put in place measures to deal with potential issues related to current holders of temporary visa classes who are currently offshore but in an area affected by a significant event or circumstance—measures to have those visas held by those individuals temporarily suspended and to be able to establish that that needs to be the case and that a determination to suspend those visas ought be the outcome. A test is applied by the minister which the opposition agrees is a relevant and appropriate test to be applied.

The simplest way to describe it is that, for example, in a region subject to conflict, if an individual from that region applied for some form of temporary visa, like a visitor or a tourist visa or perhaps a student visa, there is a high likelihood that that visa would be cancelled, the reason being—albeit it's a temporary visa these individuals are applying for—that there is a high likelihood that they would stay beyond the expiry of that visa, potentially to seek asylum and perhaps stay on illegally. So there are issues that need to be dealt with. This legislation goes to the very heart of that.

The opposition was satisfied with the way in which the legislation had been constructed. Yes, we had a short Senate inquiry into this to interrogate how the departmental officials arrived at the structure they put in, how they were able to determine which classes of individuals were not subject to any determination to suspend any visa and, then, any situations where people might be able to apply for an exception to that rule, that determination, enabling them to travel by application to the minister.

The government, of course, will speak to the details of this legislation, but the coalition make the observation that this legislation is all about controlling our borders, our national security, in determining who comes here and how they come here. I think that is an important role for government to have when it comes to preserving and protecting our country and its way of life. It is important that we do have controls in place that manage anything that could have an impact on how people come to this country and, indeed, who comes to this country, especially if there is a risk that, although the permission to enter this country was granted on one set of circumstances, if those circumstances change they may give rise to someone taking a different approach—that is, seeking to stay here permanently when all this country has agreed to is for these people to come in and be here temporarily.

There is nothing wrong with this approach being taken, I believe, and we are pleased the government has taken it, although one must question why there have been so many failings in this government's approach to matters immigration, border policy and national security. The point of this legislation—to give the government powers to protect this country from people coming in and seeking to stay permanently when that is not something this country has agreed to—is not something that was in contemplation when we look at this government's handling of the so-called ISIS brides. The government are not preventing these people from coming in. They're saying it's their right to come in. They say they're not doing anything about it and that they, frankly, don't want them here, but they're not doing anything to stop them. I find it odd that the government take this approach with regard to individuals who may find themselves in a circumstance that this bill catches a group up in, but why are they doing it for this group and not others? Again, it's like the ISIS brides. Why is it we are doing it now?

We know that there are other international conflicts—like the one, sadly, we are seeing unfold in the Middle East now. It's a conflict that would, as we heard at the Senate inquiry just a couple of nights ago, probably meet the threshold for activation of the powers under this legislation, the framework that's being established here. There are other conflicts, in the past and perhaps ongoing now, that would meet that threshold. So I do question why the government has waited till now to activate any work in this area to allow the government to have the capacity to create this determination to suspend these visas. We've seen, for example, the 6,957 visa that were granted to Palestinian nationals between November 2023 and 2025. Why was this not something that was activated then? Reports and information available to us suggest that many of those visas were temporary in nature. The same rules should apply, given the nature of the conflict in that region.

We heard—again, at the committee inquiry earlier in the week—that across the Middle East there are 61,000, or thereabouts, holders of visas that could be caught up under the arrangements set out in the framework that this legislation establishes. They're from a range of countries. There are 7,200 from Iran, which I know Senator Shoebridge just talked about before in reference to the laws we're now debating. They are a group of people that were, obviously, in contemplation when this legislation was designed. There are 207 from Syria, 157 from Palestine, 1,150 from Lebanon, 1,096 from Qatar and 6,435 from the United Arab Emirates. There are groups of people from a region in the world that these laws could apply to, but I do wonder why we didn't have these laws being introduced at a time when this government had, effectively, an open-border policy and a turning-a-blind-eye approach to people coming from a war-torn region, possibly and quite probably on visas temporary in nature, and the thereby then seeking to make their arrangements and life here in Australia more permanent. That is a question the government do need to answer and one we'll continue to prosecute.

Of course, this legislation does set up a framework. It doesn't specify who, in a particular region, in a particular set of circumstances, is caught out by name or by location. It sets up a framework for the government to make a determination. This means some of these areas that haven't previously been caught by such laws now can be. It will be our approach to make sure that we do continue to see the application of these laws as they may be applied to, for example, Iranian nationals who are on these temporary visas and who happen to be overseas at the time and other cases as well.

There are a range of questions that the coalition continue to hold. That includes whether, with regard to those visas that were granted for the group of Palestinian nationals we talked about earlier, any risk assessments were conducted on these individuals before they arrived here or before their visas were issued. And why wasn't any advice provided—or, if it was, why was it not acted on—such that these additional powers that are now proposed in this legislation weren't in place, as I've already outlined?

The opposition will support this legislation. We think it is right. We think that there are appropriate safeguards in there. Above all else, of course, the legislation enables a framework for temporary suspensions. This is not permanent prevention of people from coming into this country. They are temporary suspensions. Of course there are exclusions and exceptions on very solid grounds for people who shouldn't be caught up under these determinations and processes for people to seek exception to the application of a determination to not be able to use your visa, should it have been granted to you. To that end, it comes down to the government applying these laws in the way they should—and should have before now—to protect our country in relation to who comes here and the circumstances under which they come.