Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In very brief summary: the Labor Party has shown a complete inability to deal with what is a very important issue in a timely fashion. What we do know is that the Labor Party has had months of notice that this was a risk. The decision was handed down by the High Court a week ago. Those on this side warned about it immediately. I know for a fact that Senator Paterson, the shadow minister for home affairs, warned the next day that urgent legislation was required, and then Labor persisted for a week—basically until yesterday—in insisting that an urgent legislative response was not required. As a result, we saw the Australian community put at risk. That is not an acceptable response from an Australian government, and it is good that we are finally seeing some urgency from those on the other side. We are finally seeing the seriousness of this matter given the attention that it deserves in terms of a legislative response from this chamber. It is also good to see the government agreeing with the sensible amendments put forward by my colleagues. On that note, I will sit down.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, which is an absolute disgrace. It is an attack on democracy, on our courts, on the rule of law, on liberty and on freedom, all dressed up as one big attempt by Mr Dutton, helped here by the government of the day, to launch a new, full-blown attack on refugees in this country. For years and years, we have seen successive governments use some of the most vulnerable people around the world and in our community, who have come to Australia seeking our assistance, protection and help—refugees—as political footballs. They have been used to win elections, destroy prime ministerships, take power and excuse other bad laws being introduced. And here we are all over again. You'd think we would have learnt by now. You'd think we would have learnt that, every time this place rams through legislation that is designed to attack and undermine the rights of refugees right around the world and who come to our shores asking for our help, eventually the day would come when a brave judge or bench of judges would stand up and say: 'You know what? This is not on. Some things actually are important to uphold.' That's exactly what the High Court has done in the last fortnight—that indefinite detention is illegal. That's what the High Court has ruled. Rather than that warning being taken and understood, what we have seen is now a kneejerk reaction from the Albanese government, at the behest and under the political pressure of Mr Dutton's opposition.

Let me be absolutely clear. I know there are members of the Labor Party who are hanging their heads in shame this afternoon. They know that ramming this piece of legislation through is wrong, is immoral and goes against everything that, as members of the Labor Party, they believe. Yet here they are, jumping at the shadows, the scares and the fear campaign from Peter Dutton and his party. All Mr Dutton has is the politics of fear. We've seen that this year already with the opposition to the voice and the way Peter Dutton and his nasty party behaved during the referendum—the spreading of lies, misinformation and disinformation, whipping up fear, hatred and racism. He got a taste of it only a few months ago, and he's bloodthirsty for it again—bloodthirsty for the fear. That is Peter Dutton to a T.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am just seeking your advice on whether or not it's an adverse reflection on a member of the other place to say that they're bloodthirsty. I would have thought it was.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson Young, it is a reflection, and I'd ask you to withdraw, please.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dutton has got a taste of what fear, misinformation and hatred can deliver him, and he wants more of it. He's hungry for it.

This is the Dutton tail wagging the Labor dog. Make no mistake about it. I've been in this place for nearly 16 years, and this issue continues to be one of nasty politics, using the lives of refugees to score political points and win political ground, and it's disgusting. It's absolutely disgusting, and we're seeing it all over again. I can't count how many times this chamber has had to sit late into the evening because both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party decide that it's time to ram through some draconian law that limits the freedoms, rights and human rights protections of refugees in this country. It's happened so many times, and finally the High Court, a fortnight ago, said the worst of all of those, the indefinite detention of a person without the ruling of a court, without hearing or a trial, at the whim of a minister or his public servant delegate, is illegal. We've known it's wrong, but now we know for sure that it's illegal. But, in the haste to respond to this because the Dutton opposition wants to gain ground by whipping up fear and racism in this country, the Labor Party have gone weak at the knees.

Where is the guts? Where is the political spine to stand up for the basic principles you believe in? Not only are we seeing this legislation being rammed through in a knee-jerk reaction before you've even seen the High Court's deliberations and reasons, we're seeing the Labor Party agree to amend their own rushed piece of legislation to make it even worse because Peter Dutton demanded it—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because Mr Dutton demanded that the bill must be tougher, must be nastier, must be meaner. So what did the Labor Party do? 'Oh, okay, please stop. Don't say anything more!' It is so sickening to me that you have no spine. What is the point of being in government? What is the point of having a Labor Attorney-General? What is the point of having a Labor immigration minister? What is the point of having a Labor Prime Minister if all you're going to do is implement the policies of the Liberal Party?

People are going to be upset about this, shocked about this and heartbroken about this because it sets a very, very bad precedent. You have just let the cat out of the bag. Peter Dutton says 'Boo!'—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, please refer to others in the other chamber by their correct titles.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The cat is out of the bag. Mr Dutton says, 'Boo,' and the Labor Party hides. This is a bad bill. It will be found to be bad in years to come, perhaps only in weeks and months to come. The High Court will not be happy, because they have understood that locking people up without trial, without reason, without a judgement is wrong. Indefinitely locking people up, imprisoning them without a trial, without the independence of a judge, at the whim of a minister, is wrong. If you really want to make sure there are laws that protect the community, give judges and courts the right to do it and to do it properly. That is all you had to do, and you didn't have the guts to do it.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Refugees and people seeking asylum have for decades borne the brunt of cruel, inhumane and racist government policies in this country aimed at dehumanising, demonising, deterring, detaining and deporting vulnerable people, resulting in unimaginable damage for thousands of people, including women and children. Refugees have seen decades of bipartisan Labor-Liberal cruelty in the form of temporary protection visas, mandatory detention, offshore processing, being locked up in hotels during the COVID pandemic and not being allowed to go even to university. They have been hidden away with no access to journalists, losing all hope, and in desperation they've harmed themselves, they've died by suicide and they've died because they didn't get medical treatment. That's the extent of the cruelty that Labor and the Liberals have inflicted on people who are just seeking safety in this country.

They are maligned by how they are described: queue jumpers, boat people, illegals, criminal aliens, economic refugees, threats to national security. It is just disgraceful. They are painted as people very different to so-called mainstream Australia. They are from a different culture, we are told. They are not one of us, we are told. It is shameful. Politicians have said they don't want people like that in Australia. These boat people, they say, throw their children into the ocean. They lie. And so continues the othering of people just like us. For years we have watched politicians and the media whip up anti-refugee and anti-immigrant hysteria. For years we have warned of the impact it has on our community. For years we have spoken out about the damage this causes and the sucker it gives to white nationalists that want to kick all non-white people out of Australia.

In 2001—and I do want people to be reminded of this, in case some have forgotten—the then Prime Minister John Howard famously, or should I say, shamefully, said, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' This culminated in the Tampa affair, which you could say was one of the most divisive federal election campaigns in Australia. This was also the first time I ever considered joining a political party, and the Greens were the obvious choice. While both the Liberals and Labor were busily creating panic and demonising desperate people, claiming they had thrown their children overboard, the voice of Bob Brown rose over and above the rubble. When innocent people seeking asylum were maligned by the Howard government, supported by the Beazley opposition, the Greens were the only voice of humanity speaking out to bring them here. I'm so proud of my colleague and comrade Senator Nick McKim, who has carried on the tradition of courage, humanity, fairness and justice for refugees.

From then to now, people who seek asylum and refuge have been increasingly subjected to policies that have become more and more cruel, more restrictive, more punitive and more militarised. Both Liberal and Labor have inflicted this cruelty. The same systemic racism that has played out so viciously for First Nations people results in prejudice against people of colour, against immigrants and results in the mistreatment of refugees again and again. Here we are, yet again. This terrible persecution of refugees goes on, and it gets worse every single time. Under this bill, refugees and stateless persons who were released into the community as a result of a High Court decision which found indefinite detention was unlawful and unconstitutional will be placed in a precarious position yet again, where they are judged and sentenced not by the court of law but by the stroke of a politician's pen.

This will create a subclass of individuals who are judged not by their actions but by their visa status. But white Australia has never been shy about having one rule for it and another for people it regards as second class. Everyone in Australia should be subject to the same criminal legal system regardless of who they are, where they come from or their visa status. When people on visas are sentenced to imprisonment in Australia, they serve those sentences before being taken into immigration detention. Haven't you had enough of the fear and division? Haven't you caused enough harm and damage to these people? Now you are willing to sidestep the judicial process of the courts and challenge the very principles of equality, of democracy, of fairness and of justice that are supposed to be the bedrock of this country's legal system. At what point will you be satisfied? At what point will you see them as humans? We are told refugee policies are not racist. This is then justified by claims that it is fair, impartial and commonsense policy. We are told, 'Shouldn't those who have been patiently waiting for their turn in a queue get priority, rather than those jumping the queue?' We also told, 'Shouldn't we protect our national identity and Australian culture from those who are so very different to us?' And so the real racist agenda emerges, marginalising people who fall outside the very narrow conception of what it is to be one of us.

Labor's decision to fast-track this draconian legislation is yet another capitulation to Mr Peter Dutton's fearmongering and dog whistling. Now you are even writing the amendments for the Liberal Party and going to introduce them, doing their dirty work. This Labor government has no shame whatsoever. But having now seen the depths of Labor's inhumanity in refusing to call for a ceasefire in Gaza when thousands upon thousands of children and civilians are being killed by Israel, sadly, I am not surprised at Labor's lack of human decency and sense of justice for refugees. In both cases Labor is showing complete disregard of its international obligations and its moral responsibility. That is how low the Labor Party has sunk. There is still time to wake up, Labor—there is still time. Stop trampling on human rights and stop persecuting refugees.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to echo the comments of my colleagues in this debate, each and every one of them. What we are seeing with this bill is Labor and the coalition engaging in a Murdoch fuelled cruelty contest—that is what this is—and using dozens and dozens of refugees, people who came to this country seeking our protection, as political pawns in their contest of cruelty to see who can have the least principles. We're seeing who can place politics above principle and decency in the most shameful possible way. For the Labor government, with all the resources of government behind it, led by the scruff of the neck by the ugliest, nastiest parts of the coalition in responding to the High Court judgement says so much about Labor. Labor are so desperate not to be seen as having any gap between them and the coalition that they've become the coalition when it comes to this policy. Not only could Dutton have written the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 and the amendments to it, but the amendments actually have been written by Dutton.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you to refer to members of the other place by their correct titles.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They literally have been read by Mr Dutton. They have been written by Mr Dutton. He wrote the amendments to add that little spice of cruelty to Labor's already offensive bill. This is an obscene act against people who've just got a little sliver of liberty. But it is an even more obscene political surrender by Labor to the coalition. The coalition must be wondering why they bother having a two-party system in this place. Why don't you just join together? Why don't you become the one big cruelty party and have a big cruelty party every time you come here to work out which particular group in society you can be cruellest to together? This week it just happens to be refugees. They're the part of society, the least powerful, that you've come together to be as cruel as you possibly can be towards because you think it will play well with the Murdoch media—because you think it will play well with a bunch of right-wing shock jocks. Why not just become a single 'party of cruelty' and be done with the pretence? Because that's what it is—and to watch you do this!

And where has the Attorney-General been in all of this? I am sure that there are people of good conscience in Labor who are revolted by what is happening, notionally in their name. I feel certain that the Attorney-General would be deeply offended by what this bill does and deeply offended by the dozen amendments that do things like put in mandatory sentencing, because it goes against his nature. But it's one thing to privately take offence to it. What would show courage would be to come out and say it.

We just saw 56 members of the UK Labour Party speak out against their leader when he was supporting a cruel position on Palestine, and they took a hit for it. A number of them knew that that meant they had to surrender their frontbench positions. They took the hit because, for them, it was a step too far. It was a step too far against their principles and their views of the cruel nature of Labour's policy in that regard in the UK.

How can it be that not one single member of the Labor Party here is willing to do the same on this offensive bill but will literally take the politics of Tampa and the cruelty and the ugliness that that led our country into for two decades, stick in the microwave and reheat it for 2023? How could nobody in the federal Labor Party say no to that and publicly take a stand? Where's Minister Giles on this? I feel pretty sure that this offends a bunch of his principles of decency. But it's no good to be privately offended and then publicly back in this cruel system. That doesn't help a single refugee. That just further drives our politics down Peter Dutton's path.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge—

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dutton's path.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've drawn it to your attention now two or three times. Please refer to those in the other place by their correct titles.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How could you allow your party, the Labor Party, to be driven by, literally, the politics of Suella Braverman here—that's what you're doing—and not have one of you stand up and say no? Not one single member of the federal Labor Party has said no to this. Why are you here? Why don't you just join the big 'cruelty party' and make it just a single party? What's the purpose of Labor if all they do is implement Mr Peter Dutton's ugly policies? What's the purpose? You changed the government and changed nothing else. The coalition can sit there grinning like Cheshire cats because you are just implementing their policy and you've done it within 48 hours of the High Court delivering its decision. They thought they were in opposition, but it turns out, when it comes to this, they're in bloody government. Millions of people voted to move them out, and you've just reinstalled them. Why are you here if it's just to deliver what they would have delivered anyhow before the election, only with maybe a slightly calmer social media spin on it—maybe slightly less celebratory but the same core policy. Why are you here?

When it comes to the mandatory sentencing provisions that you're going to tack onto this—handed to you by Mr Peter Dutton, drafted by Mr Peter Dutton, but delivered by Labor—what does Labor's own national policy platform say about that? The publicly available 2021 national policy for Labor says this:

Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. In substituting the decisions of politicians for those of judges, mandatory sentencing undermines the independence of the judiciary. It leads to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice. Mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime, and leads to perverse consequences that undermine community safety, such as by making it more difficult to successfully prosecute criminals.

That's your own platform. That's Labor's 2021 national policy platform. What is Labor doing now? You're about to put in place Mr Peter Dutton's mandatory sentencing provisions for refugees—because you think refugees are powerless, because you think it's okay to attack them and because you're even willing to sell your own national policy platform to just have a go at a powerless group in society because it works for you politically. It works for you politically to have an answer to a shock jock on 2GB. You just junk your own national platform.

It's not as though we have to go back to 2021. We recently saw the so-called festival of democracy and the media show which was the 2023 Labor National Convention. You all came together and had a draft new national policy platform this year. You had a pretend little debate about AUKUS as though you cared, and then you adopted this on mandatory sentencing in 2023, the same year that you're about to legislate Mr Peter Dutton's ugly little mandatory sentencing provisions on your bill here against refugees. This is what Labor said in their 2023 draft national platform:

Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, lead to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice.

That's true. What Labor said on their national platform is true in 2023 and 2021. What's not true is everything that's come out of the mouth of the Prime Minister about that in the last 48 hours. What's not true is the offensively false, discriminatory, unjust language that's come out of Labor in the last 24 hours, backing in the coalition's mandatory sentencing provisions for refugees. What you've said in the last 48 hours is what's not true. You know it's not true. You know it's wrong. You know it's discriminatory. You know it undermines the judiciary. And you're still going to do it.

Why are you here? Why don't you just join the coalition? Why don't you just make your big cruelty party and be done with the pretence on this? Why are you here? You say one thing before the election. You get elected on a platform. You say mandatory sentencing's wrong. You say it's unjust. You say it undermines the judiciary. Then, when you get elected and you finally sit on the government benches, you legislate for mandatory sentencing against refugees. Why are you here? Why do you keep lying to the electorate in election campaigns and then govern just like the coalition? Why are you here? Where is the single member of the Labor Party that's going to stand up for your own national platform? Not one of you. Why are you here? You're doing all of this—this festival of cruelty with your mates from the coalition—before you've even read the judgement of the High Court. You don't even have the judgement of the High Court. You're probably just going to create yet another unconstitutional holy mess, and grind refugees and their families through another unconstitutional holy mess, just because you want to deliver in a time frame that suits Mr Peter Dutton. Why are you here?

The idea that you could craft legislation to address what the High Court has found about two decades of systemic cruelty—that you could provide and craft a legislative response to it—before the High Court has even delivered its reasons is so obviously wrong. You know it won't work. You're no doubt being advised about this legislation by the same lawyers that were telling you that you were going to win the High Court case and saying: 'Don't worry about it. You don't need a plan B.' The same lawyers who've lost the High Court case, who obviously didn't understand the constitutional constraints around executive punishment and cruelty, are no doubt drafting this piece of legislation before the High Court has even delivered its reasons showing why they were wrong. Do you seriously expect this next little cooked-up piece of executive cruelty to survive a High Court challenge? It's not actually even about being lawful. It's not even about pretending to be lawful. It's about delivering a political hit job on refugees because it's convenient to you to keep the shock jocks and Mr Peter Dutton off your back. Why are you here?

So of course we're going to vote against this bill. But, of course, the combined parties of cruelty are going to come together and ram it through without any committee process, without the benefit of the reasons for the decision of the High Court, because that's what you do.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those who have contributed to this debate. The Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 proposes urgent amendments to the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations to support the effective management of noncitizens released from immigration detention following the decision of the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor. While the Commonwealth argued that previous detention settings were constitutionally valid, the High Court's decision requires the release of NZYQ and similarly affected people from immigration detention.

Let me be clear: the safety of the Australian community is an absolute priority for the Australian government. While the High Court has not yet handed the reasons for its decision, noncitizens affected by the NZYQ decision are being released on removal-pending bridging visas as a result of the High Court's order. Removal-pending visa holders are all subject to a range of conditions, including key reporting and security conditions. Importantly, the removal-pending visa includes requirements for the person to cooperate and to facilitate their removal from Australia. The Australian community also expects that noncitizens who do not meet the requirements for migration to Australia will not undertake activities or engage in further criminal offending that harms the community and could prejudice the Australian government's ability to facilitate their removal from Australia.

As has been reported publicly, the NZYQ case load includes certain individuals with serious criminal histories. The government is working with state and territory criminal justice agencies, who have primary responsibility for community safety. This collaboration is underpinned by an enduring law enforcement engagement mechanism, which was established before any individuals other than the plaintiff in the High Court case had been released. It has also supported NZYQ affected people to move into state and territory post-offending programs where appropriate. Let me be absolutely clear: depending on the nature of the offending and the circumstances of the individual, the government is working to ensure the individuals are managed appropriately under the relevant legal frameworks.

The measures outlined in this bill are proposed to complement and strengthen existing safeguards. Specifically, the government is proposing to amend the Migration Act to include appropriate amendments to the bridging visa conditions to protect the community, to increase monitoring capabilities and reporting obligations, and to secure ongoing engagement with the Department of Home Affairs. Some of these conditions will have mandatory reporting obligations and discretionary curfew and monitoring requirements, which will be imposed only where necessary to protect the safety of the community. New criminal offences will also apply for failing to comply with these reporting and monitoring conditions. These amendments are proposed to apply to all existing and future NZYQ affected noncitizens.

The government proposes new, stringent visa conditions. These new conditions include a discretionary requirement for the visaholder to wear an electronic monitoring device as directed by the minister and a requirement to comply with the electronic device condition. The purpose of this condition is to protect the community where an individual is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk of harm to the community, and the monitoring device supports ongoing monitoring, which will keep the community safe. Electronic monitoring will also assist in preventing people from disengaging or avoiding engagement with the government, which would hamper efforts to facilitate their removal. It provides an alternative means of encouraging compliance that will be more suitable in circumstances where additional support alone will not prevent offending.

The bill also includes a discretionary requirement for the visaholder to adhere to a curfew for the hours specified by the minister at the location notified to the department, as required. These conditions would only be imposed for the minimum number of days required to support community safety according to the specific circumstances and only where appropriate with regard to the community safety risk posed by the visaholder. This is consistent with the legitimate objective of community safety and the rights and interests of the public, especially vulnerable members of the public.

To be clear, the conditions relating to electronic monitoring and the curfew—and I know we are continuing to discuss this with members of the opposition, but as the bill is drafted relating to electronic monitoring and the curfew, there are proposed discretionary conditions. They will be imposed where necessary for the protection of the community. Where appropriate, the conditions may be revoked. Other conditions developed for the NZYQ case load are mandatory, including a requirement for the visaholder to seek approval before doing any work with vulnerable people. This includes work with children. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government of a change in finances, including any significant transactions, debts or income. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government of changes in accommodation circumstances, including providing the details of any persons residing in the visaholder's household. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government about any membership or association with any club or organisation. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government of associations with any individual, group, entity or organisation alleged, known or reported to be engaged in criminal or illegal activities. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government about any interstate or overseas travel. These conditions are essential for ensuring the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Border Force remain aware of the noncitizen's location, activities and associations and that the visaholder remains engaged so that they are available for removal as soon as possible as soon as removal is reasonably practicable. The bill proposes that the breach of these conditions would be a criminal offence.

Ordinarily, a visaholder who does not comply with the condition of their visa may be considered for visa cancellation on the basis of that breach and, if cancelled, would be liable to be detained as an unlawful noncitizen. For the NZYQ affected cohort, immigration detention is not an available option. As such, the prospect of visa cancellation for the breach of a visa condition is not an effective deterrent against noncompliance with reporting requirements. Establishing new offences for NZYQ affected visaholders sends a clear message about the importance of compliance with requirements to report to the Department of Home Affairs and to notify of changes in circumstances.

These new offences relate to mandatory visa reporting conditions, compliance with a curfew and compliance with wearing an electronic device. Each of the offences would only be enforced following due consideration of the circumstances of the case. This recognises that they are designed to support a proportionate response in circumstances where the non-citizen attempts to deliberately or repeatedly evade contact and monitoring with the Department of Home Affairs. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of five years and equivalent penalty units to address serious and repeated cases of noncompliance. Importantly, the offences also encourage compliance with conditions that help to ensure the noncitizen engages appropriately in removal processes.

It's reasonable to expect that removal-pending visaholders will cooperate with the authorities to facilitate their removal from Australia if and when that becomes possible. The evidentiary burden for establishing a reasonable defence for failure to comply with conditions will sit with the noncitizen. The standard defences available in the Criminal Code would also apply. By establishing an offence specifically for NZYQ affected bridging visa holders, the government is making clear that compliance with conditions and ongoing engagement with the Department of Home Affairs is of critical importance. This includes in-person reporting and reporting by other means. It also includes notifying the Department of Home Affairs of changes of circumstances to give both the department and the Australian Border Force continuing visibility of the visa holder's movements and circumstances. This reporting will also help to ensure the noncitizen is available as soon as the visa holder's removal from Australia becomes practicable.

It is critical that these arrangements are enacted through an amendment to the Migration Act, and it will remove any doubt that these new laws apply to both current and future NZYQ affected cases. Pending passage and commencement of these measures, new visas will be granted to this cohort with the new conditions imposed. This will occur by operation of the law. In essence, this means the original visa ceases completely and is replaced by a new visa that must be held, with the mandatory conditions automatically imposed. The government will continue to work through the implications of the High Court judgement, and the ongoing engagement of the visa holders is necessary to support this process. The government is also considering additional visa conditions that may be developed to apply to the NZYQ affected cohort over the medium and longer term to strengthen the Australian government's monitoring capabilities and to reinforce expectations about their conduct in the Australian community. The amendments we are proposing today enable the conditions imposed by way of ceasing the existing visa and granting new ones. The overarching objective is to bolster the existing framework and ensure an enduring and appropriately robust framework for the management of NZYQ affected noncitizens.

In closing, I note that the High Court's decision has significant implications for immigration compliance and for the community protection objectives of the government. While it is important that we enact this legislation as a priority, further safeguards are being considered. Community protection remains a fundamental priority, and the measures included in this bill are fundamental for providing the legislative framework to support this outcome. I thank other members for their contributions on the bill, and I also acknowledge that there will be amendments to be moved in the committee stage that are being finalised now in discussions between the government and the opposition. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the Senate is that the bill now be read a second time.