Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to oppose this legislation, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. Time and time again, it's Labor governments that bring in the nastiest and meanest laws to attack people seeking asylum, and again Labor has done it with this legislation.

This, I think, is a new low, even for Labor. The world is looking in horror at the conflict in Iran. Maybe not everybody is looking in horror at the conflict in Iran. People like Donald Trump, his 'secretary of war' and others seem to be taking glee in the violence they see and celebrating the killing and violence—one of the many reasons why the Greens say we should be distancing ourselves from that rogue regime as quickly as possible. But, across this country, I know that the pulse of the Australian people is to be appalled by what they're seeing happening in Iran and to feel a deep sense of empathy and concern for people across the region. What does their government do on their behalf, or purportedly on their behalf? They bring legislation in here, at the commencement of this awful conflict, to ensure that 7,200 Iranians, who have valid visas, cannot come to this country and seek protection from their regime, from Israeli bombs, from US missiles and from the acid rain and black rain that's falling as a result of Israeli and US bombing. They shut the door and say, 'You can't come here, and you can't seek protection.' It's the same minister, Minister Burke, who rushed to Brisbane to seek to make political capital from helping a handful of brave Iranian women's football players, and then, literally on the same day, he, as the minister, introduced this bill to shut the door on 7,200 other Iranians.

What does the legislation do? It gives the Australian government the power to block temporary visa holders from travelling to Australia, and the bill does it by basically allowing the minister to declare any class or group to be subject to an order if there's some international circumstance or development that's happened. I can see that this bill is going to pass, because the war parties, Labor, the coalition and One Nation clearly all support this legislation. They've never seen a nasty attack on people seeking asylum that they haven't wanted to join. Normally it's the three of them together, because the politics of Labor, the coalition and One Nation are so close. Their politics on the war are so close; their politics on cruelty to people seeking asylum are close. It's basically the three war parties coming together here to do this.

I can't tell you how grateful I am to not be a part of any of your parties but to be a part of my party, the Greens, who will always stand up for decency in this space. That's how I see this party. It's one of the reasons I'm a member of this party. I'm sure there are people of good conscience in the Labor Party and the coalition. I can't imagine how it must crush you as a person every day to come in and vote for this kind of vileness. The answer to that is to leave the party or speak out about it publicly. When you vote for this stuff, you're complicit in it. I can't tell you how grateful I am to not be a part of those dysfunctional, appalling political parties that are voting for this bill.

What's likely to happen is that, once this bill passes, Minister Burke, who went up and got the political cover by helping five brave Iranian women's football players, will immediately pass a provision that says anyone who's holding an Iranian travel document will be subject to this. We know that that's 7,200 people, and that means they can't come to this country, they can't seek asylum and they'll be stuck in the appalling war and conflict that Labor also supports.

There is a tiny exemption if people have a direct family member here, but it's a limited number of family members. If somebody has a visa and their partner is an Australian citizen or permanent resident, they're not subject to the ban. If they are the parent of a dependent child under 18 here, then they're not subject to the ban, or, if they're a dependent child under 18, they're not subject to the ban. But everybody else in that 7,200 is covered.

The government then says, 'Oh, but don't you worry, because these 7,200 Iranians can make an offshore claim.' Well, we know that that's not going to happen, because, if you're in Iran and you make a humanitarian application to Australia, the making of that application makes you a target for the regime, and it just doesn't happen. So all of that is just plain nonsense.

We know what this is about. This is about Labor being frightened about being outflanked on cruelty and racism by One Nation. You're responding to the Islamophobia of One Nation. You're seeing the Iranian people as just utterly expendable in this, and we won't be any part of it. I've made multiple contributions about why this bill should never, ever pass this chamber, and I just say again that when I look at my colleagues and I think about the way in which my colleagues approach this legislation on the basis of principle and decency, and when I look at the way the war parties approach it on the basis of racism, political advantage and Islamophobia, I am so glad I'm not you.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to Labor's new White Australia policy. This Labor government was the first in the world to congratulate Trump and Netanyahu on their illegal bombing of Iran. This illegal war has seen more than 150 innocent schoolgirls murdered, most likely by the US. Thousands of people across the region have been killed, many others injured and scores of thousands more displaced. This government's own travel advice says the region is highly volatile because of the risk of ongoing reprisal attacks and escalation. This Albanese government has now sent ADF personnel and an aircraft to the gulf, making Australia an active participant in this violence. We are now officially at war, thanks to Albanese. And, at the very moment that his government is helping escalate the violence, it is also slamming the door on the people who will inevitably be forced to flee it. It is unconscionably cruel to foresee a refugee crisis, play a role in creating it and then take steps to avoid responsibility for the innocent people caught in the middle.

This bill that Labor is ramming through—the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026—is straight out of the One Nation playbook. It's the latest example of how Labor, the coalition and One Nation are all competing to be the cruellest and most racist because they think this is a path to political success. But it is driving so much damage and division in this country and abroad. This legislation is a racist dog whistle. It's eerily similar to Donald Trump's Muslim bans and will be used to target black and brown people. It seems Labor wants to drag this country back to the days of the White Australia policy. Shame!

If we want to understand why Islamophobia and racism against black and brown communities is rising in this country, we only need to look at this bill. It would give sweeping powers to the minister to block entire groups of visa holders from travelling to Australia on suspicion alone, even when they have legitimate reasons to be here. Powers like this will quickly be weaponised against black and brown people, who are always treated as suspects. We know a double standard will occur, and these powers won't be used to stop people from places like Israel or Ukraine if they seek refuge in this country to escape danger. These powers will be reserved to be used against Muslim and Arab people being displaced by the United States and Israel's illegal attacks in Iran and elsewhere, conflicts the Albanese government continues to back. Shame! What's going on? This government gives a handful of tokenistic humanitarian visas to Iranian soccer players so that it can boast about its generosity. With this government, the only way to protect yourself from this illegal war is to be an elite athlete.

We cannot allow this country to slide further down this dangerous path. Racist migration policies have no place in this country, and the Albanese government has a duty to assist people seeking refuge, regardless of their skin colour or their religion, particularly when they are from places where this government is complicit in violence. This bill must be opposed in the strongest possible terms, and I will later move a second reading amendment. We need to lead by example. We cannot follow the US and Israel in the killing of innocent people. Labor, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Iranian visa ban is a new low from this Labor government, who, on refugee rights, just keep revealing themselves to be morally bankrupt. How cynical is it that, all week, Minister Burke has painted himself as a hero for, rightly, providing asylum to a handful of Iranian young women who've distinguished themselves on the soccer field while at the same time shutting the door on thousands more—on 7,200 other Iranian visa holders—who already have the legal right to use that visa and to come here. This government, with these laws today—that have bipartisan support, that are going to be rushed through—are shutting the door on thousands more. I guess after 15 years I should be a bit more cynical, but this, frankly, is a new low—to be championing yourself as some saviour while you are simultaneously shutting the door on thousands of needy people. Congratulations. You've really rewritten the rules on how cruel a government can be.

In looking at the detail of this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, it's actually not just Iranian visas that you're cancelling. It's actually a wide-ranging power. So I ask you: What country is next? What new low are you going to stoop to next week—or, perhaps, when Donald Trump rings up the Prime Minister in the middle of the night about some other crazy idea, where we send our people into harm's way for an illegal war at the whim of an unstable Donald Trump. What country will be next? Will it be Lebanon? Never mind the fact that you've got 700,000 Lebanese people who've been displaced by attacks ordered by the Israeli government in what's not described as a war—in what Minister Wong yesterday, in response to my question, described as a 'collective self-defence' because she cannot bring herself to say the word 'war'. All the legal commentators and academics are clear: Australia is at war because Donald Trump asked us to be at war. He rang up the Prime Minister and said, 'Can you please send missiles and war planes and personnel to my illegal frolic?' And that's exactly what we have done. That's exactly what this government has signed us up to—of course without asking Australians or this parliament or anyone, really. When Donald Trump asks us to deploy troops, apparently we say, 'Sure, sir, how many would you like, sir?' It's 85 today; what's it going to be next week, and where does it stop?

That's what this bill also does; it gives a blank cheque to the minister to just cancel people's visas that they've already had issued—that they could already, legally, rely on. I mean, what a power grab by this minister, and what a perverse and inhumane power grab at that. You backed this illegal war, and you've supported bombs raining down on civilians, and now you've got the gall to shut the door on those same civilians who will be impacted by those bombs. I do not know how you possibly rationalise that and, frankly, how you can live with yourselves.

This is the sort of low blow that we would have expected from the previously administration, but, interestingly, not even they sunk to this low. This is genuinely a new low. These are the sorts of actions that certainly do not 'turn the temperature down' like the Prime Minister has been asking the Greens do when we have been calling out a genocide in Gaza. Far from turning the temperature down, we're now joining an illegal war—that has seen over 150 schoolchildren bombed—because Donald Trump asked us to and now shutting the door on those very same civilians that would like to be safe and thought they had the legal right to be so. But you're getting ahead of them and saying, 'Soz, we're cancelling your right to be here.' And the Liberal Party are of course saying: 'Sure, we'll sign up to that. Let's rush it through. Let's do it on a Thursday, before we go home to our beds.'

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 1.30, we will now move to two-minute statements.