Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'm not in the habit of supporting this kind of legislation which seeks to control refugees. Humanity must be at the centre of all policy. However, let's be quite clear about why we're here today discussing the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. It was the High Court—not the government nor the parliament—that was responsible for the release of these people. Many of them have been convicted of very serious crimes including rape, murder and paedophilia. It was the High Court—not the parliament nor the government—that failed to provide reasons for its decision. I am extremely disappointed, I will say, that many in my old trade, journalism, have reported what happened a week ago and what's happened since as if it was the government's decision, but we are where we are.

The High Court has made it clear in this decision that punishment is a matter for the courts, not any minister. Therefore, the opposition's suggestion that these individuals should be redetained is at best misinformed and at worst an attempt to manipulate public opinion on something it knows can't happen. The task before us now is to ensure community safety right now, within the boundaries of human rights, given that these people have been released. It's a time for this parliament to act in the interests of community, not to seek to divide once again and to weaponise issues around refugee policy.

The High Court is not likely to deliver its reasons for this decision until early next year, and I'm assured by the two ministers involved that that means there will be further amendments to this legislation. This is an accountability piece for the crossbench, and there will be close eyes on that from this part of the chamber. We need to be able to see whether the legislation is fairly achieving what the government says it will do.

I will say that I believe that the government is working with state jurisdictions to get as many of these people as possible into rehabilitation programs. There is an innate danger that people who've been held in immigration detention, rather than correctional institutions, have not been offered rehabilitation support. The psychological condition that that's created likely means that they will be more difficult to rehabilitate. Wellbeing and rehabilitation of these people must be a consideration.

I continue to have concerns that some of the people in this cohort should not be in it, and this is something that should be carefully considered when it comes to proportional responses to the people in this group. That said, the government submitted to the High Court that the vast majority of this group are serious offenders. The vast majority are offenders in areas of national security, cybercrime, gang activity, sexual and violent offences, crimes against children, domestic violence, and it goes on. So here we are yet again this week with another moral quandary.

I hear the concerns of refugee advocates who worry about overreach. This is an extremely fine balance. On balance, I will support the bill in the knowledge that there will be further changes to it when the High Court publishes its reasons in the new year. I want to say very clearly here that indefinite detention is fundamentally wrong. This was always going to happen. This government and the previous government should have been prepared for this. Now the High Court has forced the issue. We must now work to protect our communities, while adhering to basic human rights for people who are refugees. This legislation must be neither misused by the government nor weaponised by an opposition that plays politics with people's lives.

See this speech in context