Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'm rising to raise a number of concerns with the piece of legislation that has been put before the House, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Had there been more time, I may have actually moved a second reading amendment on it. Given that time does not allow for that process, at this point in time I would like to make the following points.

Upon reviewing the piece of legislation that was provided to us this morning, I think there are a number of key weaknesses. The first of them is the breadth of the legislation. While it would appear that the immediate justification or impetus for this bill is the need to deal with the NZYQ affected cohort and, in particular, the pending litigation in the High Court examining whether people who are refusing to cooperate with their removal fall under the test for release put forward in NZYQ, the bill goes far beyond that by targeting anyone on a removal pathway. That includes unlawful noncitizens; those that are on a bridging removal pending visa, or BVR holders as they're called; those on a bridging general visa, a BVE holder; and, extraordinarily, any other noncitizens prescribed in the Migration Regulations, which would allow the minister to basically designate other cohorts to be added.

At a minimum, I think this bill should be revised to only apply to the NZYQ affected cohort, noting that the previous bills relating to the monitoring conditions and the preventative detention disorders, moved in this House in a very similar fashion, were limited to that cohort. There's a real risk under this legislation that people with whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations will be forced, through criminal sanctions, to cooperate in their removal to countries where they face persecution.

Section 119(4)(b) of subdivision E makes it clear that, even when someone is a person with respect to whom Australia has a non-refoulement obligation, that's not a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. What is the justification for including this provision, and what measures has or will the government take to ensure that people are not returned to countries where they'll face persecution?

The second point I'd like to make is that we know as a parliament and we know as a country that our asylum processes do not always get it right, particularly for those who have been subject to the fast-track procedures that we know were unfair. Where the process fails to accurately identify protection needs, applicants will be forced to cooperate in their removal to a country where they may face persecution.

The third point is that this act should concern us all when it comes to the welfare of children. Under this reformed legislation, parents and guardians will be forced, through the threat of criminal sanction, to take actions in aid of having their children removed from Australia. This violates the foundational principle under the international law in relation to the best interests of the child.

Ultimately, Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. We are a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By passing laws like this, we do our country and our citizenry a disservice.

See this speech in context