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

For a rare change in this place, I find myself agreeing with the shadow minister for immigration that this is chaotic and dysfunctional and that there may be unintended consequences. I think the ones that I'm concerned about are probably quite different to the ones he's concerned about, though. Like everyone else in this place, I'm deeply concerned to ensure the safety of my community. I acknowledge the remarks of the member for Indi that there is a problem to solve here, but this is the third time that we've been asked to support legislation designed to address the High Court's insistence that sentencing is a matter for the courts, not a decision for governments, and each time that legislation has proved vulnerable to further High Court action.

Once again, we are asked to consider a profound change to our migration laws—the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024—not in less than 24 hours, not in less than 12 hours but in roughly four hours. I hear the opposition complaining about getting the bill at 7.30. Well, it was handed to the crossbench at 8.45 this morning. The opposition are jumping up and down and complaining. Firstly, they could have backed an adjournment in order for due consideration to happen, and they still have the option of rejecting the bill outright.

The initial assessment of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre is that this kneejerk legislation criminalises refugees who've already been through a broken system and potentially forces people to return to countries where they face persecution and even death. I have been to some of these countries, and these risks are real. This is not some esoteric idea. If we make a mistake here, people may be sent back to countries and murdered. If we rush this through and that happens, that's on us. These laws are potentially against international law, as the concept of 'removal concern country' prevents people from seeking asylum in Australia if they are from certain countries—countries like Afghanistan, Myanmar and Iran, which are high-refugee-producing countries. This is incredibly concerning.

Again, of course, the legislation is trying to get around this High Court decision by criminalising individuals who refuse to cooperate with efforts to remove them from country and then receive mandatory minimum sentences, against existing government policy. Lawyers that I've had time to consult in the intervening hours since receiving this bill described this as 'executive overreach', 'an attempt to criminalise an executive order', 'discriminatory', 'dangerous', 'draconian' and 'potentially unconstitutional'.

Yet again, the government is responding out of fear—fear of being vilified by the coalition. Well, that is going to happen anyway. Whatever the government does will not be enough. Lead from the front, with humanity at the centre of your policy.

See this speech in context