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

The saying goes that history repeats itself. This is certainly the case with ongoing back and forth between the High Court and the executive that has unfolded over the past year, the latest iteration of which is the Migration Amendment Bill. And while the High Court's actions reflect the separation of powers working as intended, the government's repeated attempts to thwart the court's intentions with patchwork legislation is concerning.

In late 2023, the High Court's NZYQ decision on the illegality of indefinite detention provoked a wave of bills to manage the criminal and political risk of the cohort of potentially dangerous individuals being released into the community. Community safety is critically important. There is absolutely no argument about that. The release of potentially dangerous and violent offenders, sexual predators and others into our communities absolutely requires a response, and, in some cases, targeted deportation may be warranted. However, the cohort of individuals affected by the High Court's decision-making is not homogenous. These people are not all the same, and imposing a one-size-fits-all approach on them is therefore flawed. Indeed, this bill captures people who should not be caught in it and goes far beyond the NZYQ group. All of these bills have been complex and rushed. In many cases, they have not undergone proper committee or external consultation, and many of their key provisions are the result of deals between the major parties, which I would argue, in some cases, have been politically motivated.

It has been over two decades since Australia began sending refugees and asylum seekers offshore, and our nation is still living with the stain of offshore detention on our national character. Humanity should be at the centre of any conversation about war and its consequences, and this principle must be the starting point for policymaking on migration and refugees. Indeed, Australia's conversation and history of policy in this space has been fought one, one which has not lived up to these ideals. I think that's obvious. Punishment is a matter for the courts, not any minister. Most refugees and asylum seekers are no threat to Australia, and they deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion. These are core principles that should guide Australian migration policy—indeed, principles that I've spoken to on each of the bills the government has introduced to manage the NZYQ division.

Last century, Australia provided a home for those fleeing wars across South-East Asia, including those who fled the Vietnam War and the horrors of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. We welcomed people from war-torn Sudan, Syria and Afghanistan. We provided a safe haven for the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors in the world, and they and their descendants now call Melbourne and Sydney home. But our national conversation on refugees and asylum seekers this century has been horrible. It has again turned—indeed, degenerated—in just the past year, including rhetoric in recent months over visas for Gazan refugees and echoes of Donald Trump's toxic Muslim ban of 2017. I will say that we must not follow the path of the US on refugees and migration. Following the American people's decision on 8 November and the president-elect's stated policy of mass deportation, this is perhaps more important now than it ever has been.

But the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 debate does not reflect this sentiment. Indeed, it represents a broadening of the executive's power and goes well beyond the scope of NZYQ. The Human Rights Law Centre says it could apply to refugees and asylum seekers holding temporary visas, including those who've lived in Australia for years. These individuals have deep roots in our communities. It risks creating a system of deportation where decisions are made not based on due process but on politics. And the bill provides immunity for the government managing that system, even if people are being deported to environments where there are known risks of harm.

I reflect on the case of one of my constituents in Goldstein, currently on a temporary visa. This constituent is a father, a business owner, a taxpayer and an employer. This individual has been in a state of legal limbo for 12 years and lives under a cloud of uncertainty in relation to his ability to remain in our community. His wife was a refugee who's been granted Australian permanent citizenship. They have a child that was born in Australia. What is the outlook for this family under this legislation? Is this man, who is Iranian, facing deportation to a third country? This legislation exacerbates the anxieties felt by many like this across the nation. This is particularly the case for those who have been subjected to the appalling fast-track program for more than a decade and remain in ongoing limbo with limited rights to work, study and health care. I have met many of these hardworking people, some just yesterday, and they do not deserve this torture.

This bill would provide the government with unprecedented powers, including the ability to overturn protection pathways and deport people, uprooting them from their families and communities, to third countries via so-called reception arrangements—deportation regardless of the risks they individually may face at their destination or even the risks these individuals may pose themselves to the communities that live there, if they do have a criminal history. This is not a theoretical scenario. The government refuses to specify which third countries it may negotiate with or intends to reach agreement with.

I note the concerns of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre that this may represent a continuation or escalation of the offshore detention policy by stealth. The government has not ruled out that the third country could be Nauru, for example. The bill does not rule out deportation to third countries that are not a signatory to the international refugee convention. It is entirely conceivable that an individual could be deported to a third country where they face persecution, discrimination and serious harm. It grants the minister authority to overturn protection findings and permits the government to share personal information with foreign entities and to withhold it from the Australian public. Only indirect transparency measures apply. The public, apparently, must rely on Senate estimates and freedom-of-information requests for insight into the government's deportation arrangements—or at least that's what the minister has told me. The legislation, as I've said, grants immunity to Commonwealth officers from civil claims related to harm caused during deportation processes, shielding government actions from proper legal scrutiny.

The High Court has repeatedly affirmed that the punitive measures of ankle bracelets and strict curfews represent executive overreach and are unconstitutional. The reintroduction of these measures in this legislation is a blatant attempt to circumvent the decision of the High Court. Rather than respecting the High Court 's repeated affirmations, the government is once again seeking to undermine them. This behaviour arguably risks eroding the judiciary's independence and also public trust. As I forewarned 12 months ago during the last iteration of this process, this legislation just sets the stage for yet another High Court legal contest. And again now, as constitutional expert Anne Twomey says:

It's fairly likely someone will challenge it, and there's a reasonable chance it will be struck down.

We must engage in meaningful consultation with legal experts, human rights advocates and affected communities to create policies that reflect our national character and ethical responsibilities. National security and compassion are not a zero sum game. We can govern with humanity as the guiding principle of migration policy. Indeed, we must. I've had many emails from constituents opposing this bill. Here's one. It says:

… will you publicly oppose this bill as it is inhumane.

We need to deal with this complex problem with a lot more understanding and compassion. Would you kindly let me know your thoughts and intentions.

Thank you for writing. Yes, I will let you know that I will not be supporting this bill in its current form.

See this speech in context