Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for the first Opposition speaker being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes;

(2) the second reading debate continuing for no longer than one hour, after which the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

I'd indicate to the House that, in a moment, while we have the debate on the contingent motion, the government will move an amendment to what's on the Notice Paper. That amendment is to make sure a few things happen. Firstly, and most importantly, it will make sure that this bill is fully dealt with before we get to question time. The reason for that is that there is a time sensitivity to this legislation, and we want to make sure that the Senate is in a position to be able to consider the bill today. Transmission between the houses means the only way to make sure that's possible is for us to have completed our consideration of the bill prior to question time.

Secondly, and this is not on the contingent motion, there is the capacity for there to be a consideration-in-detail stage at the request of the opposition. We are making sure it that it will be possible for an amendment to be moved in consideration in detail, and that will be part of the amendment to the resolution that I've just moved. The minister has made clear the government's reasons for why this is time sensitive. We're wanting to make sure that both houses have an opportunity in the time that we are here this week to make the decisions that need to be taken in the national interest.

I respect the different views around the parliament in terms of wanting to make sure that legislation is never dealt with in this fashion. I hear those arguments. I'm sure we'll hear those arguments again in a few moments time. The reality is that there is a strong national interest here. There is a particular time sensitivity, and there is a need to make sure that both houses have an opportunity to be able to deal with this issue prior to the parliament rising on Wednesday evening. I commend the motion to you, knowing full well it's about to be amended.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As foreshadowed by the Leader of the House, I move, as an amendment to the motion by the Leader of the House, that paragraphs (1) and (2) be amended and paragraphs (3) and (4) be added as follows:

That paragraphs (1) and (2) be amended and paragraphs (3) and (4) be added as follows:

(1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for the first two Opposition speakers being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes;

(2) the second reading debate continuing without interruption for no longer than 40 minutes, questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill, after which the bill being considered in detail with the bill being considered as a whole, with all Government amendments to be moved together, all Opposition amendments to be moved together, and any crossbench Members' amendments to be moved as one set per Member, with:

(a) one question to be put on all Government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all Opposition amendments;

(c) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members;

(d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to; and

(e) any question provided for under subparagraphs (2)(a) to (2)(d) being put after no more than five minutes of debate on each set of amendments;

(3) at 1.40 pm, if debate has not concluded earlier, the question being put on any remaining questions necessary to complete consideration of the bill; and

(4) automatic interruptions to business under the standing orders, and deferral of divisions, not applying during proceedings on the bill".

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I wonder whether a written copy of the amendment to the contingent motion is available. It has not been made available to us. Secondly, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 not be resumed until the next day of sitting".

This is extraordinary. Legislation was first made available and introduced to the parliament this morning. Usually it then gets deferred to another day so that people have time to consider it and make considered contributions. When we are talking about something so vital as the relationship between this parliament and the High Court, and the constitutional rights of people and what it means for immigration in this country, and when we see a bill that is introduced here that, in the time that we've had available to look at it, says in express terms 'even if someone has a genuine fear of persecution' they can be forced to do things that could see them put in jail if they're not prepared to go back to the country that they fear being persecuted in—we should have time to consider that and we should have time to debate that and scrutinise it.

Despite what the Leader of the House said, nothing in the immigration minister's speech talked about the urgency of this. It was boilerplate rhetoric that could have been written by the coalition, about maintaining strong borders—and no doubt the coalition is going to get up and talk about how this was all there idea to begin with. Nothing was put forward that justifies us losing the usual rights that everyone in this parliament has to consider such important legislation.

On our reading of the legislation, this could occur: a mum who refuses to sign a passport application for her children to be returned to Iran, where they have a fear of persecution, could be put in jail—not only could be put in jail but with a mandatory minimum sentence. Labor's party platform says Labor opposes mandatory minimum sentencing. No, you don't! It's in this bill! You're saying that someone who has a genuine fear of persecution for themselves or their kids can end up in jail—and not just once but repeatedly. As we read this bill, in the short time that we've had available to digest it, the minister can say: 'I give you a direction to apply for a passport for you and your kids to go back to a place where you have a genuine fear of persecution, and if you don't comply you get put in jail for a year, minimum.'

I want to hear from the minister how he is going to explain what happens when the first woman who is sent back to Iran under this legislation gets put in prison and what happens when the first person who has fled Russia because of a fear of persecution gets sent back there and is no longer contactable. They're the kinds of things that everyone in this place deserves the time to consider and answer.

What we do know—the only glimmer that we've had—is that there is a court case that is on foot where someone is fearing persecution on the basis of their sexuality and their religion. They've identified that; they've stuck their hand up and said that. And before even letting the court decide, the minister says: 'We now want the unilateral power to send you back to a country where you face persecution, where you have a genuine fear that you, yourself, are facing persecution. If you don't do it, we'll lock you up with a mandatory minimum sentence, because Labor has thrown that principle out the window.'

This is Labor desperately trying to outflank the coalition in a race to the bottom on immigration, which is only going to whip up attacks on migrants and more racism in our community. I've got a lesson for the government, a piece of advice: don't try and engage in a race to the bottom with the Leader of the Opposition, because there's nothing he won't do. He has built his career on punching down and demonising people.

To come in here and say, in a speech that could have been written by the Leader of the Opposition himself, 'We are tough on borders'—no. It'll be this today and it'll be something else tomorrow. We were in exactly this position last year, we're in this position now and we're going to be in this position again and again.

If you want to know why Labor's vote went backwards at the last election, why the coalition's vote went backwards and why you have more third voices here than ever before, it's because people want scrutiny over the dirty deals that get done by Labor and the opposition, especially when it comes to people's rights and protecting them. That's why the debate should be adjourned.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you reserve your right to speak.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is deeply disappointing, from the government and from the minister, to find ourselves here now, debating a motion to essentially fast-track this legislation with no delay, no scrutiny and no debate. This is legislation on which we were briefed by the minister only a couple of hours ago, that has numerous questions and detail to which there was no answer from the minister. There are grave questions about the consequences and the far-reaching implications of this legislation, yet you are here asking this place to fast-track it without even 24 hours to consider it. It is outrageous and incredibly undemocratic. It is an absolute parody of what this place is supposed to be about, in relation to looking at what good legislation can do and having the time to consider whether it has unintended consequences.

I would look at the backbenches behind you, Minister. I can imagine everyone squirming because, for everyone, this is uncomfortable. This is not part of the Labor policy platform. As the Leader of the Greens just said, the question of mandatory sentencing is incredibly significant. This is an incredibly important step that has to be taken very carefully with a lot of scrutiny for unintended consequences—the risk in relation to domestic violence and for people that, maybe through domestic violence, abuse or homelessness, find their way into a position where they could be subject to these provisions. There are so many areas that need to be looked at. For people not understanding the consequences of this legislation, this is far reaching. This is asking of people: either cooperate with your removal or we will take action against your entire country, against anyone wanting to come from that country.

In terms of precedents for this, the minister indicated that the UK passed similar legislation two years ago but haven't really applied it, so we have nothing to go by, and then there is the US. So we're in completely new territory. You are saying that, without proper scrutiny or debate, we should all just consider and vote on this legislation. It's says something about the opposition that they are also willing to contemplate that this debate go forward. I haven't heard any speakers yet in relation to slowing this down.

For all of the backbenchers of Labor: are these really the values you subscribe to? Is this what selling your soul to a party means—that you will not have a voice when it comes to very important debates to give proper policy and legislation true scrutiny? Will you go back to your communities and say: 'We waved this through with'—what is it?—'40 minutes of debate. There was no opportunity for consultation with law societies to truly consider the proper implications of this legislation.' I have a lot of time for the minister but I am deeply, deeply disappointed with his actions today, in trying to push this through with such a short time line. If this were such a problem, it should have been worked on for a long time.

It's not going to only apply to those that were released as a direct consequence of the High Court decision. This will apply to many more people that are in these kinds of situations, who are here under bridging visas. We know that the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal was incredibly bad, slow and ineffective in dealing with a lot of migration and refugee cases. We have a situation now where you've acknowledged that as a government. We've passed Administrative Review Tribunal legislation to have a new body in place, yet you're implementing legislation that will capture many people that fell foul of the AAT, who will be caught by this legislation. It's just so far reaching. It's hard to comprehend that this is the path and the legacy that you, as a government, want to leave behind.

Your legislation doesn't even include a mandatory review period. In the 30 minutes spare we've had since our briefing, we've at least been able to present some amendments to at least ensure there's a review process. But I'm sure the answer from government will be, 'We haven't even had time to consider your amendments, so we couldn't possibly support them.' But here we are being asked to suspend standing orders and put in place a joke of a debate. This is a parody of what democratic debate should look like. Shame on every member of government for supporting this and for coming into this place and doing something that is deeply, deeply undemocratic.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a draconian bill. There's no better word for it. It's even worse than the legislation of the previous government. There seems to be a race to the bottom on this. We were briefed on this for the first time a mere half an hour ago, I think. This is another secretive, underhand introduction of what, on our advice, appears to be a very, very poorly drafted bill. We smell a big rat here. It's very similar to other events that we've had this week, where it appears that the government has been absolutely ashamed of the legislation that they're putting to us. They are not prepared to properly explain it to us. We do not have the opportunity to have proper debate or scrutiny of this. Shame on the government. There's something going on here.

This bill vests overarching power—unscrutinised, as previous speakers have said—for the minister to do pretty much what they want. It gives the minister the power to criminally incarcerate these people for one to five years as criminals and, at the end of that term, again, to have the sole discretion to extend that criminal term in an interminable cycle. That is why it's draconian. The minister mentioned the words 'recalcitrant countries'. That is Trumpian language for a truly Trumpian bill. It's giving the minister what's been described as 'autocratic powers', meaning sole powers without any scrutiny and without any ability for people to actually resist them or to have any say in the process. That's draconian. The minister claims that this is better and stronger and in the national interest, but what is the national interest here? Why is this being rammed through the House so urgently? I would ask the minister: what is this urgency? We haven't had any reasonable explanation for this. We need time to consider this important legislation—why not? As previous speakers have mentioned, it's central to the relationship between government and the High Court.

It's absolutely critical that all Australians understand what's going on here. We should be able to debate this properly. We haven't had any rational argument about why it is so urgent. Labor have said that they were opposed to mandatory sentencing. This is mandatory sentencing! There is apparently a list of these recalcitrant countries. Are we going to be able to see that? No—another secret and another cover-up. In my electorate office right at the moment we are assisting live cases based on these issues. They are going to be absolutely upended by this rushed legislation, with no-one having the opportunity to understand what's going on here. The wool is being open pulled over our eyes once again. Shame, shame, shame on this government.

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

I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. To be honest, I'm a state of shock. I think that we've seen a lot of things happen in the human rights space in this country over a number of years, but to find myself here today, as the member for North Sydney, having been briefed on a really significant reform to our human rights law in this country at 8:45 this morning, and then to be told that there won't actually be effective debate on it—that there won't actually be time for myself and others to consult with people outside this building to see what the implications are and that there won't actually be even an opportunity for myself and others to potentially scrutinise it to the level where we may be able to make suggestions under consideration in detail—is truly shocking. Truly shocking!

Our entire democracy is predicated on the basis that our communities send members here so that those members can be the voice for those people in this chamber. Debates like this are below this government. I expect better of this government, and I can say straight up that my community expects better from this government. Indeed, as the member for Melbourne made a very strong argument on, we saw Australians vote in a way they've never voted before at the last election. Fundamentally, they sent a message to one political party that had stopped listening to them for a very long time. Many Australians put their faith in the other major party, believing them on the basis of things that we had heard them talk about in their own public forums. There was the fact that they didn't support mandatory sentencing; the fact that they had a strong record in speaking from opposition about the importance of respecting and protecting people's individual human rights; and the fact that we knew them to be people of compassion, because we know where they come from—and I echo the member for Warringah's comments here, that I had the highest regard for the immigration minister, Minister Giles, in this place. But I do not understand how we find ourselves in this place and time in this chamber today.

It is not okay for the government to bring forward this piece of legislation, which will impact thousands of people currently living this country. Let's be really clear: I don't see how the legislation being discussed today can in any way meet our international human rights obligations. Australia is signatory to a number of international human rights treaties. Those treaties include the right to seek asylum and those treaties include that all asylum seekers should be treated equally under the law. Those rights include that every person's individual human rights should be recognised and respected. As I've glanced at this legislation this morning, I do not see those rights being respected and protected under this legislation.

I understand that the government is frustrated that there are thousands of people sitting in this country who have been here, perhaps in some circumstances, for over a decade now because they have been in the process of appealing a potential return to an environment that they believe is unsafe for them. But I say to this government: rather than trying to, as it was reported on Saturday, 'out Dutton Dutton', how about we actually look at these people for the humans they are—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. I just ask members to address members by their correct titles.

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

That was the media report. Sorry, Mr Speaker. 'Outperform the opposition leader to be the opposition leader'—I don't know how to rephrase it. I'll withdraw it. The fact of the matter is that you have an opportunity here to be better than that. We have an opportunity to look at each of these people case by case. We have the opportunity to actually work out how we do right by these people who have been left to languish for over 10 years.

Finally, I would say people commit crimes and are punished all the time—that's how our criminal system works—yet for some reason we are fixated in this parliament at the moment on ensuring that someone who commits a crime is never forgiven. We are saying our criminal system leaves people beyond redemption. That, in and of itself, reflects poorly on us. I join the member for Melbourne in saying this debate must be adjourned and we must be given time as a parliament to thoroughly review this legislation.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is very disappointing. My community really wants to see compassion when we are approaching asylum seekers. We had great hope and faith that that's what we were going to see. A number of times I've said to people in my community that I believe the minister is doing his best. Given his own personal history, I believe that he is driven by that compassion. Since then, that has really gone off. We got off to a good start, but since then we've seen mandatory sentencing and some draconian and knee-jerk reactions. I'm open-minded about the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Maybe it is needed. Maybe it is compliant with our international human rights obligations. I would approach this in good faith, but I first heard about it a few hours ago. I've had back-to-back meetings since then. I have one advisor. We are being asked to put this through today. This is too big an issue to deal with in this sort of time frame. This is about humans and their futures.

This morning, coincidently, we heard from some young people who have fallen through the cracks of our immigration system. We've seen their faces and understand that these are people's lives that we're dealing with. It's too big an issue to deal with like this. It also seems to me, from what I can see so far today, that it's not a new issue. The problem that we're solving here has been around for a long time, that there is a group of people who have no right to be in Australia but won't take steps to leave. This is not a problem that has appeared in the last week, and it doesn't seem like it needs a response within a couple of days. I find it very hard to see how this urgency is justified. It does not reflect on us well as a country if this is how we deal with really important issues that go to people's freedoms and right to live their lives.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The member's time for this debate has concluded. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne to the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the House be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the House be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.