David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the additional documents tabled by the minister regarding the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024.

Amongst the documents that have now been tabled were hundreds of individual responses from community members across the country. When I say hundreds, I mean there were hundreds and hundreds of responses from community members across the country that to a person said: 'Don't pass this bill. It's deeply discriminatory. It's an attack on diaspora communities. It's an attack on multicultural Australia.' In fact, there were so many individual submissions that it's been pretty tough for the secretariat to present them. I really do want to commend the secretariat for the work they've done in trying to collate these submissions and put them forward to the Senate as rapidly as they can. Indeed, it would be remiss of me not to also point out the professionalism of the secretariat in the work that they do with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. They are some of the most competent people I have the pleasure to work with, and they are also committed to their work. It's been a real challenge for them because so many people wrote to the Senate and said to the government, 'Don't pass this bill.' That's why there's a delay in publishing: the sheer numbers who said Labor's proposal here is deeply discriminatory. It could separate their families. It could permanently sever diaspora communities here from their families, loved ones, friends and connections in the countries from which they came.

One of the strongest communities that spoke out against the government's bill was the Iranian community. They feel absolutely targeted by Labor in this. They feel betrayed. If you read the individual submissions, you get that sense of genuine betrayal. When the Iranian diaspora here worked across its political complexity—I think anyone who's dealt with the Iranian community here would know there's political complexity in their diaspora. But they worked across that complexity and they came as one to support the Woman, Life, Freedom movement and to call out what that brutal regime is doing, particularly to women and girls in Iran but also to anyone who is standing up for democracy. Members of the diaspora, many of them on bridging visas, on temporary visas, who have outstanding asylum applications or have been refused by the fast-track, often stood beside Labor senators and MPs to call out the brutality of the Iranian government. They saw these Labor senators and MPs stand next to them and also call out the brutality of the government, but do you know what the difference between the two of them was? It turns out that the Labor MPs and senators could then walk into this chamber and vote for legislation that would permit the minister to deport those Iranian women and men who had been calling out and opposing the regime. It turns out those Iranian community members are some kind of disposable political asset for the Labor Party. I've got to tell you the sense of betrayal in the broader Iranian community here about what Labor has done is very real. They ask themselves: what did those Labor MPs and senators mean when they stood up and said that they supported the calls, particularly to protect women and children in Iran and to protect those women and children here who potentially face deportation back to Iran? It's pretty extraordinary.

Amongst the other documents that have been presented by the government is this answer to the question on notice that was put about how many so-called 'transitory persons'—that is, people who have been referred from regional processing countries to Australia—are presently in the community as either what the government describes as 'unlawful noncitizens' or holding bridging e-visas. How many people? Now, these were the one class of people that the government was targeting with their urgent legislation that they rushed into parliament. I remember asking the Home Affairs secretary: 'Who are you targeting the with your deportation bill? How many people are you targeting? What countries are they coming from? What visa classes are they in?' Home Affairs couldn't answer. It was genuinely embarrassing. The secretary of Home Affairs, who no doubt on her advice rushed this legislation into parliament—legislation that was accepted by both ministers, O'Neil and Giles, rubber-stamped by the Prime Minister and brought into the parliament while it was still warm from the photocopier, because they wanted to rush it through. Home Affairs couldn't say how many people they were targeting with this part of it.

We now find out, and the information is as at 31 March—which is hardly timely, but that's Home Affairs all over—that there were 246 people who met that definition of transitory persons, of which 198 were transitory persons in the community, 43 were on expired bridging E visas and awaiting a further bridging visa, and five were babies born in Australia—to quote the government, 'Babies born in Australia pending administrative detention.'

'Five babies born in Australia pending administrative detention by this Labor government.' I don't know how they wrote 'that there are five babies born in detention pending administrative detention'. How do you write that and not realise how wrong it is? How do you give as an answer that there are five babies that Labor is just desperately trying to put into administrative detention and then deport? How does Labor write that answer and not realise how wrong it is?

We now find out, months after this legislation was brought by the government that they actually want to target this legislation at babies. They want the power to put babies in detention and then deport babies. That's what Labor wants with this bill. No wonder it took months for this answer to happen. No wonder it took months for Labor to tell us the truth about who they're targeting. Labor's targeting babies. They want to be able to detain them and then deport them under this legislation.

How much more proof do we need that this legislation is cruel and should never have been brought? And how much more proof do we need that the legislation should be pulled by the Labor Party? Show some decency. Don't tell us about how you're going to deport and jail babies. Tell us about how you're going to keep babies safe, then maybe you'll start building some bridges back with multicultural Australia.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.