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

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to remove the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

I've seen some remarkable moments in politics, but last night the evidence of the government, the minister and the senior officials from Home Affairs about this bill was extraordinary. It was extraordinary in the lack of information they had about what on earth is urgent in this bill, who the bill will apply to and what the potential scope of the minister's powers will be. You would think that a competent government which is seeking to ram legislation through in less than two days would at least have a credible argument about why it is urgent. But, astoundingly, neither the minister nor the secretary nor any senior official could come up with a credible reason why this legislation was being rammed through in less than two days. Not one credible reason.

It wasn't as though they weren't given opportunities. The opposition asked repeatedly, 'Please give us a reason for saying why this is urgent.' There was no credible answer from Home Affairs. When we asked which categories of visa-holder this law would apply to and what the numbers were, we got confused and bemused looks from Home Affairs. They had no answer to even the most basic questions about who the bill would apply to. They think it will apply to people in detention; maybe it will apply to some people who were the subject of last year's High Court case, but they would investigate that over the next two months; it could apply to other people on bridging visas, but they can't tell us who. And they want us to ram it through as though it is urgent.

Rarely have I seen more collective incompetence than we saw from Home Affairs and the government last night. And this is the big political moment. This is apparently the big political play from Labor this week: they have got this tough-on-refugees, tough-on-asylum-seeker laws. They're beating their chests. This is their big political play, and it was pathetic. It was worse than pathetic. It was actually grossly negligent in the incompetence that they showed.

Then we asked who they had consulted on the bill. Had they consulted any NGO? Had they consulted the UN High Commission? Had they consulted anybody outside government on a bill that they want to ram through with no public consultation at all. The incredible answer was 'nobody'. They have spoken to nobody about this cunning plan of theirs. It turns out, when you put the microscope on their cunning plan, it's not very cunning at all.

This is the lowest, most base level of public policy being driven by the Albanese Labor government for only one reason. That became so clear last night. This isn't about keeping Australia safe. This isn't about some credible responsible to a crisis in migration. This is a pure political play that's unravelling as we watch. This is about Labor trying to outflank the coalition and move to the right of the coalition in a bill that they seem to have just made up in some long late-night drinking session and then brought to the parliament. You couldn't make this stuff up. This is meant to be a government that's now run by adults, but this was like some sort of kiddie's crayon drawing being brought into parliament and then defended by embarrassed officials and half-briefed ministers. That's what we got last night.

It would be negligent of this Senate to pass this bill on the half-baked assurances, incomplete information and close to riddles we got last night from Home Affairs. It would be negligent for us. So we are moving that the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024. I'd love to just move that we just whack it straight in the bin, because that's where it should go—actually, pop it in recycling. We're Greens. Pop it in recycling. But that's where this should go. Go back home. I say to the government: don't pass Go; go directly to jail with this bill.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we've seen is the usual overblown rhetoric from Senator Shoebridge. We've seen the usual Woollahra sophistry that we see from Senator Shoebridge. What we're about to see is what happens when Senator Shoebridge and Senator Cash, symbolising what's really happening here—what's really happening here is when Mr Dutton's Liberals and Nationals and Mr Bandt's Greens decide that they are going to put partisan interest over the national interest. What we're seeing is the most right-wing extremist Liberal Party in Australia's history and this trot-out bit down here. When they get together in their usual student politics exercise of putting their own partisan interest over the national interest, you're about to see the result. If Senator Shoebridge is right and the government's effort to put the national interest here first unravels today, what the people of Australia will see is that the old days, when the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party understood that their job was to put the national interest before the partisan interest, are over. Those days are over. This is a show that doesn't understand the national interest. It doesn't understand it.

You see politics, particularly parliamentary politics, is about character, fundamentally. It's about character. What we're about to see here is this show failing the character test absolutely. Mr Dutton, the most extreme leader of the Liberal Party in its history, teaming up with Mr Bandt and Senator Shoebridge, the most Trotskyite edition of the Greens we have ever seen, to absolutely put before the national interest the partisan interest. If only national security were about words and bluster. If only it were about partisan positioning. After the last nine last years of torpid, lazy, complacent partisan government, we would be safer than we've ever been, but the truth is that reforming this migration system matters. Protecting the integrity of the immigration system matters. The Dutton opposition, after Mr Dutton's administration of these questions—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your failures.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Cash, Minister Dutton at the time failed absolutely on NZYQ. In 2018, Mr Dutton ignored the legal advice that was provided to him. And why do you think he did that? Because there would have been the usual narrow, self-interested, partisan-interest consideration. Mr Dutton had a bit of a think about it and thought, 'Whose problem is this really? Somebody else's problem down the track. What's my job here? To position for myself.' That's what Mr Dutton did in 2018. That's what the Morrison government did in those sad sordid years of maladministration, of weak staffing, of underresourcing, of weak political leadership on these questions. That's what they did from 2019 to 2022. And we're about to see on full display in this chamber what happens when you get a group of right-wing political extremists with no regard for the national interest and a bunch of Trots cooking up a solution to this that they recognise as in their partisan interest.

What is proposed in the parliament here by the Albanese government is a measure which adds a set of additional tools in a sensible way that improve the character, the quality and the integrity of the migration system. What happens here is that we now have an extension where, according to Senator Birmingham and Senator Cash, it's not important. An additional 43 days before a Senate inquiry reports—that is time that is going to tick away while precisely nothing happens, because Senator Birmingham has lost the capacity— (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite frankly, Seinfeld could not have scripted the last 24 hours of the Albanese government! To say that the last 24 hours has been chaotic is an absolute understatement, and that is why the coalition is supporting the motion that is being moved by the Australian Greens. We will, of course, be amending it, and I foreshadow an amendment. Senator Ayres talked a big game. I give him that. He talked a big game. That's fair enough. He talked a big game. He does that well. But let's look at what Senator Ayres actually said when you break it down.

He talked about those of us failing a character test. Senator Ayres, I put to you that the Prime Minister fails the character test on these bases: he fails the test when it comes to scrutiny; he fails the test when it comes to transparency; he fails the test when it comes to accountability. Why do I say that? Look at what the Prime Minister said to the Australian people. The Australian people should reflect on what the Prime Minister told them before the election. Before the election, when Mr Albanese was in promise-making mode—post the election, we're in a very different mode—he told the Australian people this: if he and the Australian Labor Party were elected to office, he and his ministers would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in everything they do. Well, I have to say, the last 24 hours of this government have shown that that is blatantly false. Actions in this case, Prime Minister, speak louder than words. Anyone who has not seen the footage of Minister O'Neill this morning running from the press in the press gallery, running away—all they wanted to ask her were questions in relation to this legislation, the first one being, as Senator Patterson opened last night with: why is this legislation urgent?

I would have thought the Australian people would think that is a reasonable question, given we are being asked to rush it through the parliament today under a guillotine—and, for those who don't know what a guillotine means, it means we have, as the opposition and the Australian Greens, no opportunity on behalf of the Australian people to scrutinise this legislation. So one would think, to a simple question by Senator Patterson last night in committee and the journalists today to Senator O'Neill asking why this legislation is urgent, Senator O'Neill and the officials last night could clearly articulate a reason. This is where the problem lies, because they couldn't. They said to us, 'Trust us.' The last time the Australian people trusted the Albanese government, they were let down miserably.

When it comes to secrecy, when it comes to a lack of transparency, when it comes to a lack of accountability, which is what this motion moved by the Australian Greens goes to—that is, giving the Australian Senate on behalf of the Australian people the opportunity to properly scrutinise this legislation, because the government has failed to articulate any sort of urgency associated with it—Dennis Shanahan, in his article of 25 March—quite frankly, he sums it up: 'Labor's transparency vow lies bleeding from a thousand cuts.'

This is the reality for the Australian people: the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General trumpeted before the election that if you voted for them you were heralding in a new era of transparency, but you all need to wake up. The Australian Labor Party run the Senate and House of Representatives like a shop floor. That is it. They're the union in control, and guess what? The rest of us don't have a say. They will use any form of tactic to silence us. And in silencing us—Mr Albanese, shame on you, because you silence the Australian people! That is the history of the Australian Labor Party: 'Nothing to see here.' If you bully people enough, if you intimidate them enough, they will eventually capitulate and fall over. Well, guess what? We are not going to do that. We are going to stand firm on behalf of the Australian people. We will support this motion and we will ensure that this bill gets the proper scrutiny it requires because, as I said, you've said it's not urgent.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ugly truth is that this bill that the Labor Party is ramming through today is a manifestation of the toxic politics of fear and division from both of the big parties that have poisoned the national discourse for far too long. Such is the moral bankruptcy that has seeped into the heart of both major parties and their politics that we are now pushing through—we're not even debating it—a bill that Donald Trump would probably be proud of. And it's not just being put forward; it's being rushed through. It was introduced just yesterday in the House, with a sham two-hour inquiry last night, and now here we have it being rammed through the Senate. The bipartisan agreement on cruelty to refugees has really hit a new low today. Both parties are trading in human suffering to score cheap political points in a race to the bottom, targeting the most vulnerable—refugees and people who seek asylum.

It is such a pitiful race to the bottom. Labor is trying to out Dutton Mr Dutton, the very man who has dog whistled his way to the top of the Liberal Party. Labor has no answers on why this bill should be rushed or any details of the bill, as you just heard Senator Shoebridge telling us, and they have consulted no-one. Yet here we are in this situation, rushing it through.

The Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is an extraordinary expansion of ministerial powers, to the point that the Human Rights Law Centre has called the powers 'godlike'. The bill so significantly expands the powers of the minister that the minister can unilaterally, subject only to consultation with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, designate a country to be a removal concern country. The effect of this will be that almost all nationals from that country are prohibited from applying for any visa to come to Australia, and only the minister can decide if they want to lift that prohibition. The bill doesn't require them to even consider that request.

This is not just extremely dangerous policy; it is also extraordinarily racist. The Labor Party are drawing inspiration not just from the Leader of the Opposition but also Donald Trump as they write these powers into laws for themselves, egged on by the coalition. This is no surprise to anyone, though, who has been following the Labor Party's trajectory of demonising refugees and migrants, so much so that the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O'Neill, shamefully said last year, 'The Leader of the Opposition loves to present himself as a tough guy on borders. He never wrote laws as tough as this.' You should not be proud of this; you should be ashamed of this.

Furthermore, this bill will allow the government to force people to return to countries where they face persecution and even death. This is the absolute worst of politics in this country, and both Labor and the coalition should be ashamed for supporting this bill. Make no mistake, at its core this bill is racist in nature. It seeks to criminalise migrants, refugees and people who seek asylum. This is one of the many insidious ways in which power and privilege are wielded to perpetuate systems of oppression and marginalisation, and this bill is a prime example of institutionalised racism masquerading as immigration policy. Shame on you!

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing today is Labor doing a deal with the coalition on a migration bill to rush it through and then seeing an almighty backfire. To my knowledge, the crossbenches were not consulted about it. The Greens, the Independents—my parties—were not consulted about the guillotine that has been sprung on us today. These are really important bills that deserve time in committee—to ask questions, to move amendments and explain what they would mean, why they are being moved. They understand.

Last night, during the debate to refer the bill to committee, we heard things like the government didn't even consult with Human Rights Commission, didn't think to check in and say, 'Hey, do you think this is in-line with any of our obligations?' After two hours of questioning from Senator Paterson, Senator Cash, Senator Shoebridge, Senator Ghosh, there was really no more clarity on the urgency of this bill or on who it will actually apply to, why there is the need to hand the minister the power to basically bring anyone in to make regulation at will. I find it pretty offensive when Labor then turns around and points at the crossbenches and accuses us of not caring about community safety, of not caring about a whole range of things.

The community wants scrutiny of these sorts of bills. They want the right balance. They not only want to ensure that, yes, we have orderly borders and that, yes, communities are protected but also to uphold our international human rights obligations, which both the major parties seem to agree to and then disregard when comes to how we treat various people in Australia. This is an opportunity to have a bit more scrutiny, to look at it and to then come back, because it was very unclear last night why this is so urgent. There was no good reason that I heard. So I fully support having an inquiry into this bill.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, I have listened to everybody and I understand some of the points that have been put forward, but this bill is urgent. The advice through the committee process was—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scrutiny!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note Senator Cash talks big on border protection, talks big on immigration but refuses to accept responsibility for the mess that we inherited, which a number of reviews have identified.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, just resume your seat. After the decency of people being listened to in silence, I can't hear the minister and I am 10 feet away from her, Senator Cash.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today ends the lecturing from those opposite about acting in the national interest and keeping Australia safe, because we see today the opposition, who talk big on all of these issues, siding with the Greens political party to defer a matter that our advice and our advisers have told us is important to get done. So let there be no more lectures from those opposite, no more trying to wind up the scare campaigns and no more accusations of us not working in the national interest, because we see a clear example today of the opposition not acting in the national interest. That is on Senator Cash, Senator Birmingham and, of course, Mr Dutton. If you look at some of the reforms that we've had to bring in, it's because of a broken system that we inherited. We've had the Nixon review, the Richardson review and others: all of those reviews are a damning indictment of the Leader of the Opposition and his carriage of these matters as minister responsible for Australia's migration and immigration system.

I can't count the number of times I've heard those opposite lecture us about needing to move quickly to address loopholes, making sure that we're keeping the community safe and putting us in the strongest legal position, and that ends today. You have no credibility on that anymore. The Department of Home Affairs last night at the hearing on the bill said: 'This legislation is one which we believe is a significant issue to resolve within our migration system for its broader integrity.' That was the evidence provided to the opposition. What we've seen today is the opposition siding with the Greens to kick this off—to not deal with it.

It is straightforward. They know that, in the end—I imagine, unless they're going to surprise us even further—they will support this bill, but they want to kick it off for another three to four weeks. I'm not sure for what purpose—perhaps we'll see in that three to four weeks.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To have an inquiry.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scrutiny!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, right. Okay. Yeah, yeah—tell another one. Tell another one. They'll kick it off for four weeks and not deal with it today. Our advisers say that it does need to be dealt with and that it should be dealt with in this sitting week. We provided briefings to you. We provided the committee inquiry to you so that you could have that opportunity. I don't think there was anything that came through the committee process that indicated any reason to delay this. We've been working to improve the integrity of the migration system for the last 18 months. As we know, the Parkinson review, the Richardson review and the Nixon review all indicated that we had inherited a system that was broken. Where there are issues identified, loopholes that need to close and powers that need to be strengthened, as a government we will work carefully and methodically to deal with those. We will present that to the chamber and, in this case to the opposition. We presumed—wrongly, it seems—that they would want to work with us in the national interest to strengthen our security and our immigration system. We believed a mature opposition—and, perhaps again, that was our mistake—would actually work with us on this to deal with it quickly. Instead, we see an attempt to just kick it down the road. This is on your heads. The fact that we are leaving this bill unresolved until, at the earliest opportunity, budget week if you move your amendments. We know that budget week hardly deals with any legislation, so the chances are it will move beyond that as well.

We want to deal with it now. You are voting against that. You are voting to not deal with this and to weaken the system. Our officials have told us that this is a significant issue to resolve for the migration system's broader integrity. That is what you are voting against today. You are voting to delay it. We'll see the reasons why, no doubt, over the next four weeks, but there will be no more lectures from you on national security or strengthening our borders after today's vote.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to Senator Birmingham, noting that we have a hard marker.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are times of chaos, there are moments of crisis and then there is the Albanese Labor government's handling of border protection and migration policies. If anything can manage to overwhelm times of chaos or moments of crisis, it's the hapless way in which the Albanese Labor government handles border protection and migration policy. We've seen time and time and time again recently a government that is lacking in a clear sense of direction when it comes to border protection and that doesn't know how to be strong and clear and firm in its border protection policies being endlessly caught off guard and endlessly scrambling in some sort of chaotic fashion to patch something together in the hope that it will mask over their own incompetence.

You know just how bad Labor's approach to this policy in this bill is when the coalition and the Greens and the crossbench can all reach the same conclusion. You know just how bad it is when, despite the very different positions we take from the Greens in relation to border protection, we come to the same conclusion that this is the most hopeless, hapless, chaotic process you could possibly imagine. That's why the government needs proper scrutiny over its legislation and this approach.

We know the government could have managed this process so much better, because yesterday morning, when they ambushed us with the bill, they gave us a bill date stamped last Friday. So if it was important, why didn't they give it to us last Friday? If it was important, why didn't they share it then? If it could withstand scrutiny, why didn't they introduce it last week, not on the death knell of this sitting? We know they can't withstand scrutiny, which is why they don't want to have any scrutiny. The ministers run away from the cameras in the press gallery, and hear in the parliament they want to run away from the normal scrutiny of legislation.

We're not going to stand for that. We went through the responsible process of hearing from the department last night. It left more questions than answers. That's why it's important there is proper scrutiny of this bill. That's why we are supporting that. We will deal with it, if you want, the first day back of the next sitting. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

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

I move:

That a motion to refer the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that that the motion as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.