I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment Bill 2024. Many of my constituents deeply care about our international obligations when it comes to people coming to Australia seeking protection. Over my years as the Member for Indi, they have continuously urged me to say to parliament that refugees are welcome here. I’m concerned that the bill before us does not send this message. For this and other reasons, I will be opposing it.

In speaking to this bill, it’s important to be reminded of the context in which it was introduced. It was introduced in response to the High Court’s decision to strike down the government’s legislation that was passed following their decision in the NZYQ case.

It said that the government could not indefinitely detain noncitizens. In response to the NZYQ decision, the government, with the support of the opposition, rushed legislation through parliament that meant that any person released from indefinite detention must be subject to ankle bracelets and a curfew.

I opposed this legislation at the time, in part because I had concerns whether it would withstand a High Court challenge. It turns out that I was right to be concerned, because the High Court then considered the case of YBFZ, an Iranian released following the NZYQ decision who was subjected to these restrictive curfew and ankle bracelet conditions.

As it found with NZYQ, the High Court found in the case of YBFZ that the government is once again breaching constitutional principles of the separation of powers by imposing punishment on individuals when this is solely within the remit of the courts.

Once again the government have received a High Court decision that doesn’t suit them, and once again they are introducing legislation that seeks to get them out of this problem.

I will address a number of themes in this bill that I have a significant concerns about. Firstly, there are the provisions that are relevant to the NZYQ cohort and the recent High Court decision.

Under the bill, the Minister can still impose ankle bracelets and curfew conditions, but he must first be satisfied that the imposition of these conditions is necessary to protect the Australian community from serious harm.

This is an improvement on the previous legislation, and I very much accept that some of the released individuals may indeed pose a risk to community safety, and we absolutely must respond to this risk.

However, legal experts have expressed views that the legislation may not resolve the issue of whether the imposition of the curfew and monitoring conditions is punitive or reasonably necessary. Constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey is quoted as saying:

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

I cannot in good faith support a bill unlikely to withstand yet another High Court challenge. It is important to remind ourselves that every High Court challenge to government legislation costs a significant amount of taxpayer dollars. I must be able to satisfy myself that the legislation I’m voting on is protected as much as possible from this occurring, and, right now, I cannot assure myself of this in this particular case.

I now want to move to the other provisions of the bill that really have nothing to do with NZYQ and YBFZ. First, under the bill there are now broad powers for the minister to reverse a protection finding. Just sit with that. This is a deeply concerning issue. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said:

… refugees who have been living in our community for years can be exposed to deportation …

This includes people who have Australian citizen family members.

Second, the bill provides expansive powers for the Australian government to deport people to unspecified third countries. The minister says this is about deporting people who have no legal right to be in Australia. I seriously question which people we’re talking about.

Under the bill, we’re not just talking about people that have criminal records. We’re potentially talking about a much wider group of people, including people that have lived in and contributed to the Australian community many years. It could include people that haven’t been found to be owed protection, because they’ve been subject to the extremely flawed fast-track process.

Further, under the bill the government can now pay countries to take people they’re deported to. This could create a very real risk of a new offshore warehousing program.

If the Australian public want to know how much the government is spending to do this, that will only be revealed by freedom-of-information requests or Senate estimates hearings. I’ve got real concerns about ensuring the transparency of such a use of taxpayer money.

Third, I’m concerned about provisions in the bill that give the Commonwealth civil liability immunity. This goes beyond a long-held principle that the government should be subject to the same liabilities as any individual. The Commonwealth has previously paid significant amounts of compensation for actions that have taken place in regional processing countries.

While the amendments are prospective and do not extinguish claims for conduct that’s already occurred, they will—make no mistake—significantly limit the rights of persons in immigration detention to seek compensation from the Commonwealth in the future.

According to recent research conducted by the University of New South Wales, the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder was 20 times higher for people held in offshore detention. But, if this bill passes, these people will have no legal rights to ensure the Commonwealth is responsible for causing this harm.

Since this bill was introduced, constituents have written to me, urging me to oppose it. One constituent said, ‘This bill is a continuation of the dehumanising treatment of people seeking asylum who, through no fault of their own, are unable to safely return to their own country.’

Another wrote to me: ‘In this bill, it appears the major parties are competing with each other in their efforts to be the most hardline.’ And another said: ‘Both major parties pursue this unconscionable abuse of the world’s most vulnerable people for political pointscoring. It’s confounding.’

When considering this bill, I am also reminded of the tireless work of Rural Australians for Refugees, who have chapters right across my electorate of Indi. Through their work and, more importantly, through their actions they’ve supported refugees through fundraising and sponsorship.

I know that many Australians, like these constituents of mine, are compassionate and humane. They expect their government to be the same. But, with this bill, their expectations are not being met.

I urge the government to consider amendments to the bill to ensure it is consistent with their objective of removing serious offenders from Australia, as they have stated, and not just any noncitizen. I also urge the Senate to send this bill to a full inquiry for adequate scrutiny so that we can understand the full impact of these proposed laws.

Until I see improvements and understand this impact, I will not be supporting this bill.