.png)
7 months ago
66
A committee boasting a trio of Labor senators has condemned the rush to pass Prime Minister's Anthony Albanese's 'Trump-style' immigration legislation.
The Senate Committee scrutinising bills features three Labor senators - deputy chair Raff Ciccone, Tony Sheldon and Jess Walsh - alongside two Liberals and one Greens senator.
The group quietly tabled a report on Wednesday criticising Labor's proposed migration amendment, which could prevent citizens from up to five countries from travelling to Australia - even as tourists.
But even the Labor-majority committee warned: 'It is not clear why such a power is necessary.'
The senators have now demanded Immigration Minister Andrew Giles explains his reasons for the legislation.
Among the group's primary concerns was the haste with which Labor had hoped to push the bill through Parliament during the last sitting week.
Immigration Minister Andrew Giles and Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil have both faced significant scrutiny since trying to push the bill through
Anthony Albanese's bill has been compared to the 'Trump travel bans'
'Truncated parliamentary processes by their nature limit parliamentary scrutiny and debate,' warned the report.
'This is of particular concern in relation to bills that may seriously impact on personal rights and liberties.'
Under the proposed legislation, the immigration minister have extraordinary powers to ban tourists from a handful of nations who do not co-operate with Australia when their citizens are deported against their will.
The committee said they had 'heightened concerns' about the minister's powers to remove lawful non-citizens who may have been granted visas in Australia.
The report found these people could be left with 'no certainty or clarity as to when a visa may be subject to a removal pathway direction'.
Labor had hoped the legislation would sail through both chambers last week, but ran into trouble when it became clear the Coalition would side with the Greens to delay it for more rigorous scrutiny.
It will now be subjected to a senate inquiry with the expectation it will return to the senate in the same week the Budget will be handed down.
The committee's report described the potential new laws as 'clearly a significant and rights-affecting matter' and noted 'it is not clear why such a power is necessary'.
'The committee notes that there has recently been a number of significant changes to the legislative framework for migration, with each such case being rapidly proposed to and passed by the Parliament outside of the normal processes.
'Such rapid changes prevent certainty in the law, which is of concern noting that the changes in this bill, as discussed in this entry, may have a significant impact on the rights and liberties of the individuals affected.'
A trio of Labor senators have taken part in a committee which condemned the rush to pass 'Trump-style' immigration legislation. Pictured: Jess Walsh
The Senate Committee tasked with scrutinising bills is comprised of three Labor senators - deputy chair Raff Ciccone, Tony Sheldon and Jess Walsh - as well as two Liberals and one Greens senator
The committee said 'legislation that may trespass on personal rights and liberties, should be subject to a high level of parliamentary scrutiny'.
Mr Giles has been called upon to 'respond to the committee's concerns'.
The countries which could be blacklisted if these laws pass include Iran, Iraq, Russia, South Sudan and Zimbabwe.
These countries do not accept citizens who have been deported from Australia, and the government hopes a travel ban could force them to back down.
The travel ban proposal comes as the government braces for a High Court case on April 17, known as ASF17, which could further reignite controversy over its handling of immigration.
The government spent weeks under fire after the High Court's decision in the NZYQ case last November saw 149 detainees - including criminals - released onto the streets.
The applicant in this new case is an Iranian man who is refusing to cooperate with his deportation because he fears he will face the death penalty if he returns to Iran because he is bisexual.
As it stands, there are up to 200 people in immigration detention who are in similar circumstances, and the government fears the High Court could order their release before Parliament signs off on changing the rules.
Human rights lawyers have described it as 'the pure definition of discrimination,' and 'Trumpian', while others have questioned whether Labor would have ever supported the Coalition if roles were reversed.
Your questions about the 'Trump style-travel ban', explained
How would the new 'tourist ban' work?
The proposed 'tourist ban' will only apply to nations which do not accept involuntary deportations.
The government hopes that the threat alone of banning entry to Australia will be enough to encourage co-operation from these nations.
Officials hope the law will give them leverage over the countries, so Australia can deport citizens who have no genuine claim to enter Australia.
One such example is the case which will appear in the High Court next month.
An Iranian man is refusing to cooperate with efforts to deport him because he is bisexual, and could face the death penalty if he returns home.
Iran does not accept citizens returning without their consent.
What was Donald Trump's travel ban that the laws are being compared with?
Back in 2017, then-US President Donald Trump introduced a travel ban which prohibited entry to the United States to most citizens of Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. He later added North Korea and Venezuela to the list.
President Joe Biden revoked the ban when he took office.
If re-elected, Mr Trump has vowed to reinstate it, and extend it to include people from Gaza.
Why will the Albanese government's new laws take time to pass parliament?
Labor was relying on support for the Coalition to ensure this bill passed parliament this week.
The Greens are opposed to tougher detention policies and instantly expressed disdain for the bill. The crossbench in the House has also voted against it. Human rights groups have also denounced the proposal as inhumane.
While the Coalition isn't necessarily opposed to the contents of the bill, they have argued they didn't get enough time to examine the proposal, given they were only briefed on Tuesday morning during an already shortened parliamentary sitting week.
Opposition Home Affairs spokesman James Paterson said his party operated in 'good faith' on Tuesday by passing the bill through the House in order to examine it further during a hastily arranged Senate hearing, but claimed on Wednesday their questions were not appropriately answered.
The party has now teamed up with the Greens to force the bill to be put before a Senate inquiry, which means there's no possible way it can pass Parliament on Wednesday, as Labor had hoped.
The Coalition has left the door open to return to Parliament during the break to debate the matter, but only if Labor proves there's a genuine, urgent need for the laws.
Labor has tried to argue the legislation is simply about closing a newly identified loophole, and have not tried to link this bill to the High Court case taking place on April 17.
In order to get the bill passed before that case, the Coalition may be hoping they'll concede that the two matters are related.
English (US)