TRANSCRIPT
"We are seeing a Labor government that is abandoning multicultural communities, that is attacking our Constitution, the standing of our High Court decision, and seeking to actually rip up fear and tap into anti immigration sentiment out of the hope that it could win them some votes this coming federal election.”
That's Kon Karapanagiotidis, CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, with a scathing review of Labor's migration package that will give the government sweeping powers including deporting non-citizens to third countries and instituting travel bans.
The Coalition will support the bills.
Opposition Home Affairs Spokesperson James Paterson says they have worked with the government to secure some concessions.
“These are important reforms that the coalition has negotiated in good faith with the government, because will not allow their mess and incompetence when it comes to community safety and national security to harm the Australian public anymore than it already has.”
The package includes three separate changes to the Migration Act introduced by Labor throughout the year.
The first is the controversial deportation bill introduced in March, that will allow the Immigration Minister to issue a removal pathway direction, forcing a non-citizen to complete an application for a passport or their travel documents.
If a person doesn't comply with this direction, they face a minimum of 12 months in prison.
The laws also allow the government to designate what's called a removal concern country, and impose a blanket ban on visa applications from that country with limited exceptions.
The power to impose travel bans will now be reviewed after three years, and will require the minister to provide a list of reasons as to why a ban would be imposed to any country, following negotiations by the coalition.
Associate Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre Josephine Langbien says it could break up families.
“These laws would give the government the power to designate any country in the world to be subject to a Trump style travel ban. And so that would mean that people in Australia with family, friends, loved ones in one of those nations would be entirely cut off from being able to reunite with those people.”
And it's not clear what countries could be subjected to a travel ban.
“The Australian government refuses to disclose which countries they are intending to target for the travel ban, so they could really do anything at all with these powers, and there's very little ability for parliament to have oversight of that down the track.”
The second bill was introduced after the High Court ruled it unlawful to force former immigration detainees to wear ankle bracelets and adhere to curfews.
The bill, in a sense, legislates around that ruling, to allow the government to reimpose monitoring conditions where they deem a non-citizen poses a risk to the community.
It will also give the government the ability to remove non-citizens and negotiate deals with third countries, paying them to accept deportees.
Ms Langbien says there are no guarantees for the safety of people sent to third countries.
“People who are removed to a third country under these new arrangements could simply be left there for the rest of their lives with absolutely zero protections for their safety, absolutely zero protections for the minimum standards of treatment that they would need to receive. People could be sent to countries which aren't signatories to the refugees convention, or countries which might choose to detain people for the rest of their lives. We have absolutely no idea what would happen to people after they were exiled to these third countries.”
The measure could be used on a wide group of people. Home Affairs officials told an inquiry that as many as 80,000 people on bridging visas, in immigration detention, or in community detention are susceptible to removal.
It also makes the government immune from civil lawsuits in relation to the removal of a person or their treatment in a third country.
Mr Karapanagiotidis says that's concerning.
“Why would the government seek legal immunity from where they are sending people if they had any confidence in what they were about to do.”
Mr Paterson says they have assurances that the laws would not be used in a way that breaches international law.
“Home Affairs Officials addressed these questions. We take them at their word that it's not their intention to refoul anyone in violation of our international obligations. Any government, the coalition, would have consistently close obligations.”
Both bills also extend the Immigration Minister's ability to revisit protection decisions.
A number of cross bench MPs have slammed the move by the major parties.
Greens senator David Shoebridge says it's severe legislation.
“This is a package of laws that is the most extreme that Australia has seen, really, since the White Australia Policy was abolished in the early 1970s.”
The final part of the package is the prohibited items bill, which will allow officers to confiscate items they deem dangerous, like mobile phones, for people inside immigration detention.
It's a revival of a 2020 Coalition bill that was brought forward over concerns that detainees were committing crimes within the facilities, that Labor previously voted down.
Independent MP Kylea Tink says immigration detainees should not be treated like prisoners.
“Detention centres are not jails. Therefore the people running them should not be operating like police officers. If there are crimes taking place in the detention centre, it is right to pull the policing and let the legal system deal with those people.”
Advocates have warned that phones often record the real conditions inside detention and the measure could cut off vital lines of communication as well as increase surveillance.
The bill contains a safeguard stating those in detention must be given "alternative means of communication" to obtain legal advice or contact family.
Behrouz Boochani is a writer who was held in Manus Island Detention Centre for seven years.
Although phones were banned in the facility, he smuggled one in, using it to document his experiences, speak to journalists, humanitarian organisations, and family.
He says the ban will keep asylum seekers outside of the public eye.
“The Australian detention system is designed to have full control. And part of it is media as well. You know, the system is designed to put refugees out of sight and out of mind.”
And it could lead to people losing everything, again.
“Most of the refugees have been living in the society as a free people. They already established a life. They already established their own community. They they've been contributed to the society for many years, and now they want to put them in the detention again.”
