March 27, 2024
The Coalition, Greens, One Nation and other crossbenchers combined to thwart the Albanese government’s bid to strengthen powers to deport non-citizens, embarrassing Labor politically but increasing the risk the High Court could further undermine immigration detention powers.
The government’s hopes of getting legislation rushed through parliament on Wednesday were shot down after rival parties voted to send the bill to a Senate inquiry, with a deadline to report by May 7. After Wednesday, parliament doesn’t sit again until May 14 for the budget session.
As Labor and the Coalition traded barbs over playing politics with border protection, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil admitted a looming legal challenge brought by a failed Iranian asylum seeker known by the pseudonym ASF17 to his ongoing detention was a factor in the urgency.
“I think the ASF17 case does show that it is important that we have these powers. It’s not the only reason why we’re doing this, though it is very important that the Australian government move towards running a more orderly migration system,” she said.
“As it stands today, the Australian government does not have a power to compel those people to co-operate with us.”
A senior government source said the Coalition would now “own it” if the court ordered more people to be released because of its failure to support the laws.
The 39-year-old Iranian man arrived on a boat in mid-2013 and has been in detention since early 2014. His claim for refugee status was rejected in January 2017 and he has exhausted his appeals.
The man has refused to co-operate with attempts to deport him, claiming his bisexuality, Kurdish heritage, conversion to Christianity and support for women’s rights would make him a target for persecution.
An adverse ruling against the government could see a further 170 people released from detention, on top of more than 150 already freed who had been convicted of a serious offence following last year’s NZYQ High Court case.
The proposed laws will make it an offence if a person refuses to follow ministerial directions to comply with their deportation, such as applying for a passport or travel documents or meeting officials from their homeland. If they fail to do so, they face a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months in jail and a maximum of five years.
And with some countries refusing to accept involuntary returnees, the bill would create a power to ban all people from that country applying for a visa to come to Australia, although some exceptions would apply. Countries that could be designated include Iran, Iraq, South Sudan, Russia and Zimbabwe, according to government briefings.
The opposition cited several concerns with the legislation, including that the government is not seriously pursuing third-country options to resettle people; that travel bans could encourage people to make the risky voyage by sea to attempt to enter Australia; and the travel ban’s impact on diaspora communities.
“The truth is that the government wasn’t able to say to us who this law would apply to, they don’t even know what the cohort is,” opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said.
“They wouldn’t name anyone that they plan to use it against. And in the absence of a genuine, demonstrable, urgent need, how could we possibly support it being rushed in such a botched and shambolic process.”
The Coalition indicated it would be happy to have parliament recalled early if the government convinced it of the urgency of the bill.
In question time, the Coalition zeroed in on reports Ms O’Neil left her departmental secretary, Stephanie Foster, in tears after a meeting last month following the public release of details about the offences of people released in the NZYQ case.
Ms O’Neil did not directly address the claim but insisted she had a “warm” and “constructive” relationship with her departmental chief.
The Russian embassy in Moscow questioned why Russia was being singled out as a potential country subject to travel bans.
“We are struggling to remember a single occasion where the Australian government expressed concerns about the removal of a Russian national not having a valid reason to remain or asked us for co-operation with such removal,” the embassy told AFR Weekend.
“Therefore referencing Russia in this context is quite far-fetched.”
