News

1 September 2025

This bill, as I've already commented in this place yesterday in relation to the motion is incredibly problematic and the motion should have succeeded, and this bill should have been referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights. There are great concerns around intervention by Government, ministerial intervention into the judicial system. We have separation of powers for a very good reason in our Liberal democracy. That is to ensure there isn't overreach by the executive branch into decisions, and we have the judicial branch there to implement, to ensure we have case law, to ensure that we have elements of natural justice which includes as a fundamental principle, procedural fairness. What is really concerning now is that question of trying to remove it in certain situations where it's simply inconvenient and maybe taking up a little bit too much time from the Government's perspective. We have a situation where the High Court has already ruled that in some instances procedural fairness is not required. Why is it necessary for this legislation to go beyond that ruling and extend it to further cases and extend it retrospectively. I have a major issue with that aspect.

Ministerial intervention into the judicial system is incredibly concerning. Unfortunately, we're seeing it all too often from this Government around a number of issues. It's a fundamental judicial right that we have in relation to natural justice and procedural fairness and this attempt by the Government to curtail it is incredibly concerning. I think it's important because it is so significant that all this be very carefully scrutinised, that any unintended consequences be identified and that this is put properly to the Standing Committee on Human Rights. I understand the Government has a problem it needs to solve. The NZYQ decision left a group of people in our community with serious criminal histories and while the avenues through the Migration Act have been exhausted, the Government now needs to look at other tools to deal with this group of people. It's a community safety issue; it's a political problem. It gets weaponised all the time by the opposition and of course I understand there needs to be a solution. But that does not mean you set aside key fundamental principles of our judicial system.

While I support the intention of the Government to form a solution, there are serious concerns about the impact of this bill and these are not just my concerns, these are concerns being reflected by the legal fraternity and many that are making submissions and urging the Government to step with great care in this area. Curtailing fundamental and crucial elements of our legal system are seriously not the best way to solve a political problem that they have at the moment. This has all come about as a result of indefinite offshore detention, which was incredibly problematic and bad policy for so long. It remains bad policy of the Government. We finally had a High Court that determined that indefinite detention was not legal and could not continue. This should have been an absolute light bulb moment for both major political parties years ago, but we finally had a High Court that identified that. Rather than grappling with that question, what that judgement meant, what we have seen from the Government and the Albanese Government in the 47th Parliament and now the 48th is time and time again ways around the decision, how to accommodate the decision without fundamentally re-thinking the question around what are the rights and what are the consequences of indefinite detention.

For Warringah, there is a real sense of the importance of the rule of law. I represent a community that values fairness, the rule of law, procedural fairness is incredibly important. I have received a lot of correspondence in the small amount of time we have had on this legislation from across the electorate raising serious concerns about the human rights abuses that may occur if this bill is passed. The Pacific solution, as it was once known, posts serious concerns. The Nauru files documented numerous instances of abuse, assault, self-harm and other severe forms of mistreatment and neglect against asylum seekers and refugees held on the island and the Government and major parties have been complicit to that by endorsing policy that continued it. We now stand at another crossroads, where we are sending people back to Nauru for essentially what appears to be indefinite detention. We just don't know what we have is an announcement in the media, huge sums of money being spent on a minor group of people and we just simply have no information about what rights and are they just being - are we just basically perpetrating more indefinite detention but sending it somewhere else and just saying 'Not our problem anymore, we will hand that problem over to Nauru?' At great cost.

Back in November 2023, the High Court handed down the NZYQ decision. The court said indefinite immigration detention isn't constitutional if there's no real prospect of someone being removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. That ruling meant the Government could no longer keep certain noncitizens locked up indefinitely. Somewhere between 150-300 people were being, as a result, in to be released. This was weaponised by the other side quickly as is the norm when it comes to anything to do with immigration. The group became known as the NZYQ cohort and some of them have incredibly troubling and dangerous criminal histories and violent and sexual offences. That is why we have a judicial system, that is why we take proceedings, that is why we have prisons. We have a system to deal with that. It left the Government in a difficult position, so they have rushed their response and they have tinkered around the edges and we keep having all these attempts. Every time you curtail trust, the public loses faith that the Government actually has a cohesive plan and way of approaching and dealing with this. We have seen bridging visa with strict conditions, ankle bracelets, regular reporting. Later, some of the measures were struck down by the courts, again as being unconstitutional. The Government was advised that the legislation will only impact about 200-odd people in respect to this one now. But the question is what are the wide-ranging impacts of this legislation? What are we not aware of? Where is the slippery slope we are on when it comes to procedural fairness and natural justice?

I understand there is a huge amount of litigation in our courts around the Migration Act and that is problematic, I believe for the Government. But rather than looking holistically at what there might be that scale of the problem, I don't - the answer from the Government is set aside cornerstones of our judicial system and I fundamentally disagree with that approach. To me, this bill needs to be delicately understood and balanced. We have to find a better balance to ensure we contain strong borders, domestic security, have a strong judicial system, while making sure we have appropriate consequences for all those that commit serious crimes within Australia, in particular when they have no legal to remain. But we also have to ensure we have robust processes, fair consistent with our obligations under international human rights law. These are not just things that are nice to respect when it is convenient, and you set them aside when it is inconvenient. It is when it is inconvenient that they need to be respected and upheld the most.

What I am so incredibly concerned about with this legislation is the Government is choosing the other path. It is choosing to set aside those cornerstones. What we are seeing all too often is when inconvenient judicial decisions are handed down, Government tries to find a work around. It doesn't want to grapple with the legal principle that a decision was unconstitutional that the powers the executive Government and the policy they implemented were beyond the bounds of the constitution rather than tackling that aspect, the Government is constantly trying to work around and find a way of ignoring the constitutional question and just tinkers around the edges to try and make it work. That is not good governance. From my point of view, this legislation is deeply problematic. I move the amendment as circulated in my name, which raises these concerns in relation to this legislation. I acknowledge the need to find a solution but the need to respect procedural fairness and natural justice are corner stones of our justice systems and should absolutely be upheld. We have to make sure that the breadth of this legislation, who will be impacted, the ramifications of the legislation to more groups and visa holders are properly understood investigated. I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name and I urge the Government to ensure that this legislation is properly scrutinised because, if not, we are on a very slippery slope of erosion of trust of Government but also the cornerstone of a Liberal democracy which is the separation of powers between the executive and our judiciary.