Albanese Government’s Proposed Deportation Rules Spark Fears Over Human Rights
The Australian federal government has introduced a contentious new bill to suspend the rules of procedural fairness for non-citizens being deported to third countries, a move that has been strongly condemned by human rights lawyers as a “dangerous precedent” that would deny individuals a fair hearing.
The legislation, which was introduced to parliament this week by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, is aimed at overcoming legal challenges that have stalled the removal of three people to Nauru who were released from immigration detention following the landmark “NZYQ” High Court decision.
The proposed changes have been described by the federal opposition as “rushed, secretive and chaotic,” while legal experts warn the bill could allow individuals to be “banished” without their personal health and safety circumstances being properly considered.
The government argues the changes are necessary to prevent non-citizens who have exhausted all legal avenues from using court processes to frustrate their lawful removal from Australia.
Bill to Waive Natural Justice Rules
The central function of the new legislation is to allow the government to waive the requirement to provide procedural fairness, also known as natural justice, for decisions specifically related to “third country reception arrangements.”
In practice, this means individuals targeted for deportation to a nation like Nauru may not be given advance notice or a meaningful opportunity to present their case against the removal based on their individual circumstances.
The bill would not, however, affect the right to procedural fairness for decisions related to visa cancellations or refusals.
Minister Burke defended the proposal, stating that while procedural fairness is a fundamental principle, it is being exploited by individuals to delay their removal at significant cost to the taxpayer.
“These provisions are primarily directed to non-citizens who have exhausted all legitimate avenues to remain in Australia and for whom removal is the only remaining outcome under Australian law,” Mr. Burke said. He added that the purpose of the law was to make the removal process “as swiftly and effectively as possible.”
‘Incredibly Alarming’: Legal and Human Rights Backlash
The bill was met with immediate and forceful condemnation from a coalition of human rights and legal organizations. Sanmati Verma, legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre, warned that the changes would deprive people of the right to respond before a deportation notice is issued, exposing them to prison time if they fail to comply. “What is their health situation?
Are they owed protection? Are they going to be harmed in that other country?” she questioned. “These are the sort of basic human questions that the government should have to ask before exercising these powers.” Ms. Verma cited a recent case involving the men slated for removal to Nauru, where she said the government had “misunderstood certain critical health details” and the nationality of one of the individuals.
Sarah Dale, principal solicitor at the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, said the government’s attempt to legislate around recent court decisions was “incredibly alarming.” She noted a case where a court had determined a man’s removal to Nauru was unlawful because his previous legal proceedings had been flawed.
Ms. Dale also raised serious concerns about an element of “retrospective criminality” within the proposal. Jana Favero of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre described the legislation as part of a disturbing pattern, calling it one of several “brutal bills” passed by the government that create a “framework that is denying access to legal justice.”
Opposition Criticises ‘Rushed and Secretive’ Process
The federal opposition has criticised the government not only for the substance of the bill but also for the manner in which it was introduced. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley labelled the process “rushed, secretive and chaotic,” claiming the Coalition was only briefed on the details of the legislation on the same day it was tabled in parliament.
“This is not the way that the prime minister and his ministers should conduct policy around critical issues of national security,” she said at a press conference.
Context: The Aftermath of the ‘NZYQ’ High Court Ruling
The new bill is the latest in a series of legislative responses to the High Court’s landmark “NZYQ” ruling in late 2023. That decision found that the indefinite immigration detention of non-citizens who could not be returned to their country of origin was unlawful, leading to the release of a cohort of detainees from long-term custody.
Since then, the government has passed several laws to manage this group, including legislation to re-impose monitoring conditions such as ankle bracelets and curfews, and granting the immigration minister additional powers to facilitate deportations.
This latest bill is a direct attempt to overcome legal challenges mounted by some of those released individuals who are now resisting their transfer to third countries.