Dissenting report by the Australian Greens

Dissenting report by the Australian Greens

1.1The Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (the Bill) should be rejected in full. This Bill is divisive and cruel legislation that fundamentally undermines social cohesion in Australia and stokes racism.

1.2Not since the White Australia policy has a proposal by the Federal Government been so fundamentally against the spirit and intent of multiculturalism in Australia or been such an open and intentional threat to diaspora communities in the country.

1.3The overwhelming rejection of this Bill from community groups, legal experts, international human rights organisations and charities shows the lack of public support for this measure.

1.4With over 120 published submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry, only one, submitted from the Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs or Department), supported this Bill.

1.5I cannot recall another occasion when the government of the day, with all its resources, persuasion and connections, has been unable to corral even a single organisation to support its legislative agenda. This is an unprecedented level of rejection.

1.6This Bill has three broad elements. First, creating a blacklist of certain countries where citizens of that country can no longer seek a visa, similar to US President Donald Trump's 2017 travel ban.[1]

1.7Second, it creates a new ministerial power to issue a direction to a person on a bridging visa (or any other class of visa specified on the regulations) to facilitate their (or their child’s) removal to a country they fled, attend an interview, report to a Home Affairs officer or provide any documents demanded. If the person does not comply with the direction they will be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of one year in prison and a maximum of five.

1.8Finally, this Bill provides a new power to allow the Immigration Minister to overturn the visas of refugees who have already been provided protection.

1.9Using this power, a mother and her children who fled a country like Iran—and went through an unfair refugee system in Australia—could have the protection finding overturned by the minister. Then the mother could be ordered to seek a passport from the country they fled or face years in jail. At the same time, theminister can prevent anyone from her family in Iran from visiting her, bypreventing all Iranians from accessing a visa to Australia.


1.10This Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives by the Labor government on 26 March 2024 and was rammed through that chamber later that day. The Albanese government said on introducing it that the Bill was essential, urgent and desperately needed in the national interest.

1.11Efforts by Greens MPs and independents to prevent the Bill’s rushed passing were repeatedly rejected by the government that used its numbers to override all parliamentary procedures designed to scrutinize laws.

1.12On being introduced into the Senate the next day a snap two-hour inquiry was held that night, and it was nothing short of a train wreck for the government.

1.13A panel of government witnesses could not answer the most basic questions about the Bill such as who would be impacted by it, which countries it was targeting or even why it was needed.

1.14A generous description of that process would be shambolic.

1.15As a result, a motion was then moved in the Senate by the Greens, as amended by the Coalition, to refer this Bill to this inquiry. Thank goodness we did.

Travel/Visa ban

1.16This Bill will introduce an effective travel ban to selected countries, which the government has not yet specified. This will punish people born in a certain country for the actions of their government.

1.17The government said in introducing the Bill that this new power was aimed at countries that were not cooperating with the forced removal of their citizens from Australia. When introducing the Bill the government listed Iran, Iraq, South Sudan and Russia as examples of such countries.

1.18The obvious initial question communities are asking the government is which other countries are they intending to blacklist? On behalf of the Greens I asked this question of Home Affairs during the inquiry. The Secretary of Home Affairs had initially said she had ‘not brought the list’ to the inquiry. Then denied the existence of any such list.

1.19Remarkably, when asked on notice in this inquiry which countries were allegedly not cooperating with Australia, the minister refused to specify the countries and made a claim of ‘public interest immunity’ to avoid answering alleging:

In relation to the damage to Australia's international relations and national security, the disclosure of this information would likely impact Australia's ability to positively engage with mentioned country partners through diplomatic avenues, and to pursue the removal of unlawful non-citizens from Australia in the future. This harm to the ability to remove unlawful non-citizens from Australia in the future would have a flow on prejudice to the integrity of the wider migration system and the deterrent effect of Operation Sovereign Borders.[2]

1.20This is an extraordinary proposition. The government has said it wants these powers to be able to compel other countries, with the threat of a visa ban if they don’t comply, to accept forced removals. If the threat is never made, and the countries are never identified, then it can never be effective.

1.21The obvious conclusion as to why the government is refusing to say which countries they will target with these powers is because it is politically damaging to them to admit the truth. The Labor government is hiding behind a wall of secrecy because they know listing the countries they want to target will be damaging, not only to Australia’s international relations but to their support in the diaspora communities they are attacking with these appalling laws.

1.22Proposed subsection 199F(1) would allow the Minister to designate a country as a ‘removal concern country’.

1.23This would ban anyone from that country seeking a visa to Australia, withminor exceptions that will be addressed later.

1.24This has drawn widespread criticism, and has clear parallels to former US President Donald Trump’s 2017 ‘Muslim Ban’.

1.25As Refugee Advice and Casework Service in its submission said:

The provisions of the Bill that seek to prevent the entry to Australia of citizens from certain declared nations (called ‘concern countries’) is reminiscent of the ‘Muslim ban’ imposed by then President of the United States Donald Trump in 2017. This was widely seen as discriminatory and harmful to the American people and economy, and proposed section 199F of the Bill risks the same criticisms.[3]

1.26While the ban will not include Refugee and Humanitarian (Subclass XB) visas in proposed paragraph 199G(2)(d) this aspect of the Bill will still prevent refugees from seeking safety and it will separate families. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre explained:

While the entry ban will not apply to Refugee and Humanitarian (Subclass XB) visa applicants, the entry ban will still apply to refugees entering Australia on other visas such as parent, tourist, work and study visas. Asprocessing times for Refugee and Humanitarian visas can take several years, refugees who are eligible for other types of visas sometimes apply via these pathways to escape harm and reunite with family. However, the entry ban will prevent refugees from accessing safety and family reunion via these pathways.[4]

1.27There are a tiny number of further exemptions made for children under the age of 18 and people with spouses in Australia in proposed section 199G, but these are clearly inadequate. This Bill would allow the government to permanently separate children over the age of 18 from their parents, as well as separate brothers and sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, adult children and their parents. This is not to mention friends, work colleagues, students and tourists.

1.28This extremely restrictive view of family will have deeply destabilising impacts on diaspora communities in Australia. As the Zimbabwe Australia Cultural Association noted:

The Zimbabwean community, like many other culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, has more expansive views of the family that do not narrow family merely to the nuclear family, which is the case in the exemptions in s 199G.

Consequently, the narrow exemption scope within the Bill may increase the number of incidents of forced family separations of the above classes of people, who are not captured by the exemption.[5]

1.29Not a single community group supports this Bill due to the devastating implications for diaspora communities in Australia and the threat it poses to the social fabric of the country. Multicultural Australia in its submission said:

This move is discriminatory and risks eroding the principles of fairness and equality – critical to our migration system…[Multicultural Australia] particularly notes that such a move has significant social cohesion implications for Australia.[6]

1.30This comment was supported by the Federation of EthnicCommunities Councils of Australia, which said:

The discriminatory nature of the Bill also risks marginalising existing communities from the banned countries within Australia, undermining the Government’s efforts to support and promote social [cohesion].[7]

1.31Democracy in Colour addressed what they saw as the core of this law in its statement: ‘it is our considered view that the travel ban is a racist law’.[8]

1.32Apart from its discriminatory and offensive nature, this aspect of the Bill is also misconceived. A former very senior immigration official with some 30 years of experience in the portfolio, Mr Peter Hughes, gave evidence that the ban will be ineffective even if implemented, as this exchange makes clear:

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: This bill puts no parliamentary oversight on the proposal to blacklist countries. It puts no process other than a bare consultation process with two other ministers. If a government were going to propose such an expansive new power, would you find it surprising that it didn't come with any of those checks and balances?

Mr Hughes: Nothing surprises me, because different governments make decisions in their own ways. I will say, however, about the issue of visa sanctions against countries as a way of getting cooperation in return that, having worked across the table with both the Iranian government and the Afghan government, I don't believe I would have felt I was in a stronger position by having the ability to impose sanctions on their citizens.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: It's hardly likely to significantly empower Australian diplomats when they're sitting opposite Vladimir Putin's representatives to try and persuade Russia to change their approach, is it?

Mr Hughes: What I'd say is that the countries who don't let their citizens back, and particularly don't let their citizens back on an involuntary basis, are usually dealing with issues and populations that are far in excess of the ones that Australia is dealing with. So we're a very minor player in their consideration, which is why we have to negotiate individually with them to get the cooperation we want and why sanctions in the form of visa sanctions against them really tend not to carry much weight.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: But, from your experience, you don't see it as likely to have any meaningful impact on those negotiations.

Mr Hughes: No. As I said, having been involved in negotiations with both Iran and Afghanistan, I don't feel I would have been empowered in any way by being able to threaten them with visa sanctions.[9]

1.33The Greens stand with multicultural Australia and every credible independent expert who gave evidence to the inquiry in rejecting Labor’s travel ban proposal.

1.34The Bill is racist, it is discriminatory, it is excessive and it is unworkable.

Forced criminalisation

1.35Another element of this Bill will see the minister provided with ‘god-like’ powers to force people to facilitate their deportation back to a country they fled or face prison.

1.36Under proposed section 199C the minister can order a person to do specific ‘things’. These include ordering a person who fled a country to apply for a passport from the country they fled.

1.37Under proposed section 199E if the person fails to comply with this order they will have committed a criminal offence and face a minimum of one year in prison and a maximum of five years, or a financial penalty, or both.

1.38This extraordinary power would lead to situations such as the one Human Rights Law Centre described:

The power would appear to permit a direction to be made requiring a person who lives in Ballarat to attend an appointment with an officer of the Department of Home Affairs 115km away in the Melbourne CBD, irrespective of the person’s physical, practical or financial ability to attend. If the person couldn’t afford to travel, missed their train or was unwell on the day, they would be in breach of the direction and because merits review is denied, there is no avenue for the person to challenge the appropriateness of the direction being made.[10]

1.39This is extraordinary overreach.

1.40Mr Greg McIntrye, President of the Law Council of Australia, when asked if the minister ordering a person to act in the way the Bill proposes would be seen as consent, responded:

Absolutely not. It's coercion. In some circumstances, coercion is a criminal offence in itself, but here we have the Commonwealth seeking to coerce people to do these things.[11]

Returning refugees to harm and international obligations

1.41This Bill in its current form will see refugees and people seeking asylum with a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm, who have had their claims denied by an admittedly unfair and harmful process, choosing between being returned to the country they fled or prison.

1.42If this Bill passes it will allow the government to threaten any non-citizen refugee or person seeking asylum in Australia with prison or removal to a country they have a genuine fear of persecution. This includes people subjected to the so-called Fast Track system.

1.43The existing Fast Track process that has denied thousands and thousands of asylum claims is a failure and does not provide fair status determinations. Thesystem is so deeply flawed that the Albanese government is currently in the process of dismantling it. However, the people who have been failed by this system will be directly impacted by this Bill.

1.44Those who failed under Fast Track are mostly in the immediate cohort specified in the Bill, those on BVE in proposed subsection 199B(1). Ms Piumetharshika Kaneshan spoke to the committee. She arrived in Australia at the age of 12, fleeing Sri Lanka with her mother and sister to rebuild their life in safety. Currently studying nursing, Ms Kaneshan explained the devastating impact this Bill would have:

For me, studying as a nurse in Australia, it's frightening. I could be forced to Sri Lanka in my first year. I could be forced to Sri Lanka next week…If I were to go back to Sri Lanka—my father is gone. The male in my family is gone. We would be returning to Sri Lanka as three females. To this day, the amount of news I see against women and women's safety in Sri Lanka is absolutely outrageous. If I were to return to Sri Lanka, I would be frightened for [my] life.[12]

1.45Mrs Betia Shakiba also attending the hearing. While Mrs Shakiba has a permanent visa, her mother and husband were failed by the Fast Track system and are on bridging visas. Under this Bill, there is a threat that her mother and husband will be forced to choose between being returned to a country where they face persecution or jail. Fleeing Iran with her family over a decade ago, MrsShakiba explained:

Our family was heavily involved in public activism for women's rights in Iran in the wake of Mahsa Amini's death in 2022. It's not safe for any one of us to return to Iran…The minister's power to direct people to cooperate with their own deportation regardless of whether they have had a fair assessment of their protection claims will expose refugees and people seeking asylum, including my family, to severe harm, including death and continued incarceration, imprisonment or immigration detention. How is this fair?[13]

1.46It is especially offensive to see this Labor government propose to send families like Mrs Shakiba’s back to Iran when senior members of the government have attended rallies and said they support the Women, Life Freedom movement. This hypocrisy was noted in this inquiry. Despite my time in politics and the inevitable numbing effect it has on your sense of outrage, it has been hard to watch this level of hypocrisy so brazenly exercised by the government of the day.

1.47There are further concerns, particularly with how this Bill will impact people who sought asylum by sea after 19 July 2013 and who are therefore not subjected to the Fast Track process and are in Australia. Refugees in this cohort are on never-ending bridging visas and will also face the choice between being forced to a country they fled or prison.

1.48The prospect of returning refugees to a country where they are in immediate danger was clearly understood as a possibility by the Albanese government, with proposed subsection 199E(4) stating:

For the purposes of subsection (3), it is not a reasonable excuse that the person:

(a) has a genuine fear of suffering persecution or significant harm if the person were removed to a particular country; or

(b) is, or claims to be, a person in respect of whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations; or

(c) believes that, if the person were to comply with the removal pathway direction, the person would suffer other adverse consequences.

1.49This subsection would only be needed if the government were planning to send people to countries where they would face harm and breach Australia’s nonrefoulement obligations.

1.50Multiple legal experts and international bodies noted that this will be in breach of Australia’s international obligations.

1.51The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stated:

Measures to expedite asylum procedures through a fast track process without adequate procedural safeguards have also been adopted which place refugees in situations that could ultimately lead to their refoulement. Moreover, processes that are expanded in the Bill to determine that nonrefoulement obligations are no longer owed to non-citizens do not adhere to the requirements of the cessation provisions of the 1951 Convention.[14]

1.52The Australian Human Rights Commission also noted this issue, saying:

The Commission considers that the methods proposed by the Bill do not achieve this in a way consistent with human rights, and recommends that it not be passed.[15]

1.53Furthermore, this Bill criminalises and forces people into a detention-to-prison cycle, effectively establishing indefinite detention through different means. TheUNHCR also commented on this aspect, noting Australia’s current treatment, which this Bill seeks to maintain and expand, of people subjected to this system:

[The current system has] deprived of many of their fundamental rights under international law which has, in some instances, resulted in irreparable harm, and even death.[16]

1.54The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also pointed out the failures of this Bill to adhere to international law and respect human rights, including breaches against non-refoulment. However, as the Law Council of Australia pointed out, these breaches of international law and human rights, through the returning of people seeking asylum to a country from which they fled were apparent to the government in drafting the Bill and were purposefully included:

It is of significant concern that the [human rights compatibility] Statement concedes that the Bill is only compatible in ‘most respects’ with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act. This is effectively an admission that aspects of the Bill do not comply with Australia’s obligations under international law.[17]

1.55This is a uniquely cruel and punitive regime that should not, under any circumstances, be permitted to become law. As Ms Sanmati Verma, Acting Legal Director, Human Rights Law Centre said:

We talk about a Trump-style travel ban; it will be a sad day when we talk about an Albanese-style criminalisation of noncooperation.[18]

1.56This power cannot be amended to be made safe or respectful, it is inherently contrary to legal principles, basic respect for human dignity and international law. It must be rejected.

Ministerial powers to revoke protection findings

1.57The final major component of this Bill will allow the minister to review protection findings.

1.58This Bill amends proposed section 197D of the Migration Act 1958 to expand the powers to not just people detained, but to those on a ‘removal pathway’, which will include thousands of people. As Refugee Legal explained:

It is well established under international law and principle that once protection need has been recognised by a State, cessation of protection can only arise in very strict and narrow circumstances, with the burden falling squarely on the State to demonstrate why grounds for cessation now exist. Nowhere does the Bill contemplate this. Specifically, cessation does not arise due to changes in a person’s visa status (for example, visa refusal or cancellation); nor should people be subject to continuing reassessment of their refugee or other protection status.[19]

1.59The undermining of international laws concerning protection for refugees was also commented on by Ms Sarah Fisher speaking for the Law Council of Australia, who said:

We would consider that the power is in conflict with Australia's nonrefoulement obligations. Australia should respect an asylum seeker's right to seek protection. That protection, importantly, should be durable. Persons who have been found to be owed protection shouldn't be subject to the sword of Damocles, basically, of having that finding revisited from time to time without prior notice and without the right to make submissions on whether they have continuing protection claims. It is very, very concerning.[20]

1.60It is entirely possible that under this legislation someone who fled General Augusto Pinochet’s regime in 1980s Chile, or persecution in Vietnam in the late 1970’s and has lived in Australia since, could have their protection finding overturned and be subjected to these cruel new laws.[21] Why would any Parliament give the minister these powers?

The extensive scope of the Bill

1.61Due to the chaotic manner in which the Albanese government tried to ram through this Bill, there has been conflicting and unclear information on who this Bill will impact. This lack of clarity can be seen both in the information on the travel ban and the criminalisation of non–compliance.

1.62The serious lack of information concerning which countries are targeted for the travel ban aspect of the Bill was apparent from the initial two-hours hearing with Home Affairs on March 26 2024. As noted above, Home Affairs indicated that some countries have already been identified saying:

Minister Giles mentioned a range of countries earlier today that do not cooperate with us. That included Iran, Iraq, South Sudan and Russia.[22]

1.63When asked by Senator D. Pocock in the same hearing to provide a ‘list’ of removal countries, Ms Stephanie Foster, Secretary of the Department, said: ‘Senator, I don't have the list with me’.[23]

1.64Under further questioning the Secretary later claimed no list existed.[24] It is still unclear which countries are the target of this travel ban with the government now claiming public interest immunity as the reason for not giving the list to this inquiry.

1.65This is causing deep anxiety within diaspora communities in Australia, with people not knowing if they will be prevented from seeing their loved ones if this Bill passes.

1.66Similarly unclear is the element of the Bill that seeks to criminalise noncompliance by those the government is seeking to remove from Australia. Through the hearing process and closer scrutiny, it became clear the Bill would directly impact thousands of people and could apply to every non-citizen in Australia.

1.67It was indicated in the 26 March 2024 hearing that the Bill was designed to target between 150–200 people.[25]

1.68However, at the 15 April 2024 hearing, this was expanded to 1200 people referring to those on a ‘removal pathway’ where there may be an issue with their departure if they do not voluntarily engage.[26]

1.69When asked how many have applied for protection, by number of family members in Australia and age, the minister refused to provide the information under a public interest community claim.

1.70Upon further questioning at the April hearing, it was later revealed that the number was not 1200 but close to 5000.[27]

1.71These powers to compel people to facilitate their own removal to a country they fled can also be expanded to any non-citizen visa. Proposed paragraph 199B(1)(d) makes clear that this Bill would impact ‘a lawful non-citizen who holds a visa prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph’.

1.72This allows the government to expand the Bill to affect any non-citizen in Australia meaning the full scope of this Bill could cover millions of people. Thisclause provides an open door for exploitation, effectively making Australia a place where anyone without full citizenship can be subjected to criminal charges and mandatory imprisonment if they don't comply with ministerial directions.

1.73Again, it is right to ask, why would any Parliament give the Minister such powers?

Best interests of the child

1.74This Bill also undermines the international laws around the treatment of children and the basic human rights of children.

1.75The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, in reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), said:

UNICEF Australia believes that several provisions in the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill may be contrary to the rights of children and their families and should be reconsidered, and that the Bill should not be passed in its current state.[28]

1.76Of particular concern is the ability of the minister to direct a parent to do something without regard for the best interest of the child.

1.77The ‘best interest’ provision is one of the key tenets of the CRC, the disregard for this tenet means that this Bill is in breach of our international obligations to protect children.

Minimum mandatory sentences

1.78This Bill through proposed section 199E introduces a minimum mandatory sentence for people who do not comply with a minister’s direction.

1.79Minimum mandatory sentencing is an attack on the independence of the judiciary and disproportionately punitive considering it will be enforced on people for tiny missteps such as missing a meeting or not reading an email.

1.80The Albanese government in introducing this element is legislating against Labor’s own 2023 National Platform, which states:

Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, lead to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice.[29]

1.81For Labor, this is a principle that is essential, except where it is not.

1.82The Law Council of Australia made this point clearly stating:

Minimum mandatory sentences should have no place in the Australian justice system and they undermine its orthodox principles. They prevent individualised justice and fetter judges' discretion to impose penalties that are proportionate to the offending.[30]

The supposed purpose of the Bill

1.83It is unlikely that the purported aims of the Bill would be achieved by its implementation.

1.84Home Affairs Secretary Ms Foster said the need for this Bill emerges as:

We have an obligation to try and effect the removal of people who should be removed, who have exhausted all avenues and who no longer have a legal right to remain in Australia.[31]

1.85However, there is no evidence that the powers in this Bill will achieve the aim above. As the Human Rights Law Centre stated, concerning the travel ban aspect of the Bill:

[T]here is no evidence in support of the Bill that the cooperation of visa holders from certain countries – such as Iran or Russia – would actually enable their removal from Australia. It is therefore entirely possible that the Bill will establish a regime for coercion and punishment of non-citizens without any likelihood of achieving their removal from Australia.[32]

1.86If the government of a country is not cooperating with repatriation, then punishing the citizens of that country is not only a cruel response, but it is also ineffective.

1.87It is laughable to think that Vladimir Putin or the appalling regime in Iran will change their immigration practices and allow forced deportations of citizens because Minister Giles threatens them with a travel ban on their citizens. Theseregimes repeatedly and unashamedly cause harm to their own citizens. They will not care.

1.88Further, the premise of this Bill that the only way to achieve its aims is to undermine international law should be rejected. The Law Council of Australia and others made the clear point that a migration system will lack integrity if it is not based on Australia's international obligations.

1.89The criminalisation of non-compliance is also not an effective policy to address the supposed issue, there is in fact evidence to the contrary.

1.90As the Refugee Council of Australia noted:

[The Australian Government used to provide] tailored, individual support to people during and after their immigration process to facilitate their decision-making…The services available in these programs include intensive case management, accommodation support, access to healthcare and psychological counselling, immigration information and counselling services, and legal assistance via a separate program.[33]

1.91Analysis of the government’s data from this program found that this case management pilot with vulnerable migrants achieved a 93 per cent compliance rate.

1.92Despite this program achieving the stated rationale for this Bill, the program has been gutted by the Liberal and Labor governments.

1.93The conclusion is that this Bill does not aim to achieve the stated purpose, but rather to whip up fear to achieve Labor’s narrow party-political aims.

Response to the majority report

1.94Submissions to this inquiry and the expert analysis provided at the hearing saw an almost unanimous rejection of the Bill. The majority report acknowledged:

…a large number of submitters and witnesses, most of whom rejected the Bill in its entirety based primarily on human rights concerns and the perceived impacts of the Bill on individuals, families and communities.[34]

1.95This is the understatement of all understatements. Every single submission except that of Home Affairs and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) opposed the Bill and the AFP submission was neutral. Every single one.

1.96Despite this, the only recommended change made in the majority report was that ‘the minister considers community impacts when designating a country as a removal concern country’.[35]

1.97This shows a gross disregard for refugees, people seeking asylum, diaspora communities, legal experts, human rights groups and many others who overwhelmingly rejected this Bill.

1.98Having heard from the community it is now clear why Labor wanted to ram this legislation through Parliament while it was still warm from the photocopier. They knew it was appalling, they knew any close scrutiny of it would tear it apart and they desperately wanted to avoid such scrutiny.


1.99This Bill must be rejected. The conduct of the Albanese government in regards this legislation has been chaotic and shows a disregard for either public consultation or basic parliamentary procedure.

1.100This Bill is fundamentally cruel, extreme and in opposition to social cohesion and multiculturalism.

Recommendation 1

1.101This Bill should be rejected in full.

Senator David Shoebridge



[1]The only exemptions to this ban is a small class of individuals who are children aged under 18 of an Australian resident, the parent of a child aged under 18 who is in Australia or the spouse of a person in Australia.

[2]Minister for Immigration, Hon Andrew Giles MP, Public Interest Immunity claim provided in response to written questions on notice from Senator Shoebridge and Senator Paterson to Department of Home Affairs, 17 and 19 April 2024 (received 29 April 2024), p. 2.

[3]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 73, p. 12.

[4]Asylum Seeker Resouce Centre, Submission 59, p. 12.

[5]Zimbabwe Australia Cultural Association, Submission 34, p. 3.

[6]Multicultural Australia, Submission 67, p. 2.

[7]Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, Submission 69, p. 5.

[8]Democracy in Colour, Submission 88,p. 6.

[9]Mr Peter Hughes PSM, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 24.

[10]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 18, pp. 5–6.

[11]Mr Greg McIntrye SC, President, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 17.

[12]Ms Piumetharshika Kaneshan, Human Rights Law Centre, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 8.

[13]Ms Parichehr (Betia) Shakiba, Lawyer, Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Committee Hansard, 15April2024, p. 26.

[14]United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Submission 65,p. 11.

[15]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 68,p. 23.

[16]United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Submission 65,p. 3.

[17]United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Submission 65,p. 3.

[18]Ms Sanmati Verma, Acting Legal Director, Human Rights Law Centre, Committee Hansard, 15April2024, p. 8.

[19]Refugee Legal, Submission 108, p. 7.

[20]Ms Sarah Fisher, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 17.

[21]P. Karp, ‘Refugees risk being stripped of protection under ‘draconian’ Labor deportation bill, opponents say’, The Guadian, 29 March 2024, www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/29/labor-deportation-bill-refugee-protection-visas.

[22]Ms Tara Cavanagh, Group Manager, Immigration Policy, Department of Home Affairs,Committee Hansard, 26 March 2024, p. 10.

[23]Ms Stephanie Foster, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, 26 March 2024, p.10.

[24]Ms Stephanie Foster, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, 26 March 2024, p.17.

[25]Ms Stephanie Foster, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, 26 March 2024, p.6.

[26]Mr Michael Thomas, Group Manager, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 55.

[27]Mr Michael Thomas, Group Manager, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 55.

[28]UNICEF Australia, Submission 78, p. 1.

[30]Mr Greg McIntrye SC, President, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 11.

[31]Ms Stephanie Foster, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, 26 March 2024, p.6.

[32]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 18, pp. 5–6.

[33]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 41, p. 9.

[34]Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into theMigration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, May 2024, p. 42.

[35]Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into theMigration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, May 2024, p. 42.