Bill Debate · Reference to Committee

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025; Reference to Committee

House of Representatives · Monday 1 September 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on a motion moved by Kate Chaney to refer the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for scrutiny. Independent members argued the bill was rushed, lacked consultation, and raised serious concerns regarding retrospective validation of decisions and the removal of procedural fairness safeguards for a broad group of noncitizens. They highlighted potential impacts on up to 80,000 people and significant costs associated with deportations to Nauru. The government, represented by Andrew Charlton, opposed the referral, stating that the committee already performs standard scrutiny of all bills. The motion was defeated by a vote of 9 to 72.

Outcome

The motion to refer the bill to the committee was defeated by a vote of 9 to 72.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Kate Chaney (Curtin) (Independent) Ind

Chaney moved the motion to refer the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, arguing that parliament lacked a clear understanding of the bill's true impact. Chaney expressed concern that the legislation retrospectively validated decisions based on an incorrect interpretation of the law following the NZYQ High Court decision. Chaney argued that removing procedural fairness from key steps in the removal process undermined fundamental legal safeguards and could affect approximately 80,000 people, far exceeding the intended NZYQ cohort. Chaney cited reports that the government had agreed to pay Nauru $400 million upfront and $70 million annually to accept deportees, equating to $1.4 million per individual. Chaney concluded that the bill required detailed scrutiny to ensure it was specific, focused, and just instead of wide-ranging and hasty.

Government response

Andrew Charlton (Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy) ALP Parramatta

Charlton stated that the government would not support the referral of the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Charlton explained that the committee routinely considers all bills introduced to parliament as part of its standard scrutiny process. Charlton noted that the committee provides advice-only assessments or seeks written responses from ministers in its scrutiny reports. Charlton affirmed that the government did not support any referral beyond this existing normal process.

Zali Steggall (Warringah) (Independent) Ind support

Steggall seconded the motion, commending Chaney and highlighting concerns from constituents and human rights organisations about the bill's impact on procedural fairness. Steggall argued that the legislation was introduced with limited explanation and consultation, risking the erosion of fundamental legal protections against error and abuse of power. Steggall warned that weakening these principles could set a dangerous precedent, drawing parallels to troubling removal processes in the United States. Steggall urged the government to engage with stakeholders and allow proper scrutiny to balance border security with human rights obligations.
Monique Ryan (Kooyong) (Independent) Ind support

Ryan supported the motion, citing grave concerns from the Kooyong community about the precedent set by the legislation. Ryan acknowledged the importance of community safety but argued that the government was retrospectively changing the law to remove natural justice requirements after High Court rulings found previous actions illegal. Ryan criticised the approach as using bullyboy tactics to pay Nauru to rehouse individuals, noting that the cohort would constitute a significant percentage of Nauru's small population. Ryan urged the government to use its supermajority responsibly and subject the legislation to further examination by the human rights committee.
Nicolette Boele (Bradfield) (Independent) Ind support

Boele supported the motion, expressing dismay at the government's history of rushing bills that limit the rights of asylum seekers and visa holders. Boele argued that this bill continued a pattern of stripping away rights, including mandatory visa cancellations and expanded search powers, without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Boele described the legislation as secretive and chaotic, noting it confirmed that affected individuals had no right to natural justice in administrative processes. Boele warned that the government should not exploit its large majority to abandon democratic norms and urged it to permit committee review as a minimum level of scrutiny.

Votes during this debate

Division 1: Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025; Reference to Committee Not passed 9–72

Opened by

Kate Chaney (Curtin) (Independent)

Ind

Bill

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025

Speeches

5 speeches, 3 other contributors

Topics

No tags

Debate Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025; In Committee Bill Debate, 4 Sep 2025 · Same bill
Debate Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025; Limitation of Debate Bill Debate, 4 Sep 2025 · Same bill

About House of Representatives debates

The House of Representatives debates bills, motions and matters of public importance in its main chamber. Members from all parties can take part, and the responsible minister usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.