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

Ryan argued that the bill undermined fundamental principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, which are vital for public trust in government decision-making. Ryan highlighted the significant financial cost of the Nauru arrangement, noting a $408 million upfront payment plus annual fees, and raised concerns about the safety and human rights of individuals sent to Nauru. Ryan stated that the legislation could apply to thousands of people beyond the NZYQ cohort and risked breaching Australia's international obligations under human rights treaties.

Chaney expressed concern over the retrospective validation of unlawful visa decisions and the removal of procedural fairness for executive actions related to removal. Chaney argued that the bill's scope was wider than the NZYQ cohort and could affect tens of thousands of people, warranting careful scrutiny rather than haste. Chaney supported referring the bill to a committee to ensure proper examination of its impact on individual freedoms and legal rights.

Watson-Brown argued that the bill removed basic rights to natural justice and appeal processes for refugees and immigrants, facilitating their forced removal to Nauru. Watson-Brown criticised the bipartisan approach to border policy and linked the rhetoric around immigration to broader issues such as housing affordability and corporate tax avoidance. Watson-Brown stated that the legislation was a cruel attack on refugees and that the government should be ashamed of its actions.

Haines argued that the bill removed bedrock principles of the rule of law and natural justice, potentially leading to chain refoulement where individuals could be sent to countries where they face persecution. Haines raised concerns about the rushed nature of the legislation and the lack of transparency regarding the financial costs and impacts on broader cohorts. Haines stated that she could not support the bill without adequate scrutiny and confidence that it would withstand High Court challenges.

Wilkie argued that the bill represented a gross misuse of public funds, citing the high cost per person for the Nauru arrangement and potential corruption risks. Wilkie stated that the legislation breached international law, including the Rome Statute, and amounted to a form of colonialism. Wilkie advocated for a case-by-case approach involving court decisions for detention, rather than a blanket removal policy, and emphasised the need for humane and principled solutions.

Steggall argued that the bill curtailed fundamental judicial rights and procedural fairness, setting a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. Steggall moved an amendment to acknowledge the need for a solution while noting the immense overreach of the legislation and its potential impact on all bridging visa holders. Steggall urged the government to refer the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for proper scrutiny.

Spender argued that the rushed legislative process lacked adequate consultation and scrutiny, raising concerns about unintended consequences for lawful noncitizens outside the NZYQ cohort. Spender highlighted the removal of natural justice provisions as a dangerous precedent that eroded a cornerstone of the justice system. Spender supported referring the bill to parliamentary committees to ensure full consideration of its wide-ranging implications.