‘Trump-Like’ Ban: Tough New Immigration Laws Rejected at Senate Hearing

A general view of the High Court of Australia in Canberra, Australia, on Nov. 5, 2020. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

New immigration laws that would jail anyone who do not cooperate with their deportation met resistance from a wide range of legal experts and community groups.

The Australian government’s attempt to head off an impending High Court ruling that risks seeing more immigration detainees freed was blocked in the Parliament and referred to a Senate Committee, which held a one-day hearing on April 15.

An appeal by a detainee seeks to have the Court rule that indefinite detention is illegal for those who refuse to cooperate with being deported.

The Bill has three main parts: prison sentences for people who don’t cooperate with their deportation; revisiting protection findings against people who have fled perilous countries; and blocking visa applications from people who are from countries who don’t accept the involuntary return of their citizens.

The Asylum Seekers Resource Centre described the Bill as “Trump-like” and said it would cause significant harm to ASRC’s clients and their families by “coercing people to leave Australia and return to persecution, including death.”

The Centre also claimed the law was incompatible with Australia’s responsibilities under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The Human Rights Law Centre also compared the policy to those of former U.S. President Donald Trump, calling it “dangerous” and “unprecedented.”

“We talk about a Trump-style travel ban and it will be a sad day when we talk about an Albanese-style criminalisation of non-cooperation,” said Sanmati Verma, acting legal director of the Centre.

AusIran described the proposed law as “preposterous” and said, “The legislation’s ability to halt visa processing for Iranians under the pretext of their country’s non-cooperation with involuntary returns deeply affects those fleeing conflict and oppression.”

Zimbabwean community leader and Queensland academic Wonder Chimonyo said the proposed exemptions were too narrow.

“Parents and grandparents will not be able to come and participate in important family functions, like weddings, funerals, because they will not have visas to travel,” he said.

‘Disproportionate’ Powers

Greens Senator David Shoebridge characterised the legislation as bestowing “God-like powers” on the minister.

“It would allow a future minister without any parliamentary oversight to effectively reinstate something like the White Australia policy,” he said.

He called the forcible deportation aspect of the bill “globally unique in its cruelty” and said the travel ban would be ineffective in changing the behaviour of rogue regimes.

Meanwhile, Senator Jacqui Lambie urged a more cautious approach.

“I think it needs to be looked at like it’s going to be today, so we can pick up all those issues that are wrong with it in really quick succession. So this time if we get a bill up, it can actually hold itself in our court system. That’s what I’d like to see—so we do something properly and it stands up to the test of time and does what it’s meant to do,” she said.

The Australian Law Council urged MPs not to pass the Bill.

“We appreciate the importance of a well-functioning migration program,” the Council’s President Greg McIntyre said. “However, this is not the way to achieve that legitimate objective.

“The Bill is highly disproportionate and punitive in its effect on predominantly vulnerable individuals. No evidence of any serious or widespread problem to justify this response has been produced by its proponents.”

Even the department that would be charged with enforcing the law had concerns.

Home Affairs said people smugglers could take advantage of the proposed bans on entire nationalities by telling vulnerable people there was no legal way for them to travel to Australia. However, it also said the Bill would enable it to deport the nearly 5,000 people refusing to cooperate more easily.

Numerous Diaspora Groups Concerned

Opposition Home Affairs spokesman James Paterson said the department had admitted that the Coalition’s concerns were valid.

“This bill risks perversely encouraging desperate people to get on boats again,” he said.

It’s understood the Coalition will introduce amendments after the Senate inquiry, seeking greater clarity and fairness to avoid punishing multicultural groups for the policies of their homelands.

Opposition multicultural engagement spokesman Paul Scarr declined to comment on the Coalition’s plans but said a range of communities—including Iranians, South Sudanese, Zimbabweans, and Kurds—had raised significant concerns.

“During my time in office, I have rarely seen such concerns being raised by diaspora communities regarding a piece of legislation,” Mr. Scarr said.

Some MPs have received more than 500 emails from voters concerned about the bill.

Bennelong MP Jerome Laxale is the first Labor backbencher to publicly detail worries about restricting visitors.

In a letter to his constituents, he said he was concerned about the potential of the Bill “to impact people visiting Australia from abroad” and urged them to make submissions to the Senate inquiry.

“In a majority migrant nation, I believe that Australian citizens should always retain the ability to welcome family and friends for a holiday or special occasion,” the letter said. “Locals have contacted me with similar beliefs, which I have conveyed directly to the minister.”