The Australian government is currently taking draconian steps to enhance its deportation powers. This action comes on the heels of a historic High Court ruling called NZYQ. This decision, which while technically based on one man’s case, had a major ripple effect. It was a huge victory—we prevailed and overturned a 20-year old precedent—but even still, that meant hundreds of detainees were immediately released back into the community, ending their years-long indefinite detention as non-citizens unable to return home.
The government is finally following through on resettling all three, although to date only one has arrived. NZYQ ruling in favor of the tiny island nation of Nauru. Their removal has been stalled since February by continuing court challenges. That leaves the cases of these three as the first major test of new laws passed last year. These laws are meant to improve the federal government’s ability to send offshore people who lack visas.
Legal Background and Implications
The NZYQ case has implications that extend well beyond Australia’s immigration policies. This long-standing precedent was shattered, opening the door to the release of hundreds of detainees. This pioneering change is starting a monumental domino effect throughout the entire immigration system. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said he expects thousands more people from this cohort will be deported. That is, as soon as the first round of lawsuits against it have played themselves out.
Burke further stressed that these legislative measures are specifically aimed at non-citizens. These people have been through every available legal pathway to remain in Australia. He stated, “In such cases, the purpose of the law should be clear: to give effect to removal as swiftly and effectively as possible.” This narrow view tells us more about the government’s desire to speed up the deportation and push through existing legal challenges.
Advocates say that, in practice, these modifications gut some of the most basic legal protections. These plans have been described as draconian by Sanmati Verma, a legal director at Australia’s Human Rights Law Centre. Removing natural justice from the decision-making process could have serious implications, she thinks. She stated, “By excluding natural justice in the making of these decisions, the government is telegraphing to everyone in the world… that they don’t mind if they get these decisions wrong.”
Reactions from Politicians and Advocates
So far, the proposed amendments have been met with fierce and bipartisan opposition from local leaders, state lawmakers, and advocacy groups. Greens spokesperson for immigration David Shoebridge condemned the Labor government for seeking to evade legal challenges. He argued they are succeeding by making changes in law. He asserted that what they’re doing is part of a larger march towards a “toxic and far-right” immigration policy.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley had previously characterised the government’s process as “rushed, secretive and chaotic.” Ley criticized the handling of immigration policy, stating, “This is not the way that the prime minister and his ministers should conduct policy around critical issues of national security.” Her remarks highlight the entrenched political animosity toward the notion of opening Australia up to new channels of immigration.
Caught in the backlash, Andrew Hastie, a member of the opposition and federal defense minister, made a salient point. In response, he said this wasn’t the first time Labor had brought emergency legislation to address problems caused by the NZYQ decision. He remarked, “This is the fifth time that Labor has been forced to introduce emergency legislation to tidy up its own NZYQ mess.”
Future Outlook for Immigration Policies
The Australian government rigorously enforces its immigration laws. Yet, increasingly, it sails into opposition waters as it tries to chart this treacherous political landscape. Even in this light, the proposed changes would remove all procedural fairness when a visa is cancelled or refused. Burke has reiterated that individuals affected by these decisions will retain access to visa application processes and judicial review opportunities.
Still, critics are cautiously optimistic about the impact on human rights and procedural fairness. Verma focused on how the legislation would save the federal government from having to take deep, evidence-based dives into people who are in line to be deported. She warned, “The legislation would save the government from having to even ask basic questions in relation to the people it’s looking to deport to third countries forever.”
Canada and Australia are both in the process of recalibrating their immigration systems towards greater regional inclusion and benefits. The effects of the NZYQ decision will echo for decades to come. The balance between legislative action and due process will continue to be an important issue in debates on federal immigration policy.
