For the Federal Government, it’s a hit deal—$400 million is nothing to shake a stick at. This settlement will result in the deportation of at least 354 people from the NZYQ cohort to Nauru. This deal raises serious questions regarding the implications of new laws that facilitate these deportations while excluding essential principles of natural justice. In response to this legislation, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has claimed that these laws only restate the conclusions of a recent federal court decision.
Instead, last week the Labor government hurried damaging legislation through Parliament. This new law allows for third-country reception arrangements to avoid legally-binding protections for individuals at risk of deportation. Human rights advocates and opposition members roundly condemn these advances. They justifiably call into question issues of fairness and procedural integrity.
Legal Context and Legislative Rush
A precedent-setting court decision earlier this year spurred a wave of new laws. The decision held that the making of third-country arrangements involve no procedural fairness owed to people impacted. Pro-immigrant Supreme Court executive from 2022 has enabled the Biden administration to both bypass safeguards and fast-track deportations. Instead, they are exempt from the traditional rules of justice.
Burke insists that the laws aren’t just nice to have. Furthermore, non-citizens have been using provisions of procedural fairness to delay their removal from Australia. However, contrary to what most would think, he defends the legislation insisting that it mostly targets people who have used up all realistic options to stay in the country.
The process by which the bill was passed has come under enormous fire. That marked the start of a wild, three-hour long Senate hearing held on Wednesday night. This restriction only permitted questioning of departmental officials, not formal submissions from stakeholders.
“Putting this report out, after the bill has already passed, should show you what the Albanese government thinks of the concerns raised.” – David Shoebridge
The speed at which this legislative process has unfolded should be a cause for concern to advocates everywhere.
Exclusion of Natural Justice Provisions
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the new legislation is the way it excludes all standards of natural justice. This last exclusion unjustly removes people’s access to a day in court before being deported. Critics contend that these unilateral measures erode the fundamental rule of law, creating a precedent at cross-purposes with president’s stated desire for future immigration policy reform.
A report detailing the committee’s review of the legislation states, “The committee considers the claim that retrospective validation in this instance is necessary to maintain the integrity of Australia’s migration framework lacks sufficient explanation and argument.” The report further argues that removing the rule against bias needs to involve more than just a token reflection. It’s not a decision you make lightly.
Moreover, it appears that no adequate justification has been provided for removing natural justice provisions across various aspects of the bill. The ripple effects of these exclusions may result in unfair and discriminatory results for individuals impacted by these laws.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
Three of those men are currently suing the government to stop their deportation to Nauru. For these young people, these new laws will make a tangible difference in their daily lives. Through their human stories, their cases exemplify the grave and direct impacts of these legislative developments on people in deportation proceedings.
Human rights advocates have stepped up to express their opposition. They contend that these laws are contrary to fundamental principles which underwrite equal treatment before Australian law. The recent court ruling and quickly passed bill to overrule it are glaring examples of a growing movement to put expedience above justice.
Burke passionately argues these are necessary acts to maintain acceptable governance and oversight in Australia’s migration system. As critics point out, they erode faith in the democratic process itself. In light of these laws going into effect, these arguments about the ethics and legality of these laws will surely become louder and clearer.
