Human rights groups say the new laws are likely to cause major delays in the courts for asylum seekers

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

Sweeping changes to Australia’s asylum seeker laws are likely to cause major delays in courts and increase the risk legitimate refugees will be returned to their countries of origin, a Senate inquiry has heard.

The federal government’s migration and maritime powers amendment makes significant changes to the assessment process for asylum seekers to “fast-track” decision making, and will also reintroduce temporary protection visas.



It also amends laws that would affect the government’s power to intercept and turn back asylum-seeker vessels. The amendment could neutralise a key high court decision into the fate of 157 Tamil asylum seekers held at sea in July if the court rules against the government



But a Senate hearing on Friday heard damning assessments of the bill from the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre and the Australian Red Cross. The inquiry has received over 5,000 submissions, with many critical of the proposed laws.



The president of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, told the committee she was concerned the fast-track process did not provide a fair review mechanism for asylum seekers, and that the interception at sea powers would allow people to be detained and removed without any judicial scrutiny.



She also said that provisions that exclude obligations to apply international law raised serious concerns for the rule of law in Australia.



“We are deeply concerned that the legislation is a very deliberate attempt to exclude international law and deprive the high court of a basis to analyse the migration act by reference to international law,” she said.



“That is a retrograde step and it’s one that I think in my view will bring Australia into disrepute.”

The Refugee Advice and Immigration Centre’s David Manne told the inquiry the bill represented “a wholly unwarranted and radical departure from the rule of law in Australia” and was an “isolationist and parochial approach”.



“Fundamentally the amendments proposed would substantially increase the risks of Australia being responsible for exposing people to serious human rights abuses,” he said.



He also disputed the “fast-track” assessment processes that were being proposed in the bill. Under the new arrangements, asylum seekers would be barred from appealing decisions from the department in some circumstances.



Manne said the fast-tracking process was likely to be a “false economy” because the result will be a much higher number of judicial reviews of these decisions, and would also lead to prolonged detention for asylum seekers.



“There’s little doubt that the so-called fast track is likely to slow down very quickly because of judicial reviews,” he said.



“Cutting corners at the merits review level doesn’t work. It ends up in the court”.



Barrister Shane Prince, appearing with the Law Council of Australia, was questioned by Senator Ian Macdonald on whether he thought the laws were needed to reduce the number of asylum seeker cases that needed to be resolved.



Prince responded: “The idea that this law is needed to achieve that objective just cannot be correct. What this is really is an overreaching by the department of immigration and it deals with a whole range of matters … it’s not proportionate or necessary.”



When the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, introduced the bill in September, Clive Palmer said he would support it, which would likely have guaranteed passage of the laws in the Senate.



But that initial agreement may now be in doubt, with Palmer sending a “please explain” note to the minister following serious human rights concerns being raised with the bill.