Parliamentary joint committee on human rights asks Peter Dutton how the proposal is connected to its objective

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

The Coalition’s proposed lifetime refugee travel ban is a “severe and exceptional” measure and there is “no suggestion” refugees present a danger to Australia, a parliamentary committee has said.

The parliamentary joint committee on human rights, chaired by Liberal MP Ian Goodenough, said in a report released on Tuesday the ban appeared to have a disproportionate effect on people of certain nationalities and could be discriminatory.

The travel ban was proposed by the Coalition in October as a means to deter asylum seekers from coming to Australia. It would prevent refugees who were adults when sent for offshore processing on Manus Island and Nauru from ever visiting Australia, unless the immigration minister granted an exemption.



Lifetime ban on refugees visiting Australia in trouble as crossbenchers voice opposition Read more

The committee concluded it was “severe and exceptional” to impose the ban because it applied to “people who have committed no crime and are entitled as a matter of international law to seek asylum in Australia”.

It noted the ban would apply to visas “necessary for tourism, business or professional visits, or visiting family”.

The committee found the ban could constitute “direct discrimination” against those in offshore detention or “indirect discrimination” on the basis it disproportionately affected refugees from Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

The committee said the ban was not based “on any reason why these particular people should not be allowed to visit Australia in future”.

“There is no suggestion that they present any danger to Australia or that a future visit would have any adverse affect on Australia.”

Rather, the ban appeared to be a penalty designed to deter others from travelling to Australia, the human rights committee said.

The committee asked the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, to explain how the proposed ban was rationally connected to its objective, if it was a proportionate measure, and whether less restrictive alternatives existed.

In a joint statement appearing to contradict the committee report, Coalition members of the committee said they “unreservedly support” the bill which was “critical to prevent people smugglers and their evil trade”.

“The legal advice referred to in the report was not drafted by the committee members and represents one opinion.”

They said the report had merely asked the immigration minister to provide further information as is standard practice.

In a separate report, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee recommended the Senate pass the travel ban bill, because it was part of a suite of measures to deter boat trips to Australia.

However, it also supported further explanation of why the travel ban was necessary on top of existing deterrents, as well as clarification of the factors the minister would consider in granting exemptions to the travel ban.

Labor and the Greens issued dissenting reports in that committee arguing the bill should be rejected.

Labor caucus has unanimously rejected the lifetime ban, with leader Bill Shorten arguing it was “ridiculous” to stop refugees coming to Australia as tourists years after they were resettled in another country.

The government has struggled to win crossbench support for the bill, with senators David Leyonhjelm, Derryn Hinch, Stirling Griff and Skye Kakoschke-Moore all expressing concerns.

On Tuesday, Hinch said he hoped the government would make amendments to the bill because “a lifetime ban is just ridiculous”.

“I don’t think it can work, it hasn’t been thought through,” he said. “I know what they’re trying to do, stop the boats, and I agree with them on that, I support them on that.

“But you can’t say to some poor guy ... who has gone to live in Spain or Belgium in 10 years’ time ... you can’t even come back on a tourist visa or on compassionate grounds without going through the minister.”

Nick Xenophon said he met Dutton on Monday, but the ban was “still at an impasse”.

“At this stage, I personally would like to see an increase in humanitarian efforts and intake.”

The Nick Xenophon Team will have a conscience vote on the refugee ban.