Senate committee recommends changes to controversial bill that makes it easier to return non-refugees, saying it should be changed to protect people in dangerous jobs

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

A controversial bill that enhances Australia’s ability to send people whose refugee claims have been denied back home should be amended to protect those in dangerous jobs, such as journalists, human rights activists and government workers, a Senate committee has recommended.

Bill to make it easier for Australia to return non-refugees rests with Senate Read more

Currently, people who have had their refugee claims denied but still face significant harm if returned to their countries of origin can apply for a humanitarian visa under the complementary protection system.



The government has introduced legislation that would tighten eligibility for such visas, but the Senate committee reviewing the bill has raised concerns over whether it meets Australia’s international obligations.

Despite the concerns, the chair of the Senate-dominated committee has recommended the bill be passed, albeit with significant amendments. Labor and the Greens have both submitted dissenting reports.

The bill recently passed the House of Representatives but will rely on the support of the crossbench to pass the Senate, as neither Labor nor the Greens support it.

A report into the legislation has raised red flags on a number of its core components, including denying protection for a person who can engage in “behaviour modification” to avoid trouble over their sexuality, political affiliation or religion, if returned home.

But experts say that the behaviour modification clause could lead to journalists, aid and human rights workers and government officials being sent back to countries in which they face significant harm because of their occupation.



Behaviour modification has a gender dimension too, warns the president of the human rights commission, Gillian Triggs.

Serco guards bar asylum seeker advocate from visiting Baby Asha in hospital Read more

“Women have also been singled out for attacks, in particular if they have assumed a public role as politicians, government officials, rights activists or professionals,” she said.

The report also recommends amendments to clauses that deny complementary protection if a person cannot prove they face harm if returned to their whole country rather than just sections of it. For example, if a person is persecuted by the Taliban, under the new legislation they could be told to return to non-Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan because they face risk only in certain areas of the country.

The report rubbished that claim, saying internal relocation was “unreasonable”. It recommended the government amend the legislation to ensure that relocation only be considered when it is “safe and legally accessible”.

Labor and the Greens say the amendments do not go far enough, and want the bill scrapped altogether.

“The Australian Greens are concerned that the chair does not appear to have adequately responded to or addressed the concerns raised by the vast majority of experts regarding this bill,” senator Sarah Hanson-Young writes in the Greens’ dissenting report.

“Labor senators note that no one seeking protection under either the Refugee Convention or the complementary protection framework will be disadvantaged if the bill is not passed by the parliament,” Catryna Bilyk and Alex Gallacher said in Labor’s dissenting report.



Complementary protection was introduced by the former Labor government and came into effect in March 2012. Since then, only 216 of the total 15,600 humanitarian visas granted were under the complementary protection system.

In the same period, 24,355 people were denied complementary protection. 21,501 appealed the decision. Of these, 199 were granted protection, and 9,152 were denied. A further 12,150 are still waiting for their appeal to be processed. The legislation proposed by the government would limit avenues of appeal.

In December 2014, the government narrowly passed legislation that changes the definition of refugee and limits avenues of appeal and oversight, leading refugee advocates to warn that more and more asylum seekers will rely on complementary protection as their final safety net.

“If this [bill]... is passed, it makes it even more difficult for people to seek protection here,” international law expert at the University of Melbourne, Michelle Foster, told an inquiry into the legislation earlier this month.