Australia is currently debating the proposed Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, also known as the Removal Bill. This bill has sparked discussions on how the country should manage immigration. The bill’s primary objective is to simplify the process of removing specific non-citizens from the country. However, many people have criticised the bill for its possible impact on human rights and refugees. The bill is presently under consideration in the Senate.
Proponents of this Bill, primarily the Australian government, argue that it strengthens the integrity of the migration system by achieving the following goals:
1. Enhancing Removal Processes: The Bill creates a “removal pathway” for specific non-citizens who are deemed unlawful or are holding bridging visas. This pathway includes directions from the Immigration Minister on actions individuals must take to facilitate their removal. Non-compliance carries a potential five-year prison sentence.
2. Discouraging Visa Applications: The Bill allows the Minister to designate “removal concern countries.” Nationals from these countries face stricter visa application processes, aiming to pressure their home countries to cooperate with removals.
3. Reassessing Protection Visas: The Bill empowers the Minister to reassess protection visas previously granted, potentially leading to their cancellation and removal of the visa holder.
Criticism and Concerns:
The proposed Removal Bill has been criticised by human rights groups and legal bodies. They have raised the following concerns:
- It is a risk to refugees and asylum seekers. The Bill targets non-citizens who have been refused a visa, including protection visas. Critics argue that this may put refugees and asylum seekers who have fled persecution at risk, forcing them to return to danger. They also raise concerns about the “fast-track” refugee assessment process, which has been criticized for being unfair.
- Raises the risk of potential for arbitrary removal: The broad power given to designate removal concerns countries and reassess protection visas raises concerns about arbitrary decision-making. Critics argue that these measures could unfairly penalize genuine refugees based on nationality or political considerations.
- It appears to be an excessive punishment. The Bill’s criminalisation of non-compliance with removal directions, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, is seen as harsh. Critics argue that it disproportionately punishes individuals who may be unable to leave due to factors beyond their control.
- It can be a form of breach of international obligations. Some fear that the Bill might violate Australia’s obligations under international refugee law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to places where they face a risk of persecution.
The Path Forward:
The Removal Bill is currently under scrutiny in the Senate, and a vote is expected in May 2024. Legal bodies, human rights groups, and refugee councils have submitted their concerns about the Bill. The government, however, maintains that the Bill strengthens border security and migration integrity.
Several factors will influence the Bill’s fate, including:
- The Senate’s composition could determine the Bill’s passage since the government needs support from minor parties or opposition senators to pass the Bill.
- Public opinion and media coverage can influence the debate.
- Global reactions, particularly concerns about violations of international law, could pressure senators to reconsider their positions.
- The Senate may propose amendments to address concerns while achieving the Bill’s core objectives.
Conclusion:
The Removal Bill’s path to becoming law is complex, involving a mixture of legal scrutiny, political negotiation, public influence, and adherence to international norms. The outcome will depend on how these factors interact and influence the senators’ decisions when the vote takes place in May 2024. The Senate’s ability to propose and pass amendments could be the key to balancing the government’s objectives with the concerns of the bill’s critics, potentially leading to an outcome that tries to address both efficiency in the immigration process and the protection of human rights.
Changes to the migration program can occur without notice. The above information is not intended to be legal advice and is correct as of the date of writing this article.
Contact Migrations Affairs to speak with our immigration experts for tailored advice on the circumstances and eligibility.
