How tourists from FIVE countries could suddenly be banned from coming to Australia under

Tourists from at least five countries could be banned from travelling to Australia if Labor’s tough new proposed migration laws pass Parliament. 

The Albanese Government is rushing new legislation through Parliament this week in an attempt to avoid another disastrous ruling from the High Court – after more than 140 asylum seekers, including murderers and rapists, were released into the community in the NZYQ case last November.

The proposed laws would give the Immigration Minister the power to single out countries that do not cooperate with Australia’s attempts to deport people back to their country of origin.

That could result in citizens of Iran, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Russia and South Sudan being banned from travelling to Australia altogether, even for a holiday – although some exceptions would apply.

The government fears that an upcoming High Court hearing, set down for April 17, could lead to the court expanding further on its controversial NZYQ decision, leading to up to 170 further detainees walking free.

The new High Court case relates to an Iranian citizen known as ASF17, who refuses to go back to Iran because as a bisexual man he could face the death penalty. 

If he is successful in court, more detainees who refused to cooperate with their deportations would walk free with him. 

Labor’s proposed laws would also introduce a jail sentence of up to five years for failed asylum seekers who refuse to cooperate with their deportation.

But the bill will not pass without a fight, with the Coalition teaming up with the Greens in the Senate on Wednesday morning to refer the proposal to a formal Senate inquiry.

This could take months. 

Greens Senator David Shoebridge proposed the inquiry report back in June, but Coalition Home Affairs spokesperson James Paterson said earlier in the day they intend to have a report finalised before parliament returns in mid-May.

Mr Paterson said if the government could prove the urgent need for the passage of this legislation, the Coalition would be prepared to return to parliament in April to reconsider the matter.

‘In the absence of a genuine, demonstrable urgent need… our intention is for it to go through due process,’ Mr Paterson said. 

Embattled Immigration Minister Andrew Giles said of the proposal: ‘What we’re doing with this piece of legislation, this important piece of legislation, is to fill a very significant loophole.

‘[It is] a loophole that a small cohort of people who have no basis upon which to remain in Australia who are refusing to co-operate with efforts to effect their removal.

‘Importantly… these people are not refugees.’ 

The Greens and the crossbench have expressed concerns about the proposed laws, meaning the government is forced to rely upon the Coalition for support.

A refugee expert, Sanmati Verma of the Human Rights Law Centre, told the Australian Financial Review the legislation would mean all visas from nationals of a country, including tourist visas, could be deemed invalid.  

‘It is the Labor government’s version of Trump’s travel ban, with modest exceptions,’ Ms Verma said. 

Rush to pass the law hits a snag

The legislation sailed through the House of Representatives on Tuesday, but was subjected to a Senate grilling on Wednesday night. 

The Coalition has now sided with the Greens in delaying this bill to ensure it undergoes ‘proper due process’. 

Opposition Immigration spokesman Dan Tehan told Radio National on Wednesday morning there will be ‘further discussions’ before making a decision.

‘There were a few things out of the hearing that still have left us with more questions that we would like answered.

‘And once again, we are seeing a completely botched process by the government. The question was asked last night and very clearly was, what is the rush? What is the need for these laws to be passed through the Senate today? We couldn’t get a clear answer on that.

‘It is quite… extraordinary that you’ve got a major piece of legislation like this. And that we haven’t heard from the Minister for Immigration or the Minister for Home Affairs, neither of them have fronted.’

While the Greens and Coalition have teamed up to torpedo the government’s plans, they’ve done so for starkly different reasons.

The Coalition’s primary concern is ‘unintended consequences’ of the bill – primarily that it could ‘inadvertenty push people to get back on the boats’ and cause more headaches down the track.

But the Greens argue it’s draconian. Mr Shoebridge said: ‘This is about Labor, trying to outflank the Coalition and move to the right of the Coalition in a bill that they seem to have just made up in some long late night drinking session and then brought to the parliament.’

A leaked explanatory memorandum of the bill claimed changes were needed to ‘strengthen the integrity of the migration system’ by making it easier for immigrants to be deported.

The government has been drafting legislation since Friday. 

‘Non-co-operation with removal processes demonstrates a disregard for Australian laws,’ the memorandum reads.

Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said the Coalition received little more than an hour’s notice the Commonwealth intended to introduce the legislation to parliament on Tuesday.

This gives them about 36 hours to pass the legislation if it is to be done before the end of the sitting week – the last before the High Court hearing.

‘Perhaps if it was in response to a genuine and urgent crisis that would be OK but this is an extraordinary demand to put on parliament, to put on all of us,’ Senator Paterson said.

Greens leader Adam Bandt slammed the government’s approach as extraordinary.

‘Nothing was put forward that justifies us losing the usual rights that everyone in this parliament has to consider such important legislation,’ he said.

Crossbench Warringah MP Zali Steggall said she was ‘deeply disappointed’ Labor was trying to rush through laws without giving enough time to seriously consider the implications.

‘Shame, shame on every member of government for supporting … something that is deeply, deeply undemocratic,’ she said.