Sweeping powers to force deportations set to pass with bipartisan support

Paying other countries to take people awaiting deportation is one of a suite of new federal powers expected to pass the parliament this week.

The measure is among the latest efforts to force the removal of non-citizens whose home countries will not accept them, or who are otherwise resisting deportation, after the High Court determined the government could not detain people in that circumstance.

The Coalition indicated its support for the bill in a Senate committee report tabled on Tuesday afternoon.

The bill would also allow the government to cancel bridging visas, share personal information and overturn humanitarian protection findings, to clear the way for deportation. And it would protect officials from liability if deported people suffer harm.

Labor and Coalition members of the Senate committee recommended the bill be adopted without amendment, despite human rights concerns raised by advocacy groups.

“It is appropriate for the Australian government to have the power to remove non-citizens who have no lawful right to remain within the country,” the committee wrote.

“Community safety must be the highest priority for the government … Any limitations on human rights are necessary to maintain the integrity of the migration system and protect the safety of the Australian community.”

‘Bundle’ of migration changes to pass

The bill will be voted on in tandem with two others, which are also likely to receive Coalition support and would together make for a significant expansion of the immigration minister’s powers.

The first is the migrant deportation bill the government introduced in March, which would make it an offence for somebody to refuse to assist with efforts to deport them and would allow the minister to impose travel bans on countries who make deportation difficult.

The second would allow the minister to ban mobile phones and other devices in immigration detention.

The Greens’ immigration spokesperson David Shoebridge said the legislation was “brutal” and “the most extreme migration legislation since the White Australia policy.”

“The Albanese government watched how Donald Trump punched down on migrants in the US election campaign and instead of rejecting those politics, they are embracing them … Doing all this makes Australia a meaner and crueller country.”

The High Court’s long shadow

The government hopes the legislation will end its lengthy struggle in the wake of the High Court’s decision in the NZYQ case last year.

The court ruled it was unlawful for the government to keep people in immigration detention if there was no realistic prospect of their removal.

It resulted in the release of more than 200 non-citizens, many with a history of violent offending.

There were two prongs to the government response – to create lawful ways to detain or otherwise restrain that cohort, and to make their removal possible.

On the former front, it introduced a new visa on which people could be forced to wear ankle monitors and observe curfews on threat of jail time, if they were deemed a threat to community safety.

But earlier this month, the High Court ruled that was not lawful either, in part because the terms were too broad.

The suite of bills awaiting passage also includes a second attempt at an ankle monitoring and curfew regime with narrower terms, applicable only to those considered likely to commit a serious offence.

Those measures deal with a small cohort, but the deportation measures could apply to a much broader group, including many asylum seekers who fled Iran and arrived under Australian government policies that prevent them from being settled in Australia.

Iran does not accept involuntary returns, a policy that has left thousands of people in limbo on a series of bridging visas, with patchy work rights and healthcare rights and no study rights.

Advocacy groups including the Human Rights Law Centre, the Law Council, the Refugee Council and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre strongly opposed the bill.

“The Australian government should not be permitted to wash its hands of responsibility for the inevitable harm that will occur if it chooses to warehouse people in third countries indefinitely,” the HRLC said in a submission.