Sue Lines

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Steph Hodgins-May

Senators, pursuant to the order agreed yesterday, the time allotted for debate on this bill and two other bills has expired. The question before the chair will now be put, and then the questions to conclude the Committee of the Whole stage will be put.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 3429 be agreed to.

David Shoebridge

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate our party's strong opposition to the Labor Party's most recent attack—in fact, one of the nastiest attacks that I've seen—on multiculturalism, on the rights of asylum seekers and on refugees. What this bill, the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, seeks to do is to take away from people some of the most fundamental legal rights—to take away the right to natural justice and the right to be heard before incredibly important decisions are made about you, your life, your future and your health. In this case, it's all part of a toxic deportation deal that Labor has done with Nauru.

Last night we discovered that the toxic deportation deal done between the Albanese Labor government and Nauru is not a $400 million secret deal; it's a $2.5 billion secret stitch-up between Australia and Nauru to deport some of the most vulnerable people in this country to one of our Pacific neighbours and to treat that country effectively as a dumping ground—a sort of modern, 21st-century, penal colony—knowing full well that Nauru is a tiny island with almost no economy and will be dependent upon Australia's economic support. We are meant to be treating our Pacific neighbours as friends. We're meant to be treating them as equals. We're meant to be treating them as partners. Instead, the Albanese government is literally bribing our Pacific neighbours to become Australia's 21st-century dumping ground and penal colony. It is obscene.

We know who this bill is targeted at: it's targeted at multicultural Australia. It's targeted at people who have come here to this country seeking refuge from some of the worst regimes on the planet—seeking refuge from the extremist government in Iran; seeking refuge, as the Tamils from Sri Lanka have, from facing persecution; seeking refuge from places like Sudan, where the killing and the genocide continue; and seeking refuge, as so many from the Hazara community from Afghanistan have—seeking refuge from the genocide against women and the continued attacks against the Hazara community in Afghanistan. They're the people the Albanese government wants to strip the rights of natural justice away from and deport to Nauru. The Labor government is quite happy to break up families as part of this deal. If women have Australian kids, it doesn't matter to Labor—break the family up, deport mum and leave the kids without a mum. That's what Labor are proposing with this bill, and they are rushing it through without inviting submissions and without asking the broader community their views.

Thankfully, my office put out a call before that short sharp hearing we had last night into this bill and offered to table submissions, in the committee, from organisations like the Refugee Council, the Law Council of Australia, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and multicultural communities, because a Labor dominated committee made a conscious, deliberate decision to not ask for submissions from the community and to only hear from Home Affairs—an appalling decision. Why did Labor make that decision to not hear from the community? Because they were scared about what they would hear.

What has the community said, though? What have the NGOs, refugee advocacy groups and the Law Council said about Labor's bill? I think it's important that we read on to the record just some of their submissions. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said: 'We believe the removal of legal rights from certain cohorts of people will have impacts beyond refugees and people seeking asylum, standing to marginalise multicultural communities and polarise public debate. This legislation risks entrenching the perception that certain groups are permanently conditional in their belonging, subject to different rules and denied the same access to justice. Such a move erodes trust in institutions not only among affected individuals but across multicultural communities who see these laws as part of a pattern of exclusion.' President, if you'd heard the contribution from my colleague Senator Faruqi earlier, about how Labor now treats people of colour as having only a conditional right to exist in this country—you would have heard it too from my colleague Senator Faruqi, and I associate myself with her comments.

Human Rights Watch said this in relation to Labor's most recent, ugly, nasty, mean attack on people seeking asylum:

Refugees and asylum seekers previously forcibly transferred to Nauru by Australia have died from medical neglect and suicide. Human Rights Watch research has found that people forcibly transferred to Nauru have suffered severe abuse, inhumane treatment, and neglect. This latest deportation plan will put hundreds more lives at risk.

Australia's punitive migration system has already caused immeasurable harm to thousands of people over decades in violation of international law. It is not too late for the government to halt this plan and prevent further abuses.

It's not too late. Labor could still say no to this bill, stop playing the coalition's dog whistle, stop doing worse than the coalition and stop dragging the coalition to places even they wouldn't take this parliament in denying procedural fairness, in compulsory detention and in reopening the abusive deportation arrangements with Nauru. It's not too late for Labor to realise they're taking Australia down the wrong path.

From the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties:

Removal of the NZYQ cohort to Nauru is morally bankrupt. The NZYQ cohort includes many people who have special needs in order to function in society. In many cases, the reasons they have special needs includes Australia's deprivation of their human rights through inadequate integration support and long term immigration detention. Australia has the resources to provide the necessary supports to these people. Even after paying Nauru the $400m upfront fee and $70m annual fee, Nauru will not have the necessary resources to support these individuals. Australia's relationship to Nauru becomes analogous to the relationship between Britain and the Australian colonies from 1788 to the 1850s, where the colonies were a dumping ground for convicts. Payment to third countries for this kind of settlement of criminals should be illegal under international law.

The Refugee Council of Australia, with its broad reach, has spoken about this bill too. It says:

As this legislation was only introduced on 26 August 2025 and is being rushed through Parliament, leading to a lack of scrutiny and devastating implications. The attempt to remove natural justice and dueprocess for certain groups of people should be a warning sign to all that the cornerstone of our democracy is under threat.

The Bill appears to be a direct attempt to pre-empt or undermine decisions by Australian courts.

The Refugee Council strongly opposes the proposed Bill and the Australian Government's related arrangement with Nauru announced on 30 August 2025.

Will anybody in Labor listen to the Refugee Council? Will anybody in Labor listen to these groups who are saying to you, 'Stop the dog whistling'? We know that Labor's demonisation of asylum seekers and their attack on migrants is one of the reasons the far right, One Nation and others feel empowered to have anti-immigration rallies, like we did on the weekend. They are being fed by Labor's own rhetoric, marginalising and attacking asylum seekers and suggesting that all asylum seekers are somehow criminal—an obscene abuse from a government that should know better but has a history of doing far worse.

The Human Rights Law Centre said:

The Bill will preclude consideration of people's health, the harm they face in Nauru, and whether they will be permanently separated from family in the making of 'third country reception arrangements'. It has been drafted specifically to avoid such considerations being raised and properly considered, by excluding natural justice in the making of 'third country reception arrangements.'

I tell you, Acting Deputy President, I pressed Home Affairs about this last night and asked: 'What if one of the directions leading to the deportation which the minister chooses to give and which the government wants to strip natural justice rights from is for a woman to get passports for herself and her children to return to the country from which she had fled persecution? What if the woman, as tragically happens, is suffering from a violent relationship with a former partner and the father of the kids?' She wouldn't be able to say: 'I won't do that. I won't apply for a passport, because I'd have to go to the kids' violent father and expose myself to violence and expose myself to that risk.' You are removing the right to even say that. How do you have a conscience in this? How does every Labor member think that is okay?

What about somebody being forced to be deported to Nauru who identifies as LGBTIQ? They no longer have a right in the deportation process because you're stripping away their natural justice rights to be able to say to the government, 'As an LGBTIQ member of the community, I will likely be persecuted in Nauru.' We know from international reports that Nauru is an unsafe place to be gay. It's an unsafe place. Report after report has said that it's a place where, if you identify as LGBTIQ openly, you face potential violence, you face discrimination and there are no rights protecting you.

But Labor doesn't want to hear. It's stripping natural justice away and preventing anyone from even being able to tell the government about that before they're deported. What about a woman with the care of two kids? You'll remove natural justice so she can't tell the government, 'You deporting me to Nauru is going to leave my kids without a mum.' They may be Australian citizens, but no; they don't want to hear. They want to deport. They want to meet and better the coalition's dog whistle. That's what Labor does. Every time you do this—the attacks against people seeking asylum, Labor's false assertion that they're somehow inherently criminal—it's heard by the far right, and they use it. As in speeches we heard from One Nation earlier, they use what Labor's doing to foment attacks against immigrants, to attack multiculturalism and to demonise people who have come to Australia from overseas.

The Human Rights Law Centre, in its submission, really sums up what Labor is doing here. It says:

In summary, the anti-fairness bill—

and I endorse its characterisation of this bill; it's not a home affairs amendment bill but an anti-fairness bill—

would remove the government's duty to give a person notice, and an opportunity to respond, when deciding to deport them to a third country—effectively allowing the government to ignore health, safety or family separation risks that someone might face if exiled permanently to a country that is not their home; remove the government's duty to give a person notice when issuing them a direction to cooperate with their own deportation, when the failure to comply results in jail time; and retrospectively patch up visa decisions that were made on the basis of wrong information and wrong or outdated law, rather than allowing those decisions to be reconsidered and made again.

The bill is the latest in an ongoing attempt by the Albanese government to deprive migrants and refugees of basic procedural rights that ensure integrity in decision-making and to pre-empt or undermine decisions by our courts. And heaven knows where the $2½ billion we're giving to Nauru will go. The Nauruan government has form. They've sent some of the money Australia's paid them to the Finks motorcycle gang. If that wasn't bad enough, as Labor is deporting people to Nauru, the Nauruan president has made it very clear that it's his government's intention to send those people back to the country from which they fled, in breach of the refugee convention. And what does Labor say about that? Absolutely nothing, because they are so morally bankrupt.

Long debate text truncated.

Fatima Payman

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 168 before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 9 March 2026:

The illegal tobacco trade in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the extent to which black market tobacco products are funding organised crime;

(b) the extent to which the enforcement efforts of the federal government have been effective at deterring the trade of black market tobacco;

(c) the extent to which the tobacco excise is beneficial in terms of public health;

(d) whether present excise settings have contributed to the growth of the tobacco black market, and whether a freeze or reduction of the excise may help to lower demand for black market tobacco;

(e) the effect the illegal tobacco trade is having on the budget as a result of lost excise revenue;

(f) the rise of second-order crime committed as a result of the illegal tobacco trade, including the rise in firebombings of tobacconists and the effect this crime is having on legitimate businesses; and

(g) any other related matters

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 168 as amended and standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

David Shoebridge

I seek leave to move a motion relating to consideration of the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to a consideration of the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025.

The government and the coalition have agreed to ram through the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 which is a bill to strip natural justice, a fundamental right, from asylum seekers and whomever else the government chooses to deport to Nauru.

The government has run the argument that it needs to be rammed through this week because it is urgent. I can tell you we had a three-hour committee hearing in relation to this bill last night. Officials from Home Affairs came and they provided their case for urgency, and it was demolished—utterly demolished. I'll give credit to Senator Cash, who picked apart the argument for urgency that was presented by Home Affairs. In questioning from Senator Cash, Senator David Pocock and me, what Home Affairs eventually said was, 'Well, we'd like this legislation because we want to make sure that our current unfair processes, which we're going to continue regardless, cannot be legally challenged.' They also said that, regardless of whether the bill goes forward, they're going to continue to grind away and their actions will not change whether or not the bill passes. Then, when tested about whether there was any particular case that they desperately needed this legislation for, Home Affairs basically said no and that the cases that are either in the criminal courts or in the High Court are going to grind through and that they didn't need this legislation for any urgent matter dealing with cases.

Having established that so clearly, the question is: why is the coalition agreeing for Labor to remove the usual procedural checks and balances and ram through this legislation on a guillotine motion? I'll tell you what this legislation is: it is reckless, mean and nasty, and that's why Labor wants to ram it through on a guillotine without proper process.

We had the benefit, in the committee hearing last night, of submissions that came to us and that came to my office, and that would've come to any senator willing to ask, from across civil society—from the Law Council, from the ASRC and from multicultural communities. They were from across civil society and they all said the same thing—that the government's legislation is demonising multicultural communities, that it's targeting multicultural communities, that it's picking out multicultural communities and giving people who came to this country from another country fewer rights and doing it so visibly and deliberately. It is an attack on multiculturalism. They wanted the opportunity to tell the whole committee that in a proper hearing.

To its utter shame, Labor, even in establishing that committee, passed a resolution saying they didn't want submissions from civil society. It's so nasty that they're blocking their ears to the cries of multicultural communities that are saying: 'Stop doing this. Stop working with the coalition to ram through even more draconian laws.' Reckless, mean, nasty—that's what this piece of legislation is. So of course I move this motion and of course my Greens colleagues join me in moving this motion to ensure that this latest attack on multicultural Australia and on the rights of asylum seekers from Labor gets the scrutiny it needs.

What are you so afraid of? Are you so afraid of the fact that the public will see what you're doing? They are getting wise to Labor. In particular, multicultural communities are getting wise to Labor. They've now seen that it was Labor that put in place mandatory detention. They've now seen that it's Labor who's cut a secret deal with Nauru. I'll tell you what else we saw last night. We found out for the first time that this deal that Labor's cut with Nauru isn't a $400 million deal; it's a $2.5 billion deportation deal. Why did the government hide the truth about the scale of the deal? Why did we have to drag that out of you in a committee hearing? Tell the truth. Protect multicultural communities and stop doing these grubby deals with— (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister

I move:

That the question be now put.

Glenn Sterle

The question is that the motion be put as moved by the minister.

Katy Gallagher

I move:

That on Thursday, 4 September 2025:

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm:

(i) Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025,

(ii) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025,

(iii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Payments System Modernisation) Bill 2025, and

(iv) Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.

I move:

That the motion be now put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion, as moved by Minister Gallagher, be agreed to.

Senate adjourned at 20:14

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday evening two votes were deferred, as listed at item 16 on today's Order of Business, as well as a vote relating to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now. I will deal first with the motion moved by Senator Hanson concerning the restoration of a bill to the Notice Paper and its reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Steph Hodgins-May

I'll now deal with part (b). The question is that the amendment on sheet 3426, part (b), be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday at 6.30 pm a vote was deferred relating to an amendment moved by Senator Askew to a motion to refer a matter to the Economics References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold the vote now. The question on closure will be put first. If that is agreed to, I'll put the question on the amendment. The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Just a moment, everyone. Senator Scarr has asked for a cancellation of this division.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Askew and standing in the name of Cash, be agreed to.