Proposed laws that could put people released from immigration detention by the High Court back into custody may impinge on as many as 10 separate human rights, a bipartisan committee has found.
The bill introduced to parliament this month would allow the government to cancel the visas of 224 people released from detention following the High Court’s ruling if a third country can be found, and enable the government to pay those countries to receive them.
The parliament’s human rights committee, chaired by Labor MP Josh Wilson, said the laws may restrict several rights including criminal process rights, effective remedy, expulsion of aliens, freedom of movement, health, liberty, non-refoulement, privacy, protection of the family and the prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The committee has asked Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke for more information about the bill “in order to assess the compatibility of these measures with these human rights”.
While some human rights obligations are absolute under international law, most rights may be limited if a certain standard is met, including that the limitation is prescribed by law, is in pursuit of a legitimate objective and is proportionate in achieving that objective.
Latest effort to deal with fallout from High Court
The bill is the latest attempt by the government to respond to the High Court’s ruling in ‘NZYQ’, which determined a Rohingya man’s ongoing detention was unlawful because it was punitive and there was no real prospect of the government finding a country he could be deported to.
It overturned a precedent that had been in place for 20 years, and allowed the government to indefinitely detain people whose visas had been cancelled but were unable to be deported.
He and dozens of others who were released following that ruling had previously served sentences for serious crimes, including attempted murder, sexual offences and assault.
Since their release, several have breached the strict conditions of the bridging visas given to them, which included curfews and ankle monitors for some detainees.
But attempts by the government to address the cohort have been undone by the High Court, including the legality of those curfews and ankle monitors, and attempts to re-detain the group using legislation rushed through parliament earlier this year has proven harder than expected.
Earlier this month the government also redrafted rules to allow ankle monitors and curfews to be re-imposed.
