Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) were first introduced under the Howard Government in 1999 and were abolished by the Rudd Government in 2008. If reintroduced, TPVs will be granted for a maximum period of three years, after which time the person will need to reapply to have their TPV extended.

The good thing about TPVs is that they will provide people with access to work rights, Medicare and income support, torture and trauma counselling, translating and interpreting services and education for school aged children. This will allow refugees to support themselves and afford them the dignity they deserve.

However, the negative consequences of TPVs far outweigh any benefits:

• TPVs have been widely criticised by mental health experts, as they force people to live in a state of uncertainty and instability, which results in significant negative mental health impacts. People on TPVs are constantly aware of the fact they could be sent back once the three year term is up.

• TPVs don’t allow for family reunion rights, meaning families can be separated for years. In the past, this has led to an increase of women and children trying to reach Australia by sea.

• The so-called “deterrence value” of TPVs is highly questionable. In the two years following their initial introduction in 1999, there was actually an increase in boat arrivals.

• Introducing TPVs would be an administrative and financial burden, as applications will need to be repeatedly reviewed at least every three years.

It would benefit our economy if refugees were resettled as quickly as possible, and became contributing, working members of our society – however, TPVs would put all of this on hold.

There is also a new type of visa being proposed by the Government – Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEVs) – which seem good at first glance. Details of how the visas will work haven’t yet been released, but there are reports they will allow people to work and stay in Australia for up to five years, provided they live in “designated regional areas”. This could give a much needed boost to regional towns struggling to attract workers. Furthermore, SHEVS provide a pathway to permanent residency (this is different from permanent protection), by allowing refugees on SHEVs to eventually apply for a student or working visa. Sounds pretty good right?

But here’s the catch: refugees (people who are found to be owed permanent protection) will only be eligible to apply for permanent residency if they can manage to support themselves for three and a half of the five years, without any income assistance.

There are significant questions around just how many people SHEVs would help. Applying for a student or work visas would be very difficult for many refugees due to the high application fees and the level of English language skills required, not to mention the hurdles to clear along the process. Even Morrison himself has said to those wishing to apply for such a visa, “good luck to them”.

SHEVs could turn our onshore humanitarian protection system into a skilled migration system, where Australia can pick and choose the refugees they allow to stay permanently.

The responsibilities of being a signatory to any international treaty have no bearing on Australian law unless our Parliament legislates them and they become a part of domestic law.

If passed, this bill will remove most references to the UN Refugee Convention from the Migration Act – in short, we might as well be removing Australia’s signature from the Convention altogether.

The bill will redefine the term “refugee” under Australian law to one that is out of step with, and narrower than, the definition currently accepted under international law.

The “redefined” interpretation of a refugee under this Bill could mean people will need to prove they face a real chance of persecution in all areas of the country they’re fleeing. For example: a Hazara refugee, who escaped the Taliban in a particular province of Afghanistan, will need to show there is no where in Afghanistan they can safely be returned to, or they will risk deportation to a different part of the country.

The bill could also require refugees to take reasonable steps to “modify their behaviour” to avoid persecution. The danger here is that it could be considered “reasonable” for someone who is gay, to stop being gay, or for someone to practise their religion in secret to avoid persecution. In an article penned by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and former Hawke Government Minister Dr Barry Jones, it was asked:

“Would you expect the inspirational Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, who fights for girls’ right to education in the face of Taliban opposition, to “modify her behaviour” and simply retreat indoors?”

If passed, the bill will allow our government to ignore our non-refoulement obligations.

Non-refoulement is the part of the Refugee Convention that prohibits a country from sending people back to a place where they could suffer from significant harm. The bill would similarly allow the government to ignore non-refoulement obligations under other international treaties, such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against torture (CAT), meaning people could be sent back to their country of origin, where they may face torture or death.

It’s worth noting that the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights (mainly comprised of Coalition Senators) found that the bill is incompatible with our obligations under international treaties and “is likely to significantly limit a number of human rights protected by international law” – including non-refoulement obligations and the prohibition on torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

This bill will give the government the power to deport someone, regardless of whether an assessment has been made on the risks of refoulement.

Right now there is a case being heard in the High Court, which will determine whether it was lawful for the Australian Government to detain 157 Sri Lankan asylum seekers on the high seas back in July 2014.

However, this bill seeks to override any future decisions made by the High Court on this point, giving the Immigration Minister extraordinary powers to detain people at sea and send them to another country – regardless of whether we have the country’s consent, or whether the country is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

This is in stark contrast to the Coalition’s position on the Gillard Government’s proposed “Malaysia solution”, when they were in opposition:

“It’s not appropriate to send [asylum seekers] to countries that haven’t signed the UN Convention.”
– Tony Abbott, 29 June 2012

How can the Australian Government override decisions made by the High Court?

In addition the bill will, if passed, suspend the rules of “natural justice” in a range of circumstances. This significantly reduces the scope for any kind of oversight or scrutiny of the government’s actions by the courts, including the High Court.

Essentially, this means the High Court will not be able to rule the government’s actions invalid, even if they breach Australian laws, international laws or the laws of other countries. This would allow the government to intercept people at sea, keep them there for as long as they wish, and ship them to another country – without any repercussions.

The bill will introduce a new “fast track” application process for people who arrived by boat after August 2012. The fast track process will remove people’s access to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and establish an Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) in its place.

While faster application processes can be a good thing, particularly if they help reduce the amount of time people spend in detention, they also raise concerns about the potential dire consequences of not conducting a thorough assessment of applications – the result of which can literally mean life or death for some.

A similar fast track process was struck down by the High Court in the UK, as it carried an “unacceptable risk of unfairness”.

Introducing a fast track process in Australia would undermine our rigorous refugee determination process and significantly increase the chances of someone being sent back to danger.

Earlier this year the Australian High Court ruled Minister Morrison’s protection visa cap invalid, finding that the current laws didn’t allow the Minister to place a limit on the number of protection visas granted each year.

So what’s a minister to do? Change the current laws of course. If passed, this bill would overturn the High Court’s ruling, allowing the Immigration Minister to suspend processing of protection visas applications and limit the number of people who receive protection.