Labor has accused the Coalition of “resurrecting the dead” as the government pushes ahead with legislation shelved in the last parliament that will toughen the character test for visa holders.
The government has begun arguing the case for changing the Migration Act, saying it needs stronger powers to deport visa holders who commit designated crimes but do not receive significant jail sentences.
Migration experts have warned that the changes could lead to a five-fold increase in deportations, labelling the changes the “largest expansion of the character test provisions in the Migration Act in history”.
A previous attempt to change the character test was shelved by the Coalition in the previous parliament after the legislation sat on the notice paper for 169 days and was not brought to a vote in the House of Representatives.
Kristina Keneally, the shadow home affairs minister, said the government had not yet made the case for the “extraordinary” changes, which she said could potentially mean teenagers from New Zealand who had lived their whole lives in Australia could be deported for shoplifting.
She said the minister already had “extremely broad” powers to deport individuals that the government feared might engage in criminal activity.
“It really is up to the government to prove why this change is needed and what the minister can’t do under the current broad powers that the minister already has,” Keneally told Sky News on Thursday.
“This is a government that doesn’t have anything to say about the stagnant economy, the stagnant wages, the low wage growth, they have no answer to the Reserve Bank’s call for them to stimulate the economy.
“They have no economic plan for Australia, so they’re taking on these types of resurrecting the dead of their legislation that failed in last parliament.”
The immigration minister, David Coleman, said the government had cancelled 4,700 visas over the past six years and criticised Labor for not backing the changes, which are currently being scrutinised by a Senate inquiry.
Labor’s official position will not be determined until after the inquiry reports next month.
“It’s remarkable in my view that the Labor party is not supporting these laws,” Coleman said. “Back when they were first introduced earlier this year, they opposed these laws, they continue to oppose these laws and I think that’s an outrageous position because these laws are basically about protecting Australians, ensuring that we can kick out people that have committed serious crimes.
“It’s self-evident that they should be supported.”
Under the changes, a range of designated offences, including offences involving violence against a person, weapons, breaching of an apprehended violence order or non-consensual sexual acts would result in grounds for cancellation.
Despite the government’s enthusiasm for the crackdown, the change has prompted widespread concern, with the New Zealand government particularly worried about the number of its citizens that could be deported.
Between 2016 and 2018, Australia forcibly deported 1,023 people to New Zealand, sparking warnings from across the Tasman that the policy has had a “corrosive” effect on the bilateral relationship.
The New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Adern, raised the issue in talks with Scott Morrison last month, saying the deportation of criminals with almost no connection to New Zealand was not “fair dinkum”.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has also reiterated its concerns about the bill, urging it not to be passed, or alternatively adopting a “sliding scale” model instead which could be used for visa refusals and cancellations on the basis of criminal convictions.
“The commission is concerned that the introduction of another broad discretionary power, without due regard to the particular circumstances of each case, may result in arbitrary and disproportionately harsh visa refusal and cancellation decisions,” the submission states.
Labor has fended off criticism of its bipartisan approach to national security legislation after it voted last month to support foreign fighter legislation despite expressing concern about overreach by the minister.
