The claim refers to the **Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014**, passed on 5 December 2014 [1][2].
**Core factual elements:**
1. **The legislation did amend Section 197C and 198 of the Migration Act 1958** to state that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are "irrelevant" to the removal power [3][4].
The Act inserted new subsection 197C(1) which provides: "For the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen" [5].
2. **The amendment requires removal regardless of non-refoulement assessments**: New subsection 197C(2) stated that an officer's duty to remove "arises irrespective of whether there has been an assessment, according to law, of Australia's non-refoulement obligations" [5].
3. **The law was designed to overturn two court decisions**: The High Court decision in *Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* [2011] HCA 32 and the Full Federal Court decision in *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB* [2013] FCAFC 33 [4][5].
These cases had established that removal powers must be exercised consistently with non-refoulement obligations.
4. **The practical effect**: The legislation meant that an officer could be required to remove an asylum seeker even if that person had never had their protection claims assessed, or if they were found to be refugees but the removal would breach non-refoulement obligations [4][5].
The claim omits the government's stated justification and safeguards:**
The government argued that the amendments were necessary to "clarify" the availability of removal powers and claimed they would still comply with non-refoulement obligations as a matter of international law, even if not as a matter of domestic law [5].
The Explanatory Memorandum stated: "the Government intends to continue to comply with these obligations and Australia remains bound by them as a matter of international law.
They will not, however, be capable as a matter of domestic law of forming the basis of an invalidation of the exercise of the affected powers" [5].
**2.
The legislation was part of broader changes including:**
- Reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) - though with a pathway to permanence through the Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) [1][2]
- Fast-track processing for asylum seekers who arrived after 13 August 2012 [4]
- Removal of most references to the Refugee Convention from the Migration Act [4]
**3.
Political context:**
The legislation passed with support from Senate crossbenchers (Ricky Muir, Nick Xenophon, and others) after the government made concessions including increasing the humanitarian intake from 13,750 to 18,750, moving asylum seekers from Christmas Island to mainland, releasing approximately 468 children from detention, and granting work rights to about 25,000 people on bridging visas [1][6].
**4.
The claim exaggerates "all" non-refoulement obligations:**
While the legislation was broad, the government's position was that protection visa processes would still assess non-refoulement obligations before removal [5].
**The Guardian (original source):**
- Generally reputable mainstream media outlet with center-left editorial stance
- Author Ben Doherty is an experienced immigration correspondent
- Article is factual reporting with analysis, not opinion
- Uses dramatic language ("unchecked control," "playing God") which reflects the controversial nature of the legislation
- Accurately describes the legal changes but frames them critically
- Cites UNHCR, UN Committee Against Torture, and parliamentary human rights committee as critics [1]
**Did Labor do something similar?**
**Yes - Labor established the foundation for offshore processing and harsh asylum policies:**
1. **Labor re-established offshore detention in 2012**: Under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the Labor government reopened the Nauru and Manus Island detention centers in August 2012 - the same facilities later used by the Coalition [7][8].
* * * *
These facilities have been criticized for the same human rights concerns including indefinite detention and poor conditions.
2. **Labor voted AGAINST the 2014 bill**: Labor Senators (along with Greens) voted against the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and proposed amendments to include the government's commitment to increase humanitarian intake in the bill text [6]. 19 Labor Senators voted "Yes" to the amendment that would have enshrined higher intake numbers, while Coalition Senators voted "No" [6].
3. **Labor's voting pattern on offshore processing**: Labor initially opposed the Pacific Solution under Howard, abolished it in 2008, but then reinstated offshore processing in 2012 when boat arrivals increased [7][8].
4. **Key difference**: While Labor re-established offshore processing (which also raises non-refoulement concerns), they did not pass legislation explicitly stating that non-refoulement obligations are "irrelevant" to removal powers.
**The claim has substantial factual basis but is framed one-sidedly.**
**What the claim gets right:**
- The legislation did explicitly make non-refoulement obligations "irrelevant" for the purposes of removal powers under section 198
- It required officers to remove unlawful non-citizens regardless of whether non-refoulement obligations had been assessed
- Legal experts (UNSW Kaldor Centre, Law Society of NSW, Parliamentary Human Rights Committee) confirmed this created real risks of refoulement [4][5]
- The legislation removed judicial oversight of non-refoulement compliance
**What the claim omits or oversimplifies:**
- The government claimed it would still comply with non-refoulement obligations as a matter of international law, just not domestic law
- The legislation was part of a package that included some humanitarian concessions
- Labor had established similar harsh policies (offshore detention) - though without the explicit "non-refoulement irrelevant" language
- The claim's phrase "all" non-refoulement obligations is slightly overstated - the provision applied specifically to section 198 removal powers
**Comparative context:**
This represents a bipartisan pattern of increasingly restrictive asylum policies in Australia.
* * * *
Both major parties have enacted policies that attracted criticism from human rights bodies.
The Coalition's 2014 legislation was unique in explicitly removing non-refoulement as a legal constraint on removals, whereas Labor's approach relied on offshore processing to avoid refoulement claims.
The claim accurately describes the legal effect of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment Act 2014, which did legislate that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are "irrelevant" to removal powers and required officers to remove people regardless of whether those obligations had been assessed.
However, the claim overstates matters slightly by saying "all" non-refoulement obligations were overridden (the provision applied to removal powers specifically), and omits that the government maintained it would still comply with these obligations as a matter of international law, as well as the broader political context of Labor's own controversial asylum policies.
The claim accurately describes the legal effect of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment Act 2014, which did legislate that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are "irrelevant" to removal powers and required officers to remove people regardless of whether those obligations had been assessed.
However, the claim overstates matters slightly by saying "all" non-refoulement obligations were overridden (the provision applied to removal powers specifically), and omits that the government maintained it would still comply with these obligations as a matter of international law, as well as the broader political context of Labor's own controversial asylum policies.