INTRODUCTION
Australia’s approach to immigration and border protection has long been a subject of international scrutiny. In a significant and alarming development, the Australian government passed the Anti-Fairness Bill 2025, which builds upon three stringent laws enacted in 2024 (Amnesty International, 2025). This new law expands the government’s power to pay other countries to accept deportees, criminalise individuals who refuse to cooperate with their own deportation, ban individuals from travelling in the country, and impose strict detention rules such as taking away detainees’ personal possessions (Human Rights Law Centre, n.d.). Critics have condemned the legislation, arguing that it not only violates non-citizens’ human rights but also effectively turns the Pacific Island nation of Nauru into a “dumping ground and penal colony” for those expelled from Australia (Canales & Doherty, 2025).
This article will examine the legal implications of the newly enacted law. It will focus on how the removal of due process and procedural fairness contravenes established international legal principles. Furthermore, it will explore the devastating impact of this policy on the rights of affected individuals and on the nation of Nauru, raising serious questions about Australia’s commitment to its human rights obligations. This article argues that the Anti-Fairness Bill 2025 undermines international legal standards and imposes disproportionate burdens on vulnerable populations.
THE EROSION OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS IN DEPORTATION
Procedural fairness, or natural justice, is a fundamental pillar of both democratic legal systems and international human rights law. It guarantees that any individual facing a state decision that profoundly affects their rights, such as deportation, is entitled to a fair hearing, the right to be informed of the case against them, and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence (Chazaro, 2023). This principle is stipulated under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which ensures the equality of all persons before the courts and tribunals, including the entitlement to a fair and public hearing.
The Anti-Fairness Bill 2025 systematically dismantles these essential protections, creating a regime that is both harsh and legally precarious. Part 1 of the Anti-Fairness Bill 2025 amended the Migration Act 1958, particularly Division 1 on Amendments and Division 2 on Application of Amendments and Validation. This amendment establishes the inapplicability of “natural justice,” a term used synonymously with “procedural fairness,” which ensures an individual’s certain procedural rights in relation to decisions or actions that affect such individual’s rights or interests.
Central to this erosion is the criminalisation of non-cooperation in Part 2 of the Anti-Fairness Bill 2025, which makes it a criminal offence (punishable by up to five years in prison) for a person to refuse to assist with their own deportation, such as by applying for a passport from their country of origin (Human Rights Law Centre, n.d.; Amnesty International, 2024). The legislation also grants the government sweeping powers to detain individuals indefinitely when they cannot be deported immediately, despite the High Court’s 2023 ruling in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor which made it clear that such an act was unlawful and unconstitutional (Human Rights Law Centre, n.d.). Consequently, this renewed mandate could create a high risk of arbitrary detention that may violate Article 9 of the ICCPR.
Furthermore, the deterioration is compounded by concerning limits on judicial review, which curtail the ability of courts to scrutinise deportation decisions. It is noteworthy that such immense and largely unchecked power is placed in the hands of the executive branch, the Albanese Government. By allowing individuals to be imprisoned for years based on administrative decisions without any mechanism to challenge the decision, as opposed to judicial procedures, the law might have removed a critical check and balance in deportation (Wilsher, 2004). This potentially transforms deportation from an administrative process into a punitive one, threatening the very essence of a fair and just legal system.
THE “PENAL COLONY”: IMPACTS ON NAURU AND REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Australian migration legislation seems to designate Nauru as a “removal concern country,” formally establishing it as a primary destination for those deported under these new powers. This dynamic cannot be separated from the evident power imbalance between the two countries. Australia, a wealthy regional power, leverages its significant economic aid and political influence to secure the compliance of Nauru, a microstate with a population of approximately 11,500 and limited resources (Doherty, 2025). This arrangement has led to accusations that Australia is using its significant economic and political power to export its human rights problems to a vulnerable neighbour, a practice critics have starkly labelled as creating a modern-day “penal colony” (Styllis, 2025).
Moreover, this arrangement risks placing deported individuals in a profound legal and ethical vacuum. Without certain legal frameworks in Nauru to protect their rights, and with Australia abdicating its responsibility, these individuals face a high risk of further violations, including arbitrary detention and inadequate living conditions, potentially violating the international principle of non-refoulement (Talbot, 2025). In past practices, reports have indicated that forcibly transferred individuals suffered severe abuse, inhumane treatment, and neglect, with some even dying from medical neglect and suicide (Human Rights Watch, 2016). The system signals that Australia prioritising its sovereign interest in exclusion over the rights and well-being of both the deported individuals and the citizens of the host nation. Eventually, this practice raises serious neo-colonial concerns, as a wealthy nation pays a smaller, economically dependent country to host individuals it wishes to exclude, without taking into consideration the well-being of the transferred people.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Australia’s new deportation laws represent an alarming regression in the protection of human rights. Policy efficiency appears to be pursued at the expense of procedural fairness and respect for human rights. In addition, the arrangement with Nauru, a vulnerable nation in the Pacific, carries complex ethical and practical implications. Immediate action is required to mitigate the risks caused by this legislation. The following recommendations are proposed:
- A comprehensive review of the Anti-Fairness Bill 2025’s provisions concerning criminalisation and indefinite detention should ensure a balance between administrative efficiency and the fundamental right to procedural fairness;
- An independent monitoring mechanism should provide assurance that all deportation decisions and processes are subject to appropriate inspection and that the welfare of individuals is safeguarded; Australia should engage in a constructive dialogue with partners in the Pacific Island Forum to foster a cooperative regional framework for migration management, based on mutual respect and a commitment to human rights;
- If any arrangement with Nauru is to continue, Australia should provide support for independent legal aid, healthcare, and accommodation services to ensure the dignity and rights of all individuals are fully respected.
The management of borders and migration is a complex endeavour for any nation. A nation’s commitment to justice lies not only in efficiency, but also in its consistency with democratic values and international law. A reflection that prioritises cooperation, fairness, and regional stability would strengthen Australia’s leadership and ensure just outcomes for all.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amnesty Internasional. (2025, September 4). The Anti-Fairness Bill: Removing Fundamental Rights for Up to 80,000 People. Amnesty Internasional. Accessed September 8, 2025. https://www.amnesty.org.au/the-anti-fairness-bill/.
Amnesty International. (2024, December 2). Labor’s new migration laws deliver a dangerous setback for rights of refugees and people seeking asylum. Amnesty International. Accessed September 8, 2025. https://www.amnesty.org.au/migration-laws-deliver-dangerous-setback-for-rights-of-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum/.
Canales, S.B., & Doherty, B. (2025, September 4). Labor and Coalition pass deportation laws set to make Nauru a ‘penal colony’ for Australia, critics say. The Guardian. Accessed September 8, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/04/labor-coalition-pass-deportation-laws-naura-australia-penal-colony-australia-critics-say.
Chazaro, A. (2023). Due process deportations. New York University Law Review, 98(2), 407–484.
Doherty, B. (2025, September 3). People banished to Nauru by Australia face hostile reception as $2.5 bn cost of deal revealed. The Guardian. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/03/nzyq-cohort-potentially-hostile-reception-nauru.
Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 (Cth).
Human Rights Law Centre. (n.d.). Explainer: The Anti-Fairness Bill: entrenching deportation powers. Human Rights Law Centre. Accessed September 8, 2025. https://www.hrlc.org.au/explainers/explainer-the-anti-fairness-bill/.
Human Rights Watch. (2016, August 2). Australia: Appalling abuse, neglect of refugees on Nauru. Human Rights Watch. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/02/australia-appalling-abuse-neglect-refugees-nauru.
Styllis, G. (2025, September 4). Australia pays tiny Pacific atoll £1.2 bn for its own migrant ‘penal colony’. The Telegraph. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/09/04/australia-pays-tatoll-12bn-migrant-penal-colony/.
Talbot, A. (2025, September 6). The NZYQ Nauru deportation deal. The Saturday Paper. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2025/09/06/the-nzyq-nauru-deportation-deal.
United Nations. (1966, December 16). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations Treaty Series, 999, 171.
Wilsher, D. (2004). The Administrative Detention of Non-Nationals Pursuant to Immigration Control: International and Constitutional Law Perspectives. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53(4), 897–934.
