It raised this issue before Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee
In an appearance before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the Law Council of Australia warned that utilising offshore processing and resettlement arrangements would not absolve the federal government of its human rights obligations.
Tania Wolff, Law Council president, brought up the concept of chain refoulement, the council’s chief concern in connection with these types of transfer arrangements.
“Australia must not expose individuals to the risk of being returned to a country where they may face persecution, threats to life or serious harm through its regional processing arrangements,” Wolff explained. “This means it cannot send individuals to third countries that might return them to that harm.”
According to Wolff, Australia is still responsible for respecting international human rights and refugee law obligations in its arrangements with other countries for the processing of protection claims and offering resettlement.
To that end, the Law Council recommended that the Australian government:
“There has never been a more important time for Australia to be seen to fully adhere to international law,” Wolff said.
Wolff referred to comments attributed to Nauru’s president, apparently expressing the perspective that the individuals Australia sent to the Republic of Nauru were not refugees and could be subject to return to their countries of origin.
In its media release, the Law Council called attention to the issues it raised in its 13 February 2026 submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee’s inquiry into offshore processing and resettlement arrangements.
Specifically, the Law Council urged the committee to recommend the publication of the Australian and Nauru governments’ memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the removal of the NZYQ cohort, comprising those released from indefinite immigration detention after a 2023 High Court decision.
The Law Council said the lack of publication hindered proper parliamentary scrutiny and prevented transparency regarding offshore processing and resettlement arrangements.
“The fact that Nauru has ratified the Refugee Convention does not mean that Australia would meet its obligations under Article 33 of that Convention by removing members of the NZYQ cohort to whom it owes protection obligations to that country,” the Law Council explained in its submission.
“Australia would breach that obligation were it to remove a non-citizen to whom Australia has been found to owe protection obligations to Nauru, where it knows or reasonably suspects that they will be returned by Nauru to their home country,” the Law Council added.
