The federal government's proposed changes to migration law are "entirely incompatible with human rights" and the government should abandon its bill, human rights groups have told a Senate committee scrutinising the legislation.
Last month, the government introduced legislation which would allow it to jail people refusing to cooperate with deportation for between one and five years.
The government has said the bill's focus is on about 150 people who are currently in immigration detention, and avoiding deportation efforts.
That includes the case of an Iranian man, currently before the High Court, which appears to be the motivation behind the legislation, which the government tried to rush through parliament in March.
Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil has previously said the extra powers were "common sense" and necessary because there was currently "no legal power" to compel people to assist with their removal "when they have no right to be here."
But there are serious fears the bill could affect thousands of people living in the community on bridging visas.
This includes almost 10,000 people who arrived in Australia in 2012 or 2013 and had their refugee claims rejected in a 'fast-tracked' assessment process, but who for various reasons have not been able to be deported.
The legislation would also enable the Immigration minister to ban people from coming to Australia from countries that do not cooperate with deportation efforts, such as Iran, Iraq, South Sudan and Russia.
In giving evidence before a Senate committee examining the legislation, senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC), Laura John, laid out her concerns and stressed the committee should recommend the bill not be passed.
"In our view, the three key components of this bill are entirely incompatible with human rights," she said.
"It confers a virtually unlimited power on the minister for Immigration to coerce any visa holder to assist with their own deportation, regardless of their age, health or connections to Australia.
"It continues an alarming trend of using the migration system to criminalise people on the basis of their visa status, with a penalty which is wholly disproportionate to the benign conduct it seeks to punish.
"It creates an unprecedented, unilateral and unchecked power for the minister to impose a travel ban, separating families and excluding entire countries of people on the basis of their nationality," she said.
Ms John told senators there were no amendments that would make the bill appropriate.
Nursing student concerned legislation could affect her
Nursing student, Piumetharshika Kaneshan, added her voice to the concern about the bill.
The 19-year-old Canberra woman told senators she feared herself and her mother and sister could be jailed or sent back to Sri Lanka if the bill became law, despite moving to Australia from there more than 10 years ago.
"I grew up in Australian culture," she told the committee.
"I don't know how to read, I don't know how to write in my own language."
The family are on Bridging E visas after their protection visa application was refused through the "fast-track" process years ago.
She said her family's case was before the Federal Circuit Court, as they appealed the decision, but they had no idea what the outcome might be.
HRLC said if the court did not decide in their favour, the family could be affected by the proposed laws.
Ms Kaneshan said the prospect of being forced back to Sri Lanka was "frightening," given she held deep concerns about women's safety there.
'Open to misuse', says human rights lawyer
Acting Legal Director at HRLC, Sanmati Verma, who sat beside Ms Kaneshan as she gave evidence, later told reporters the bill was "an attack on migrant and refugee communities."
She expressed concern about why the minister would seek to have such strong powers, that she feared could impact on someone like Ms Kaneshan.
"Why else would the minister be making laws that would allow that to happen?" she questioned.
"It's not about what this government would do, it's about what a future government would do.
"This is why we don't create laws of this latitude because they're open to misuse."
The committee also heard concerns about how many people the laws could capture.
Government trying to close 'loophole'
Speaking ahead of Monday's committee, Immigration Minister Andrew Giles said the legislation was needed to close a "loophole."
"What we're trying to do through this bill … is have a few more tools in our toolkit to close this loophole," he said.
"It's been open for quite some time, but its effect has been really highlighted since the High Court decision last year."
He said the power was needed because the government currently was "very limited" in the ways it could remove people from Australia who had no further legal options to remain in Australia, and where the countries they originally came from, did not accept their return.
"This does not apply to people who've been found to be refugees," he said.
Just before Easter, the Coalition blocked the laws from progressing through the Senate, but despite scrutinising it in the committee hearing, has already it indicated, it will back-in the government's laws.