Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008. The coalition supports this legislation. The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008 is a non-controversial omnibus bill that makes a range of amendments to the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 and the Customs Act 1901. These miscellaneous minor amendments provide consistency with other legislation, streamlining procedures, providing clarifications and so on.

I note that the bill was intended to include provisions to reinstate effective time limits for applying for judicial review of migration decisions. The current time limits in the Migration Act have been rendered redundant as a result of the April 2007 decision in the High Court in Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the July 2007 full Federal Court decision in the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKKC. The government has removed these provisions from the bill on advice that the bill as drafted would not have worked appropriately. We understand that further consideration will be given to determine how best to reinstate these time limits. The opposition looks forward to the opportunity to review and consider what the government puts forward.

Senator Ellison, the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, has outlined the opposition’s position in relation to this bill very clearly in the Senate, so I will now only speak briefly in relation to each of the specific schedules. Schedule 1 of the bill will streamline procedures for notifying parties of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The current notification procedures have been the source of considerable litigation over the years. Schedule 1 was also originally the section that would have dealt with time limits for applying for judicial review. As I said earlier, these are now being redrafted. Schedule 2 of the bill makes some clarifications in relation to the requirements of the Advance Passenger Processing System and establishes an infringement notice regime. The Advance Passenger Processing System was made compulsory after the September 11 terrorist attacks and requires each of the airlines and cruise lines on their way to Australia to provide information on their passengers to DIMA. Upon check-in at the country of origin, the passenger’s details are submitted to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. If there is a problem that would prevent their entry to Australia, they are not allowed to board. The government’s amendments will insert a new subsection at the end of sections 64ACD of the Customs Act 1901 and 245N of the act to make it clear that an operator of an aircraft or ship is liable to separate prosecution under these offence provisions in relation to each individual passenger and crew rather than in relation to each journey.

As an aside, I should tell the House that recently I was in Washington, Boston and Denver in the United States and, as the shadow minister for justice and border protection and assisting in immigration, I did have cause to go to Washington Dulles International Airport and meet with the customs and immigration officials there. I can say with some pride that the Australian system was regarded as the state of the art in the world, and they wished that, in many respects, they could emulate—and they are trying to move towards emulating—what Australia has already introduced. So, while America has made leaps and bounds since September 11 in the way it manages the movement of people both in and around the country, Australia is certainly at the forefront of that regime—or was under the previous government certainly. I assume, and so far it seems, that the current government is continuing the same response and the same attitude towards the migration of people and the entrance of people through passenger movements on cruise ships and airlines.

Schedule 3 of the bill makes minor amendments to the act to clarify immigration clearance of non-citizen children born in Australia, in compliance with visa conditions and the operation of certain provisions relating to bridging visas. Schedule 4 aims to increase protection for clients of offshore migration agents. DIAC will be able to refuse to communicate with offshore migration agents in cases where there are concerns about their professionalism, competence, conduct or character. The opposition appreciates that this schedule must be passed in a timely fashion due to the full Federal Court’s decision of 17 July in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. This decision gave effect to the obiter comments in Moore v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in 2007. Schedule 4 anticipated difficulties such as those arising from these recent decisions, and will ensure that the character cancellation provisions apply to all temporary and permanent transitional visas and provide validation of all past character cancellation decisions in relation to such visas. As a result of the full Federal Court’s decision in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, 23 people, including Mr Sales, were released from immigration detention. The coalition, while cautious in supporting such legislation, agrees with the government that this legislation must be passed quickly to address this situation caused by the full Federal Court’s decision.

Schedule 5 seeks to clarify certain provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007. The amendments also aim to ensure that Australian citizenship law is consistent with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961. I am pleased to again confirm the opposition’s support for this bill, and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context