John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015. I commend the objective to protect the Australian community by preventing and deterring the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents. Our passport, the Australian passport, is without doubt the most thorough, accepted and important identity document in our country, and it is imperative that we do not let this change. This bill is the result of a normal 10-year re-evaluation of Australia's passports legislation. However, it is timely given the current security situation. The role of government is the safety of our citizens and to mitigate unlawful activity. I believe this bill does just that, and I will go into more depth regarding the four key elements to be amended.

On the issue of travel documentation by the minister, the provision is limited to the following circumstances: to remove or deport a person who is the subject of a lawful extradition request to or from Australia; to remove or deport a person who is the subject of a lawful removal or deportation order to or from Australia; or to effect an international prison transfer. I think they are pretty self-explanatory. There are already existing avenues for people to seek review of the substantive decision to extradite or remove them. This will also enable Australia to comply with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 which stipulate that a contracting state shall issue a travel document to one of its nationals to facilitate their return to the contracting state within 30 days of a request by another state to do so, whether or not the person concerned consents to the issue of the travel document.

The bill will align the definition of parental responsibility more closely to that of the Family Law Act 1975. There have been issues over the last 12 months or so which have underlined this. The aim of the amendment is to remove any confusion as to who is required to consent to a child having a travel document. The bill provides that the following persons are required to consent to a child having a passport: parents who have not had their parental responsibility removed by a court; persons who under a court order have parental responsibility or with whom the child is to live; and persons who, under an Australian law, have guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for the child. Those persons who do not have parental responsibility for a child but who can under a court order spend time with or have access to the child will no longer be required to consent to a child having a passport. It is inappropriate that the Passports Act, as it currently stands, may accord a person more parental responsibility for a child than is permitted by the court. For a small number of applicants the current requirements can cause unnecessary distress, delays and confusion.

The third area is that the minister may refuse to process a passport application if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty in the application. This is a reviewable decision. It is essential that the government send a clear message that any kind of fraud in relation to Australian documents will not be tolerated. It is important to note that this provision does not prevent a person from being issued a travel document, but they must submit a fresh application with the correct information and meet all other eligibility requirements.

The bill modifies the existing offence framework in the Passports Act and adds an offence to strengthen the government's ability to respond to the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents. The new offence will target persons who make or provide false Australian travel documents with the intention that the document may be accepted and used as if it were genuine. These amendments are necessary to deter and respond to the increasing fraudulent use of travel documents and the wider implications of such activity in enabling serious crime such as terrorism, drug smuggling and people trafficking.

In addition, there will be a provision to refuse travel documentation that uses unacceptable names and signatures. This may include using language that is offensive, obscene or that could be misleading. While these situations rarely occur, it is important that a clear legal base exists to refuse such names or signatures to protect the integrity of our travel documents.

The amendments further allow the act to be simplified by removing the need to refer to the passports determination to work out which provisions in the act apply to the travel documents. The bill combines related subsections to avoid duplication and clarify existing provisions consistent with current practice.

While the majority of Australian citizens obviously use their travel documentation lawfully, we need updates to the legislation to ensure those who do not are held to account. The review assists us to deal with the current security situations facing Australia while updating important aspects of the 10-year-old legislation.

I would hope and assume that the bill will be dealt with in a bipartisan way, and I am sure that the opposition would agree with us on that. As I said earlier, it is a 10-year review, but it is very timely given current situations for both security and family law reasons.

See this speech in context