Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak briefly on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015 and, in so doing, endorse and echo the comments made by the member for Kingsford Smith and thank him for his support. This bill is the result of a standard 10-year review of Australian passports legislation. Passport technology has progressed since the Australian Passports Act was enacted in 2005. E-passports are now common, with an embedded chip storing basic personal information, such as a passport holder's name, sex, date of birth, nationality, passport number and passport expiry date. They also store a digital photograph of the passport holder's face.

The introduction of ePassports has made Australian passports among the most difficult in the world to counterfeit. In addition to ePassports, automated SmartGate border checks have been introduced at most international airports, in Australia, that utilise the information contained in ePassports to facilitate faster and more efficient border processing.

With the passage of time and changing technology, amendments contained in the bill are evolutionary—not revolutionary—and seek to update and clarify existing legislation. Broadly, and in addition to minor amendments, to the bill makes amendments in respect of four areas. Firstly, it will provide that a travel document may be issued to a person on the minister's own initiative in certain circumstances. Secondly, it will align the definition of parental responsibility more closely to that of the Family Law Act. Thirdly, it will provide that the minister may refuse to process a passport, on reasonable suspicion of fraud. Finally, it will clarify and extend offence categories relating to fraudulent conduct, in respect of Australian travel documents.

The first set of amendments addresses a scenario in which a person is to be deported from Australia, extradited to Australia or subject to an international prison transfer. Currently, an individual must consent to the issue of an Australian travel document, and there is an unclear legal basis for the government to issue a travel document on an individual's behalf without their consent. Consequently, it is possible for Australian citizens subject to such orders to delay proceedings, which places Australia in breach of its obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organization's Convention on International Civil Aviation. The amendments contained in this bill allow, in these limited circumstances, for the minister to issue travel documents on behalf of an individual. This will allow Australia to meet its international obligations and will reduce procedural delay.

The second set of amendments relate to consent in the issuing of passports to children. This can be a complex matter in circumstances of family break-ups and divorce. Under existing laws, parents who do not have parental responsibility under the Family Law Act but who do have a court order to spend time with or have access to a child are required to consent to a child having a passport. The effect of existing arrangements is that such a person is afforded more parental responsibility under the Australian Passports Act than they are under the Family Law Act.

This bill ensures that persons who do not have guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for a child are no longer required to consent to the issuing of a passport to that child. This will make it easier for children in difficult family environments to be issued with a passport. Deputy Speaker Whiteley, I am sure you, like me, have many constituents panicking in the Christmas holidays when they realise they have not made the necessary arrangements. A key point to note is that it remains an offence under the Family Law Act to take a child overseas without consent from all persons in whose favour a court order is made in relation to a child.

The third set of amendments relate to cases in which it is reasonably suspected that applicants have engaged in fraud or dishonesty in the process of applying for an Australian travel document. In such cases, this bill provides that the minister may refuse to process a passport application if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty in the application.

The provisions in this bill send a very clear message that fraudulent activity in the application for Australian travel documents will not be tolerated. The decision will be reviewable, and a refusal to process a passport application does not necessarily prevent a person from being issued with a travel document. However, in such cases, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a fresh application with the correct information and meet all other eligibility requirements.

I turn now to the fourth category of amendments. Although advances in technology have made counterfeit of travel documents more difficult, it remains vitally important that the integrity of the Australian passport system is maintained. To this end, amendments in this bill clarify existing offences and add an offence to target the making and providing of false Australian travel documents.

One amendment specifies that the existing offence for damaging or destroying an Australian travel document be extended to include the manipulation or tampering of a travel document, with specific reference to the chip embedded within the document. This amendment will make it clear that it is an offence to tamper with the chip of a travel document, improving our ability to track down and prosecute people suspected of fraudulent activity.

The bill addresses cases in which a person has maliciously reported a passport as lost or stolen so that it will be cancelled to intentionally disrupt the travel of another person. It also addresses cases in which a person fraudulently collects someone else's travel document using false identity documents. Such behaviour will now be classified as an offence.

Other amendments of a minor nature are also made. As an example, the bill tightens restrictions on the names and signatures that appear on travel documents. It will now be clarified that unacceptable, inappropriate or offensive names or signatures can be refused by the minister. Examples include names or signatures that are obscene, a racial or ethnic slur, a political slogan or could mislead people into believing that the bearer has been conferred an award, title or decoration.

Australians love to travel, and currently there are more than 10 million issued passports. The amendments proposed in this bill reflect the changing nature of international law, the changing nature of family relationships and the changing nature of passport technology and attempts to circumvent or replicate it. Collectively, these amendments strengthen the robustness of Australia's travel document system and reinforce Australia as a world leader in passport control. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context