Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015. This bill deals with remedial amendments in respect of two pieces of legislation which went through this parliament last year. The first is in respect of the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014, which was introduced into the parliament on 24 September last year and was assented to on 10 December last year. This was a bill which, at its heart, strengthened the character test and, in doing so, sought to provide added protection for the Australian public by enabling the minister to have greater discretion to remove noncitizens who had committed crimes and represented a risk to the Australian community. We supported that bill then, and all but one of the amendments in the current bill relate to it. As a result, we support this bill now.

The other amendment deals with a remedial amendment in respect of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014, which was introduced into the parliament on 25 September last year and was assented to on 15 December 2014. This legislation had many schedules, the first of which—which is the one that is being remedially amended by virtue of this legislation—sought to strengthen the legal position in relation to intercepting vessels on the high seas. If you like, it provided more legal ballast to the policy of the government in respect of turning asylum seeker vessels around in the journey from Java to Christmas Island. It is perhaps worth stating Labor's position in relation to this. We acknowledge that what we saw over a number of years with the loss of life on the journey between Java and Christmas Island was a very significant human misery, which we are absolutely committed to being brought to an end. There is nothing compassionate about seeing people drown at sea. The regional resettlement arrangement, which the then Rudd government put in place with both Papua New Guinea and the Republic of Nauru, established a regime of offshore processing which was perhaps the most significant step that was taken by any government in relation to ending the journey between Java and Christmas Island. It was a very important measure, which undermined the business model of people smugglers operating out of Jakarta.

There are many issues that we have with the way in which the regional resettlement arrangement has been operated by this government. We support the principle of it and we support the role that it has played in bringing an end to the loss of life at sea, but we do not support the way in which this government has managed offshore processing in Australia. We do not support it in terms of the lack of transparency which exists. We believe that there should be a negotiation with both the governments of Nauru and PNG to establish independent oversight of these facilities as soon as possible. We are deeply concerned about a number of decisions that the government made in respect of the conditions that pertain to the offshore processing facilities on Nauru and Manus—specifically the decision to keep people living in tents on Nauru, which represented a decision not to complete the construction of the facility on Nauru, is an absolute disgrace. It is effectively a decision to have people, relative to what had been planned, live in worse conditions than they would otherwise have done. Against all that is done globally in dealing with refugees, that is an extraordinary decision for a government to take.

We are and have been concerned about the state of the medical facility on Manus Island, which, to be fair, has now been remediated; but, for a long time, an inadequate medical facility existed there and we did see a person lose their life, Mr Hamid Kehazaei, from what was a preventable condition. Perhaps most significantly, the fundamental question of resolving the fate of the 2,000 people on Nauru and Manus has yet to be solved or addressed by this government. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a future Labor government would make it core business to resolve the fate of the 2,000 people on Nauru and Manus and to get those people off those islands.

The regional resettlement arrangement was a key component of bringing an end to that journey, but another component has been the policy of turning boats back to Indonesia on the journey from Java to Christmas Island. The bill that went through last year provided the legal ballast for that, and the bill that we have before us today, as I say, provides some remedial assistance in relation to that. It is essential that we make sure that we do not alter any of the policies which have brought to an end the journey between Java and Christmas Island. There is nothing compassionate about people drowning at sea, and it would be utterly wrong for any future government to put people smugglers back into business—people smugglers who are right now largely out of business in Indonesia. We are absolutely committed to that. We absolutely understand that maintaining a policy of turning back boats is fundamentally critical, in conjunction with the operation of offshore processing, in keeping this journey shut. We do that, I might say, from the point of view of compassion. We do not want to see that journey start again, with the inevitable consequence of the loss of life.

Because we are driven by compassion, back in July we announced a series of measures which also sought to have a much greater global engagement around the question of humanitarian affairs, including a significant increase in our funding to the UNHCR were we to be elected to government, a doubling of Australia's humanitarian intake were we to be elected to government and playing a leadership role within South-East Asia in a humanitarian space were we to be elected to government. All of that gives expression to our commitment to compassion in the humanitarian space, but an aspect of that is making sure that we do not see people drowning at sea between Java and Christmas Island and so the set of policies that we have in place are important in respect of that. The legislation that was passed last year was important and the remedial amendment which forms part of the legislation before us tonight is an aspect of that as well.

I do, in saying those generalities, want to go to the detail of the bill. Schedule 1 of the bill provides for consistency with respect to deportees who, for one reason or another, find themselves returning to Australia. Currently, where a destination country refuses to take in a person who has been deported from Australia, they are able to lawfully return to Australia without a visa. Indeed, bars which have been in place which prevent them from making further visa applications remain in place. In other words, they come back to Australia in the circumstances as if they had never left. But if their journey overseas is disrupted for some other reason—for example, a flight has to be returned or there is some issue in relation to their being in transit—then prior to this legislation going through they would in fact return to Australia on different conditions. They would not be able technically to return to Australia lawfully without a visa. So what schedule 1 seeks to do is to fix that issue and make sure that all persons who are deported but for one reason or another find themselves returning to Australia do so on the same footing. It is estimated that there might be about five people a year who fall into the category that I have described, and so that is an important issue to resolve.

Schedule 2 goes to the question of the phrase 'character concern' as it is used within the legislation. Character concern is a threshold which provides for those who meet it to have their personal identifiers shared with other agencies throughout the government. What this seeks to do is align that threshold with the threshold that exists in respect of the character test, which means that there is much greater consistency within the legislation. Schedule 2 also deals with decisions under sections 501BA and 501CA. These decisions are decisions of the minister which deal in essence with people who are serving an existing prison sentence and they deal with decisions—if I can put it in this way—down the review process or down the review line. The important point to make in respect of this bill in relation to those decisions is that it puts those decisions on exactly the same footing as ministerial decisions made in respect of people failing the character test under subsection 501(6) of the act. That does represent the original intent of the legislation that was passed last year and does provide a much greater degree of consistency throughout the legislation.

Part 1 of schedule 3 deals with the question of what information needs to be provided and what grounds need to be asserted by somebody who seeks to invoke Australia's protection obligations. Under the character test legislation that was moved last year and that we supported, there was a requirement that the grounds an applicant seeks to rely upon for their protection application need to be put up front. This amendment seeks to make that case in respect of applications which are also made on behalf of other persons. The most likely example of where that would occur is where applications are made on behalf of minors by others. Again, this brings the legislation into a much greater state of consistency and much greater compliance with the intent that was expressed, as this bill went through the parliament last year.

Part 2 of schedule 3 deals with decisions that are made under the new fast-track applications under the new Immigration Assessment Authority. This provides that decisions which are made where there is a refusal on certain character or security grounds are able to be reviewed by the AAT, and that is obviously a desirable thing to occur. It also makes clear that where there are visas which lie dormant behind an active visa that is being relied upon, where that active visa ceases to operate, this provides that the dormant visa also ceases to operate. Again, the likely scenario where that would occur is where there is a bridging visa which sits in the background; again, that is a sensible amendment to make in order to make the act much more consistent.

Finally, schedule 4 deals with the maritime powers that I was describing earlier. These amendments which passed the parliament last year, as I described, sought to provide a greater legal ballast in respect of the policies that the government seeks to implement at sea. Specifically, what this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that maritime powers are lawfully exercised when Australian vessels are operating within the full scope of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. To give you an example of that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker: if you can imagine an Australian vessel which is engaging in peaceful passage through the territorial waters of another country and is consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, what this amendment seeks to ensure is that acting in such a way any exercise of maritime powers that have been done throughout that part of the journey are maintained and are not contaminated, if you like, by virtue of the vessel having passed through the territorial waters of another country—provided that it is all been done in compliance with the Australia's international obligations and particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

All of these amendments, as you can tell from the explanation I have given, are quite detailed and technical. We do support them in this place and we do so consistently with the position is that we have taken here and the positions we have taken publicly. We would note that we have referred this legislation to a Senate inquiry, and that is the appropriate course to occur with a matter as detailed and technical as this. We obviously reserve our position in the Senate until we see the outcome of that Senate inquiry. We acknowledge that these are remedial amendments to primary legislation that we now support and, as a result, we support this bill in the House this evening.

See this speech in context