Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to commend the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 and the amendments therein. The amendments within the bill allow for the complete implementation of the significant amendments established through the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. The coalition government—this government—is intent on maintaining and ensuring the safety and security of Australia and its citizens now and into the future.

The changes within this bill ensure that the coalition government fulfils its mandate to protect the people entrusted to its care, whether they be first nation people, third-generation Australians or recent migrants and refugees. This government seeks to protect everyone in its immediate care. Our government, through the legislation we pass and the values we hold fast to, seek to affirm right and good character of all our citizens and those endeavouring to be citizens.

It is in the interest of us all to advocate for character within our society that reflects the values we stand for—values that are underpinned by the rule of law, the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of association, among many others that we hold dear in this country. Conversely, it is the role of our laws and justice systems to ensure that those who do not abide by our values can be dealt with accordingly.

In Australia we will always welcome people to our great country, but this requires that those whom we welcome do not just benefit from the rights that are afforded by Australia but also meet their obligations as Australian citizens. A principle central to the Australian project is the principle of mutual obligation. We may be conferred rights by our citizenship, but alongside those rights come responsibilities. We are given the right to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion—as the American founders called it, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'—but alongside that come responsibilities to uphold the rule of law and abide by those laws.

At the heart of the Australian project is a group of people living together, seeking to build a future that is based on prosperity, harmony and security. The character of nations is merely the reflection of the character of their constituent individuals. The Australian society reflects millions of individual lives and the private characters that are expressed through those lives, so it is important that we preserve this project through acts like this. As John Howard said in 2001, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' This migration amendment bill of 2016 is merely an extension of that principle so clearly articulated by the Prime Minister back then.

In the electorate of Canning, the people I represent care very much about preserving the Australian project. I have a lot of migrants in Canning. It was a pleasure to participate in a citizenship ceremony on Australia Day this year in Mandurah, which sits in the heart of Canning. We welcomed new citizens from all over the world: the continent of Africa, Asia, Europe and even from North America. My wife is in fact a migrant from North America. When she came to this country and took on citizenship she embraced both the rights and the responsibilities afforded to her by her citizenship. In Canning we care very much about preserving the fabric of our society. It is disheartening when we see examples like the one reported in the Mandurah Mail in 2014 of a resident on a protection visa who appeared in court for robbing a man outside an ATM. This was one of many crimes that he had committed. It turned out that he was convicted of the robbery. This happened before we made this amendment. I welcome this amendment because it allows the minister to exercise his responsibilities and ensure that people of bad character are not afforded citizenship. This bill will allow us to prevent men like this from entering our communities and creating unnecessary havoc. As some of my colleagues have already said, prevention is far better than cure. This measure allows the minister to prevent situations evolving where we have unsavoury characters ruining the dynamic in our community.

Furthermore, the mandatory character cancellation measure will strengthen our level of protection and allow us to identify where a person is suspected of being of concern. The minister's bill fulfils one of the election promises made by the coalition government prior to being elected in 2014. The bill demonstrates the government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a character risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. Some might ask: why weren't these changes made by the character act in December 2014? Due to the complexity of the Migration Act, several consequential amendments that should have been made to the Migration Act were not identified until after the character act commenced in December 2014.

There are two key amendments and I will outline them briefly. The first is that the new removal powers being introduced in this bill will put beyond doubt that noncitizens who do not seek revocation of a subsection 501(3A) cancellation decision in accordance with section 501CA of the Migration Act within the prescribed time frame, or whose request for revocation is refused, are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. Removals are currently being conducted under a different removal power, but this will put the matter beyond doubt. The second is that it will ensure that confidential information that is critical to decision-making under the mandatory cancellation provisions receive the same level of protection that is currently afforded to confidential information relating to the other character provisions. This is important during the revocation stage. The AFP may have information significant to the decision but which would be detrimental if it were made available to the person seeking revocation—for example, a man was convicted of a child sexual abuse case and served six months, but the AFP advised that he is being investigated for being part of child internet pornography ring. This provision allows law enforcement agencies like the AFP to conduct their investigations without compromising those investigations and still be able to revoke visas.

The mandatory cancellation provisions introduced in December 2014 have resulted in an initial spike of noncitizens having their visa cancelled and subsequently being placed in immigration detention. Noncitizens who have had their visa mandatorily cancelled are able to seek revocation of that decision. A noncitizen awaiting a revocation outcome may remain in immigration detention or leave Australia and await the outcome of their revocation request in their home country. If the revocation decision is favourable, that person would be able to return to Australia.

As someone once said, 'If a speech be good it need not be long; if a speech be bad it must not be long.' I argue that my speech and this bill are the former. They are good. Therefore I commend this bill. The government's clear and ongoing commitment is to ensure that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively, efficiently and comprehensively. I commend the bill to the House and thank you for your time.

See this speech in context