Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This ought to be a non-controversial bill. That it has become a matter of controversy between the parties really bears witness to the character of this government and, in particular, the responsible minister. The conduct of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, as outlined very effectively by the shadow minister in his contribution, has been disingenuous at best. At worst, he has been cavalier in respect of how Australians should see themselves and their role in the world; in particular, how all of us in this place manage our responsibilities as lawmakers who are conscious of the proper relationship between the legislature and the executive.

It is for those reasons that I rise to join my Labor colleagues in opposing one aspect of the legislation which is before us—a troubling aspect that does not appear to be, in the breadth within which it is set out, at all appropriate within the scheme of the bill. I think it is important that this parliament—this House and the other place—adopt the course foreshadowed by the shadow minister, the member for Blair, and seek to remove schedule 1 from this bill. That way we can proceed with the other important measures as expeditiously as possible. We can serve those purposes while we look, if it is appropriate, at the imposition of a revalidation regime that is appropriately targeted and provides appropriate safeguards for affected individuals and, indeed, a harmonious community and a decent society.

It was a particular pleasure to be in the chamber for the contribution of the shadow minister, who very effectively set out Labor's concerns with this legislation. His contribution made clear that the provisions in schedule 1 raise very serious questions of rights and the relationship between the legislature and the executive. These are matters which must be of concern to all of us who have a say in the making of laws.

At a more practical level, the regime that is proposed in schedule 1 raises some pretty significant questions that we should be interrogating. We have not had the opportunity to interrogate properly questions of scope and purpose, which you would think would come from a considered minister and a considered government before parliament was presented with a regime such as this to debate. We do not have any sense of the purpose of such a wide-ranging regime which interferes with the categories of rights of many people without any form of effective safeguard. This is despite the fact that these concerns, in various terms, have been raised by very significant stakeholders and in a series of inquiries into this bill.

There are very significant consequences which attach to the provisions in schedule 1. The regime which is proposed, in my view, does some violence to the whole scheme of the act and how visa holders are to be treated—that is, as individuals and not by reason of some class they are said to be a part of by a minister at a particular point in time and for no particular reason. Obviously, this also does violence to other regimes that are cornerstones not just of Australian law but of how we see ourselves as Australians. I think most particularly of the Racial Discrimination Act. These are very significant matters which go beyond the impact of directly impacted individuals. So the course of action proposed by the shadow minister is critically important in a wider sense. It goes to how we treat people and how we think people ought to be treated.

Of course, this debate today does not take place in a vacuum. All of us who sit here do so with an understanding of the impact of executive decisions elsewhere, in the United States, on people—not by reason of their circumstance or entitlement but by reason of where they are from or the faith they profess. We cannot ignore that. It is of course shameful that Australia formally has not been clearer in articulating its opposition to the decision-making of the President of the United States in that regard.

The bill that is before us should not be about affecting a radical change to how we manage the rights of visa holders generally. If the minister were serious about the wider objects of the bill then he would take the entreaties of the shadow minister and the opposition seriously and enter into a conversation about purpose and, beyond that, about safeguards. That he has not done so is disappointing to say the very least. It is particularly disappointing—and I mentioned earlier that his contribution was disingenuous at best—when you have regard to his second reading speech and, indeed, the explanatory memorandum. Neither averts to the prospect that this revalidation regime might extend beyond the visa category that is ostensibly the subject of the bill before us. What Labor is saying today is that all of us in this place should do our jobs properly. We should do our duty as lawmakers to get this right. That requires a proper look at schedule 1 informed by purpose.

In the remainder of the time I will touch first upon the elements of the bill that Labor is strongly supportive of. Indeed, some elements have been Labor policy for quite some time. I will then touch briefly on some process issues which are significant, having regard to the passage of this piece of legislation, and then echo and hopefully reinforce the comments of the shadow minister in terms of the substantive concerns that arise should schedule 1 be enacted into law.

The second reading does set out some important objectives in this legislation. These are shared objectives: promoting Australia as an attractive destination for visitors; recognising—as all of us in this place do—the critical contribution of tourism to the Australian economy and all of our aspirations that it can make a greater contribution to our economy in the future; and facilitating ever more effective use of technology in managing the experience of visitors entering Australia, having regard to having appropriate safeguards in place. I am firmly of the view—as are my colleagues, I am sure—that the 10-year visitor visa is a good idea. I note that such visas have been issued for some months now. I am convinced that this regime will deliver efficiencies and, with that, significant economic benefits. Similarly, through the provisions in the bill, the streamlining that will be facilitated through improvements in the form of contactless smart gates will enable more effective use of technology to get that balance right between the convenience of visitors and our clear interest in questions of national safety and wider issues around how people come and go into Australia. I urge the government to take up the proposal of the shadow minister to enable the swift passage of these elements of the bill, the elements which are said to be the driving force behind the introduction of this legislation.

Questions of process do need to be considered here because, while consideration by committees has, at face value, supported the passage of the legislation, there are a number of very significant caveats which do need to be raised. Firstly, the three committees have all pointed to the need for safeguards to be improved. In my view, the committees which have considered the legislation have not had an appropriate time to canvass the very significant issues in schedule 1. I note the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee had a very short inquiry time and, as I understand it, no formal hearings. Only six submissions were received, and a number of organisations have advised me that they would have liked to have made submissions to the inquiry recognising the significance of the issues in schedule 1. Nonetheless, very significant concerns were raised, in particular the question of the absence of a disallowance mechanism or other meaningful oversight or safeguard. These concerns have not been addressed.

Similarly, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee of the Senate raised concerns, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights raised very serious concerns, as articulated by the shadow minister, and in particular squarely raised the issue of why there is no limit in the legislation to clarify the revalidation process for the 10-year visas or other appropriate visa categories. No meaningful response has been received to this or to any other questions going to purpose or to safeguards. These are very significant matters that require proper investigation.

On the substance of the bill, I note—and the very helpful Bills Digest has directed my attention thus—that a regime of the type which is proposed in schedule 1 is very unusual. It suggests that the United States is the only jurisdiction which presently has or is moving towards such a regime. But, even there, the regime is qualified and informed by a sense of the purpose to which such a regime ought to be directed—which is, of course, the principal failing in the piece of legislation before us here. Having regard, in particular, to the uncomfortable way in which a class-based regime sits with the Migration Act as it stands today and, I would also submit, to the Australian values of being open to non-discriminatory migration, this novelty, of itself, warrants very careful consideration and very careful scrutiny being applied to this sort of provision.

I urge members to consider the contribution of the Kaldor Centre in their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. They point out that 'the definition of a revalidation check is extremely wide' and that the issue around the provision of adverse information raises particular concerns, given the failure to define that term. The examples set out in the explanatory memorandum offer very little comfort in this regard. The Kaldor Centre say:

In effect, the proposed provisions enable the government to impose surveillance measures on temporary, and possibly, permanent visa holders. It undermines the long-standing rationale and stability of Australia's migration system, which is premised on the notion that once a person has been issued a visa, he or she is entitled to have that visa be in effect until the visa period expires—

subject to proper grounds for cancellation on the merits of the individual case, not a discriminatory approach based on a class to which that person is said to belong. They go on to note:

The revalidation framework has the potential to adversely affect refugees.

This, of course, goes to the international obligations we have entered into. These are issues which are avoided by the government but require proper consideration in this place before any regime of this type is to be considered.

The questions that go to the wider powers of the minister, similarly, are deeply troubling—they are deeply troubling in any case but particularly for this minister at this point in time. The notion of such a broad executive power to characterise classes of people by reason of where they are from or their faith is deeply offensive to me. It is also fundamentally unnecessary to the purposes which are said to be achieved by this legislation. This parliament should remove schedule 1 from the bill, get on with those things which are great for the Australian economy and take a very hard look at how we characterise people, reaffirming our support for a genuinely non-discriminatory immigration policy which has served Australia so well. (Time expired)

See this speech in context