James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

S () (): I rise to speak in favour of the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023. As my colleague the member for Riverina has just canvassed, this fairly narrow piece of legislation is in response to the Federal Court full bench Pearson decision, which has—obviously without reflecting on the decision—given rise to a circumstance where people that we believed under the intention of our legislation should have been captured are not. Of course it is the right of the Federal Court to make that determination. It is our right as a legislature to, therefore, clarify the statute so that that issue of interpretation is addressed. If this bill passes this House and the parliament, it will see the intention of the principle re-clarified in legislation so that precedent through that decision no longer stands. There is retrospectivity around that as well.

I was just becoming fairly politically aware at the time of the very iconic statement that former prime minister John Howard made during the 2001 election—'We should decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' I remember that that became a very significant factor in the 2001 federal election. It was a very significant contributor to the result in that election, which was of course the resounding re-election of the Howard government, because the people of this country have always expected that the federal government properly controls the flow of people into our nation and that it is a decision of Australians. The government of Australia have a right to determine how people who are not citizens of this country enter this country and leave this country. When we do grant them permission to come we can of course remove that permission in certain circumstances.

Obviously there has always been a fair degree of consensus that there is a certain character threshold that will be applied and enforced upon people who seek any form of visa to enter this country, because it is granted with the permission of this government—and it is up to our government to decide whether or not to do so. It has always been a principle that we would apply certain standards to people who seek a visa or have successfully been given a visa and that we need to have a proper regime in place so that where, firstly, they're applying for that visa and, secondly, once they have had that visa granted that application can be rejected or the visa can be retracted, disallowed or revoked if they fail that test. Clearly it makes sense for the relevant minister to be delegated that power within a certain framework that is provided legislatively. So we're dealing here with that amendment.

We in the coalition are a little disappointed that the opportunity has been missed to do more than just this very narrow adjustment to the legislation. In the previous parliament we had attempted to dramatically strengthen elements of the character test and strengthen the threshold, that we have put in place, that determines whether or not someone is a fit and proper person to be granted a visa to enter this country.

That's something that is very important, because the standards that we put in place there are, firstly, to ensure the safety of the Australian community and also send a very clear message as to the types of people who are welcome to come to our nation. People who have been convicted of certain criminal offences are not welcome to come to this country, both because they pose a risk to Australian citizens and because people who engage in that sort of behaviour are not welcome to come and enjoy any time or future in this country of ours. That is, absolutely, an important requirement of our government—to put that threshold in place and back it and defend it.

There are opportunities to do a lot more than what is in this bill. The bill that we introduced in the last parliament and that passed this House and didn't pass the Senate, come the calling of the election, has exactly the sorts of measures that we would like to see the government—who voted for it, when they were in opposition, in the last parliament—put into place. It's ready to go. It, literally, is written legislation that has already passed this parliament with the support of both sides, government and opposition.

I commend my colleague the member for Wannon who introduced his own private member's legislation today, because the government's had almost a year since the election. It's been nine months, and there have been plenty of opportunities to put in place, reintroduce, a very straightforward piece of legislation, that the now government themselves supported in the previous parliament, to strengthen the character test that is in place for people applying for or granted visas.

We know full well there are many examples that have been pointed to. Former Minister Hawke, when he had carriage of this area of policy, cited many examples in this chamber and publicly as to where a higher standard needed to be put in place in the character test. We know that the ministers are certainly bound, as they should be, by the framework that is put in place in legislation, which is the very reason we're here right now dealing with this very narrow change. A court has held that the power for the minister did not apply, in the case of Pearson, with these accumulated sentences, and we are therefore making a change.

It reinforces that ministers, quite properly, do have very clear boundaries in place with how they can exercise their decision-making. We know how regularly decisions of the immigration minister are appealed and how regularly they go through all the various appropriate processes, that people have access to, to query and question and seek to overturn a ministerial decision. That's why they need a more robust framework in the character test. There are some people who do not come within the current boundaries of the legislation, for a minister to make that decision, who we think should be refused a visa or have their visa revoked.

These are people who have been convicted of serious criminal offences, very serious areas of the Criminal Code, including sexual violence, sexual assault and a whole range of things that any reasonable person in the street would say, 'Yes, that person should not be granted a visa to come to our nation, into our country.' The reality is that, unless we change the legislation, the minister will not be able to exercise their power to prevent those people from coming into this country or to send them away from our country if they happen to already be here.

The member for Wannon's private member's bill addresses that. It is very disappointing that we have not seen the government—in this bill, here, which responds to one narrow issue relating to a Federal Court decision—take the opportunity to properly deal with a whole range of sensible reforms to the character test within the legislation. So we would wonder and we would cast aspersions as to why a piece of legislation that the now government voted for in opposition has simply lapsed. I have spoken in this chamber on so many bills that lapsed in the last parliament that the government has reintroduced and has been moving through. This is legislation from the previous parliament that the government indeed supported in opposition. So there is no reason why on something as significant as protecting the people of this country from dangerous convicted criminals who under those legislative changes would be in a position for the minister to take appropriate action on we haven't dealt with it yet. We have gotten to the point where, today, we had to take the initiative through a private member's bill process to try and put in place changes that the government themselves agreed to in the last parliament. So that is very disappointing.

We are, of course, going to support this bill. We look forward to its speedy passage because it does correct a decision. We would like to see the ministerial power be clarified and we want the minister to be able to take the action the minister took in the case of the Pearson matter. That had ramifications for, I think, dozens if not maybe more than 100 people that similarly had been captured in that decision as not being able to have a ministerial determination against them.

But we also say with a great deal of disappointment that it is a shame that further important reforms to the character test that already passed this House in the last parliament have not been reintroduced and we haven't gone through the process of correcting the legislation because of a court decision or, equally, gone to the extent of making all of the various other changes. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context