Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I note the amendment that the member for Goldstein has put forward and the significant contributions of the member for North Sydney and the member for Indi, but I let them and the House know that we won't be supporting this amendment. The Albanese government is, through this bill, taking a commonsense approach to this question of visa cancellation.

In terms of the amendment, I draw the attention of members to the recently signed Ministerial Direction No. 99, which sets out the principles that departmental decision-makers should consider when deciding whether to refuse or to cancel a noncitizen's visa or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation. This direction states that Australia's non-refoulement obligations, where a protection finding has been made in respect of an individual, should be considered when a decision-maker is considering refusing or cancelling a visa under section 501 or considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. Australia does not return individuals to situations where they face persecution or a real risk of torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary deprivation of life, or the application of the death penalty. This government takes our non-refoulement obligations seriously, and so do I.

So I say to you, Member for Goldstein, and to others who have expressed this concern to me—those from this place and the other place, and I refer particularly to Senator Pocock: I would be very happy to engage with you, separately to the issues contained in this bill, on how Australia can meet our international obligations whilst ensuring that we maintain the safety of the community at all times. However, I say again: this bill doesn't change the framework within which the character test operates.

And I say again, as I said to the shadow minister—and I acknowledge his contribution, since I don't have the opportunity I ordinarily would have to acknowledge the contribution of all members to this debate—that what we are here today to do is to clarify the powers in the Migration Act, not to debate the visa cancellation framework more broadly, important though this debate is to everyone in this place and to the wider community. I want to make clear my willingness again to engage with all members and senators who are prepared to come together in good faith to ensure our character cancellation regime is fit for purpose. However, I am not placed to support the amendment the member for Goldstein has put forward.

See this speech in context