Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I take the member for North Sydney's comments to be in large part an endorsement of the approach that the government has taken, which is that the ART bill standardises timeframes for a majority of decisions under the Migration Act. When I stood before to speak to the member for North Sydney's second reading amendment, I explained overall the way in which this works, which is that we have legislation before the parliament which standardises timeframes for the majority of decisions under the Migration Act to the standard ART timeframes for making an application for review, which cannot be less than 28 days.

But there are two exceptions, and I will come to them in a minute. Perhaps this is a reflection of the complexity of government decision-making, but there are reasons for the exceptions, and it is for that reason that the government cannot support these particular proposed amendments. I will endeavour to explain why. The two exceptions are first where a person is in immigration detention, for which the timeframe is seven days. So we're taking the opportunity to increase what was formerly two days for some applications—a pretty short time—to seven days. The other exception is where a person's visa has been cancelled on character grounds: the timeframe for that is to be nine days.

In the government's view is not feasible to remove these exceptions. They are required to minimise the amount of time that a person spends in detention and to maintain the overall integrity of Australia's migration system. All that is required within the seven-day window is that the application is made. The requirements for doing so are minimal and the applicant does not need to submit additional documentation until the proceeding is underway. So we have a very special form of administrative decision that is dealt with in these two exceptions. It's decisions relating to immigration detention. We've got a government approach that is, very directly, that the amount of time that a person spends in immigration detention should be reduced, should be minimised. So there would be a problem in applying the standard ART time frames, for making an application for review not less than 28 days, to the immigration detention setting. We've got much shorter time frames, which are required to minimise the amount of time that a person spends in detention. I would hope that reason for having special provisions for immigration detention review matters is understood.

As to extensions of time, which would be the other effect of the amendment that the member for North Sydney is moving, the immigration system does rest on having certainty as to a person's visa status at all times. In order to provide an opportunity for visa applicants to seek a review of a decision, applicants are provided with a bridging visa that expires a short time after the time frame for making an application for review comes to an end. If the tribunal were able to grant an extension of time for making an application for review of these decisions, it wouldn't be possible to determine the end of the application period. That would be incompatible with how the migration system works.

We're here recognising that the migration system is a specialised and quite distinct part of Australian government decision-making. We have tried to, at the same time, as far as possible, standardise all of the review processes for all of the myriad decisions that the Administrative Review Tribunal will look at. There needs to be a recognition that, for a small number of administrative decisions, particularly some decisions under the Migration Act, we need to make special provisions, which is what we're doing. It should not be looked at through the frame of discriminating against some people because they are not Australian citizens. It needs to be looked at through the frame of having a migration system that works. As I've said, if it were possible for the— (Time expired)

See this speech in context