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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Albanese government is committed to strengthening Australia's migration system, making it better, stronger and fairer and ensuring it is working in Australia's national interest.

The Migration Amendment (Removals and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will provide the government with necessary tools to strengthen our immigration compliance framework, including to better manage immigration detention.

A better, stronger and fairer approach

This legislation has three components, it will:

1) Include an express statement of parliament's intent in the Migration Act 1958 that

2) Make it a crime for individuals to not cooperate with the department on removal efforts where they have been given a direction to do something, with a penalty ranging from one to five years imprisonment.

3) Give the minister for immigration a new power to designate a country as a removal concern country where that country refuses to accept returns of their own citizens. This designation will prevent most nationals of that country who are outside Australia from making new Australian visa applications while that designation remains in force.

There are currently noncitizens in Australia who have exhausted all visa pathways to stay in Australia, who have been found not to be owed protection, but who refuse to engage with their home county to undertake actions like applying for a passport or attending meetings with officials from that country.

Unfortunately, examples of noncooperation with the government's removals efforts have been going on for far too long, against the expectations of the Australian community and undermining the integrity of our migration laws.

The government is determined to address this issue and to ensure this key aspect of our immigration system is better, stronger and fairer.

Put simply, we need these important tools to strengthen our migration system.

E xpress parliamentary intention

The bill sets clear legislative expectations in relation to the behaviour of noncitizens who are on a removal pathway into the Migration Act 1958.

As amended, the act will make it clear that a noncitizen who is on a removal pathway is expected to voluntarily leave Australia and must cooperate with steps taken to arrange their lawful removal from Australia.

When this legislation is enacted, it will make clear that the parliament expects foreign countries to cooperate with Australia to facilitate the lawful removal of their citizens from Australia.

D uty to cooperate with removal

The bill also provides the minister with a power to direct certain noncitizens who are on a removal pathway to cooperate with removal efforts.

Individuals considered 'removal pathway noncitizens' include:

This bill responds to circumstances where noncitizens are deliberately and unreasonably impeding or frustrating removal efforts.

It provides an ability for the minister to give directions to certain noncitizens who are on a removal pathway to cooperate with and facilitate efforts to arrange and effect their lawful removal from Australia.

This may include, for example, directing the noncitizen to complete, sign and submit an application for a passport or other foreign travel document to facilitate their removal from Australia.

The bill also provides a power for the minister to give a removal pathway noncitizen a direction to do other things the minister is satisfied are reasonably necessary to determine whether there is a real prospect of removing the noncitizen becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, or to facilitate their lawful removal from Australia.

The removal pathway direction provides a positive duty on the noncitizen to cooperate with removal efforts.

This will be supported by mandatory criminal penalties for those found guilty of an offence of failing to comply with the direction.

A failure to comply with a direction, without a reasonable excuse, will be a criminal offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and a maximum available sentence of five years' imprisonment.

I want to reiterate, these amendments are targeted at noncitizens who have come to the end of any visa application processes and who are on a removal pathway.

These individuals may be unlawful noncitizens who have exhausted their visa processing options and who are being held in immigration detention.

Or they may be in the community on a bridging visa that is issued for removal purposes.

It is imperative that individuals who are on a removal pathway cannot be allowed to frustrate the government and the Australian people by refusing to cooperate with their removal from Australia.

Appropriate s afeguards

Importantly, this bill also contains appropriate safeguards in relation to the exercise of this power.

The amendments provide for certain circumstances in which the minister must not give a direction, including:

D esignation of a 'removal concern country'

A further significant measure in the bill is a new personal power for the minister to designate a country as a country of removal concern, where the minister determines it is in the national interest to do so.

A foreign country should cooperate with Australia to facilitate the lawful removal of a noncitizen who is a national of that country.

This amendment is necessary because, regrettably, some countries will not allow their nationals to return to their home country.

This is unless the person being removed is voluntarily cooperating with removal efforts.

The main objective of this designation is to gain the cooperation of that country in accepting and facilitating the removal from Australia of their citizens.

The power to designate a country of removal concern is an appropriate and proportionate measure to safeguard the integrity of Australia's migration system.

Designating a country as a removal concern country will have the effect of preventing new visa applications by most nationals of the designated country who are outside Australia, while the designation remains in force.

That is until satisfactory arrangements can be established between Australia and that other country to cooperate in relation to removal efforts.

It is recognised that there would be sensitive matters of bilateral concern needing to be considered before designation of a removal country of concern.

This is why the legislation provides that the minister must consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs prior to making such a designation.

There are appropriate exemptions in place to continue to allow visa applications from close family relatives of Australian citizens and eligible permanent residents.

The minister will also have a power to exempt certain classes of people or some classes of visa to, for example, continue to respect any international obligations that Australia may have under trade or other multilateral arrangements in relation to that country.

The designation of a country of removal concern will also not affect dual nationals who hold a valid passport from a country that is not a removal concern country.

It's important to note that the United States has a similar system in place to suspend visa grants for what they refer to as 'recalcitrant countries'.

And in 2022 the UK also legislated for a similar scheme, which allows the Home Secretary to suspend or delay visa processing from countries which do not cooperate with removal of their citizens from the UK, or deem visa applications from these countries as invalid.

So what we are proposing is in line with similar countries around the world.

Bridging visa scheme

Finally, this bill contains amendments to allow for the improved administration of the bridging (removal pending) visa scheme established to manage the NZYQ-affected noncitizens.

This includes amendments to clarify that a new BVR may be granted without application at any time to a current BVR holder—for example, where it may be appropriate to adjust the imposition of certain visa conditions to respond to a change in the level of risk the visa holder presents to the community.

The bill also includes amendments to enable the minister to revisit a protection finding in certain circumstances, where a noncitizen who holds a visa—such as a BVR—is on a removal pathway.

At present, it is only possible to revisit a protection finding under the act for an unlawful noncitizen.

Following the High Court's decision in NZYQ, we now face circumstances in which this power needs to be expanded to certain noncitizens who hold a visa—particularly BVR holders.

Without this amendment, the act would not provide a means to revisit a protection finding while a removal pathway noncitizen is in the community on a visa.

If the government is to ensure that BVR holders and other noncitizens on a removal pathway are able to be removed as soon as it becomes reasonably practicable to do so, it is essential the minister has the ability to revisit protection findings.

This legislation sends a strong signal about the government's expectations of cooperation with removal efforts, by noncitizens who are on a removal pathway, and by other countries where it's appropriate for them to accept their nationals on removal from Australia.

The government and the Australian people expect that individuals subject to removal under the Migration Act will cooperate with removal.

In conclusion, this bill gives the Australian government important new tools to make our migration system better, stronger and fairer for years to come.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour.

See this speech in context