Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015 in continuation from what is now, I think, a couple of months ago. Here is an interesting story about passports. My wife's grandfather—I think the correct term would be grandfather-in-law—came to Australia as a young man after the First World War. He is now deceased. He was originally from England. When he was in his mid-80s his son, my father-in-law, who is also now deceased, decided it would be a good idea to take him back to England to visit the homeland where he was born. They decided to go through the process of trying to get him a passport.

So they went to the passport office to make the normal applications. Having lived here for 65 years since he was 20, having worked and paid his taxes and having been on the electoral roll all those years, when he went to get a passport they could not actually find any record of him entering Australia. They said to him, 'How did you get to Australia in the first place?' He said, 'After the war, I came in on a ship. The ship arrived in Circular Quay, I walked down the gangplank, there was no-one there and I just went on my way.' So he entered Australia just after the First World War without a passport or any documentation and lived his life most successfully here in Australia for, as I said, over 65 years.

But times have changed. We need to ensure the integrity of the close to 12 million passports issued here in Australia. We need to have integrity and security around these documents, and that is what this bill does. Unfortunately, in today's world we have people who wish to harm us and our nation. If we are going to continue to allow the freedom of movement that we do between countries, with the quick and easy movement of people through airports and through customs, we need a passport system that has all the mechanisms in place where passports are issued and maintained to ensure their integrity.

Another thing I would like to discuss on the subject of passports is the increase in the number of Australians who have passports and are using them. If we go back to the year 1976, the first year that the Australian Bureau of Statistics took statistics of the number of Australians making overseas trips, there were 656,000 overseas trips made by Australians. In the last 12 months, that number has increased, from just over half a million, to 9,236,700. So, even if we account for the larger population, an Australian today is eight times more likely to need a passport and to make an overseas trip. I think that is a truly remarkable figure. If we want to provide opportunity to Australians, today you have eight times more opportunity to travel overseas than you did in 1976. I was looking online only a few weeks ago, and today you can fly to Singapore—admittedly from the Gold Coast—for $275. International air travel has never been more affordable, I would suggest, at any time in human history. That gives many more Australians the opportunity to travel and see the world. I believe this is a very, very good thing.

If we look at the change in business travel patterns, our ABS figures measure numbers of people who travel overseas from Australia for either business or conferences. In 1991, the first year the figures were available, there were 328,000 trips made by Australians overseas for either business or a convention purpose. In the last 12 months, that number was 1,122,900. So, since 1991, 3½ more times Australian citizens are travelling overseas for business and conferences—again, a remarkable figure. The number of foreign businessmen travelling to Australia has also increased remarkably. In 1991, 264,600 foreign businesspeople arrived in Australia for either business purposes or a convention. In the last 12 months, that number was 832,500. Since 1991, that is a 214 per cent increase in the number of businesspeople travelling into the country.

What does the future hold for the demand for passports? One thing that is going to drive this economy and drive the demand for international travel is the growth of China. We know that in the last 12 months the Chinese economy expanded by $876 billion. That is the growth, more than twice the GDP of Australia, in the last 12 months. If we as a country are going to provide the opportunities for jobs, for travel and for wealth creation for future Australians, we have an obligation to make sure that our people can tap into that Chinese growth. That is, thankfully, what the free trade agreement that we are in the process of finalising with China will do. We see that total direct trade with China now contributes 5.5 per cent to Australian GDP. In fact, one in 58 Australian workplaces is directly involved with exports to China. We look at the enormous growth in our exports. Many people walk around Australia and it is a common thing for people to think that everything is made in China, from clothing to computers to footwear. We bought $50 billion of imports from China in the last year. However, although we have imported an amazing amount, $50 billion worth, of goods and services, we have actually exported twice as much. We Australians export twice as much to China as we import. In the last 12 months, $100 billion of goods and services were exported from Australia to China. We see, in a paper by the Australian National Bank and the Australian Business Council, the growth in the number of jobs that that has created. I will give some of the numbers. In 2004, 60,000 Australian jobs were directly due to exports to China. In 2011, the last year figures are available for, that number was 194,000. That number now would be well over 200,000 jobs.

It cannot be more simple. The free trade agreement that we have signed with China, as all the economic modelling shows, will create more jobs, create higher wages and create more wealth and more opportunity to this country. It is simple, as it has always been. Trade means jobs, and freer trade means more jobs. Unfortunately we have seen in this country—and it is currently continuing—the most disgraceful, xenophobic, union-led campaign. It is a campaign that has known economic vandalism and is verging on treason against this free trade agreement.

We note the costs of delays with the Labor Party sponsoring this union-led campaign. There are risks and I will provide some of the numbers. The National Farmers Federation says that, if it is delayed beyond one year, the cost to rural communities will be $300 million. The red meat industry stands to lose $100 million. The dairy industry will have an $80 million loss. The wine industry will lose $50 million. The grain industry will lose $43 million. The coal industry—and I note the member for Hunter, who represents a large area of the coal industry, is here —

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will resume his seat. I give the call to the member for Hunter.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly am, Mr Deputy Speaker, a very strong supporter of the coalmining industry. I have been very patient, as have you—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance. Obviously we are on a passports bill, and the member has spoken about nothing else but free trade agreements.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your point of order has been heard. I ask the member to return to his seat. I would ask the member, who only has a minute and a half left, to move back to the principles of the bill.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will abide by your words. The demand for passports—and that is what this bill is about—specifically relates to our relationships with overseas countries. If we open up and give our people the opportunity to take advantage of the growing Chinese economy, there will be greater demand for passports. Therefore, this is exactly relevant.

I know the member for Hunter, who represents a coal area, would be interested to know that a delay in this free trade agreement would cost $4.6 million a year. I know the member for Hunter might be embarrassed about it.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask the member to return to his seat. This better not be a point of order on relevance. We have already dealt with that. I give the call to the member for Hunter.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, did you say, 'It had better not be'? Is that what you just told me?

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said that it had better not be about relevance. We have already dealt with that.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the member is defying your instructions to return to the point of the debate.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. I believe the member has adjusted his speech quite appropriately. I give the call to the member for Hughes.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know it is a great embarrassment to the member for Hunter. I would hope that he would at least show some leadership on his side of the House and condemn this CFMEU-led union campaign, this xenophobic campaign, that actually is treasonous to our nation. (Time expired)

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak to the point of this topic and to the bill that is being debated before the parliament at the moment, the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015, and offer that Labor and I support the passage of this bill. The bill comes about as a result of a review of Australian passports legislation, and it amends the Australian Passports Act 2005, the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security Act) 2005 and makes some minor consequential amendments to a number of other acts. It also repeals the Australian Passports (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2005.

Labor, of course, welcome legislation that strengthens and improves the integrity of our passports and visas system, and we believe that this bill does that. Labor, in government, made a number of changes to the passport system including the introduction of the N Series of passports which feature the additional forward countermeasures of the ghost image, a retro reflective floating image and images of Australia printed throughout the document, which made every passport page and every visa page unique. This resulted in a passport which was very difficult to falsify through page substitution or through tampering.

We are all aware of the fact that, in recent times, people have been attempting to tamper with passports, and have been attempting, through some very sophisticated measures, to tamper with and, indeed, counterfeit passports. There have been quite highly sophisticated and well documented cases of this occurring. Even highly sophisticated documentation and safeguards will not stop brazen fraudsters from attempting to tamper with these documents. On 18 May of this year the Herald Sun reported that, in the past three financial years, 65 Australian passports had been suspected of being forged or tampered with and 114,000 passports had been reported as lost or stolen.

On occasion a person reports a passport lost or stolen so that it will be cancelled in order to intentionally disrupt the travel of another person. There are people who attempt to manipulate the travel document and passport system in the country so as to disrupt the travel plans of another person. Unfortunately this is most often the case of separated parents where one parent is attempting to travel overseas, in particular to take a child of the relationship overseas, and the other parent seeks to disrupt those legitimate travel plans. That is something that will be dealt with by these reforms. It is a sad fact of the system and a sad fact of circumstances when parents try to manipulate the system for their own personal gain. Under this legislation and under this amendment, which came about as a result of a review of the operation of passports and travel documents, this was one of the issues that was raised in that review. Under this amendment, making a false or misleading statement in respect of a travel document or a passport will be an offence if the statement is made on or about an Australian travel document or an application for an Australian travel document.

Another 24 passports in the last three years were alleged to have been used by people attempting to impersonate the identity of a genuine passport holder. In circumstances that we are currently witnessing throughout the world, particularly in respect of the rise of Daesh in the Middle East and individuals seeking, for reasons unknown to me, to travel to the Middle East and participate in some of the activities of Daesh, we have seen cases of not only Australians but also other nationals throughout the world attempting to use either counterfeited or fraudulent documents, or indeed to impersonate others, in order to leave the country for those purposes of travelling to the Middle East to be involved in fighting or at least to be involved in the activities of Daesh.

We saw a dangerous example of this just last year, when Ahmad Saiyer Naizmand left Australia on his brother's passport after his own passport had been cancelled for security reasons. Here we saw someone who this legislation is specifically aimed at attempting to stop leaving the country. It is a sad case, because we all know that that person did go on to the Middle East to attempt to work with Daesh and become involved in so-called foreign fighting. This individual used his brother's passport. His had been cancelled some months earlier, for good reason, it now appears. He was exactly the person police and security authorities were attempting to target as someone who may be susceptible to these sorts of activities and may seek to leave the country for these activities; yet he got around the system. He did that by using his brother's passport and basically faking his identity.

These reforms are aimed at ensuring that that cannot occur. That is why they have the wholehearted support of myself and the Labor Party. The integrity of our passports is crucial for individual Australians who rely on them for safe travel and as an important means of verifying their identity. In these days of heightened security concerns and increasingly sophisticated international criminal syndicates, Australia's passport security is paramount. I have mentioned some of the cases of counterfeiting and tampering with documents and also attempting to imitate others.

This bill does a number of other things. One of them is that it aligns the definition of parental responsibility more closely with that of the Family Law Act to provide more certainty surrounding the issue of who is required to consent to a child's passport or travel document. This goes to the issue that I mentioned earlier in my remarks about parents attempting to manipulate the system by attempting to stop or tamper with the efforts of others to travel overseas with children. It came about as a result of a review of the operation of these provisions.

As a result of these reforms and this bill, the following persons are required to consent to a child having a passport: firstly, parents who have not had their parental responsibility removed by a court; persons who, under a court order, have parental responsibility or with whom the child is to live; and persons with guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for the child under an Australian law. Persons or individuals who have a court order to spend time with or enable access to a child, but who do not have parental responsibility, will no longer be required to consent to a child having a passport. Again, this came about as a result of the review and is attempting to deal with those cases of people with 'spend time with' orders or 'access to' orders attempting to disrupt the travel plans of those who may seek to leave the country with a child.

It is also important to note that these amendments do not remove the requirement contained in the Family Law Act for a person taking a child overseas to seek the consent in writing of all persons in whose favour a court order is made in relation to the child or all other parties to proceedings for the making of a parenting order in relation to the child. That aspect of the operation of the law in respect of consent by parents regarding the travel of children overseas will remain the same.

The bill bolsters Australia's strong passport security protocols and it also ensures that the minister retains power to issue travel-related documents and specifies the circumstances in which a document can be issued. The explanatory memorandum goes through those circumstances in which the minister may issue a travel document. The power to issue the travel document is still retained by the minister, but the bill expands the circumstances in which that travel document can be issued. Those circumstances are the lawful extradition of a person to or from Australia; the lawful deportation or removal of a person to or from Australia; and the lawful prisoner transfer of a person to or from Australia. This reform is meant to deal with circumstances in which a person may be under an extradition order with a country with which Australia has an extradition treaty. The person may be subject to a deportation order because of a criminal conviction or the like, but that person refuses to sign for or make an application for a travel document. Currently, the power for the minister to issue that travel document, to ensure that the transfer occurs, is somewhat limited. This amendment will deal with that, granting the minister, in those circumstances, the power to issue those travel related documents.

Importantly, all of the powers of the minister are merits reviewable, principally by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. An important element of an administrative review of executive decision, with respect of the cancellation of a passport or travel document or the issuing of a travel document in circumstances to facilitate an extradition or transfer, will be reviewable by the courts.

In summation, these reforms come about as a review of the operation of the Passports Act. We believe they strengthen the integrity and operation of the issuing of passports and travel documents. They do not affect the operation of the family-law provisions, in respect of parental consent, but they do bolster circumstances in which the minister can cancel or review a travel document and order or issue travel documents for the deportation or extradition of Australians to or from Australia. On that basis, we believe that they strengthen our security protocols and ensure that our system of operation of passports and travel documents is strengthened. On that basis I commend the bill to the House.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak briefly on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015 and, in so doing, endorse and echo the comments made by the member for Kingsford Smith and thank him for his support. This bill is the result of a standard 10-year review of Australian passports legislation. Passport technology has progressed since the Australian Passports Act was enacted in 2005. E-passports are now common, with an embedded chip storing basic personal information, such as a passport holder's name, sex, date of birth, nationality, passport number and passport expiry date. They also store a digital photograph of the passport holder's face.

The introduction of ePassports has made Australian passports among the most difficult in the world to counterfeit. In addition to ePassports, automated SmartGate border checks have been introduced at most international airports, in Australia, that utilise the information contained in ePassports to facilitate faster and more efficient border processing.

With the passage of time and changing technology, amendments contained in the bill are evolutionary—not revolutionary—and seek to update and clarify existing legislation. Broadly, and in addition to minor amendments, to the bill makes amendments in respect of four areas. Firstly, it will provide that a travel document may be issued to a person on the minister's own initiative in certain circumstances. Secondly, it will align the definition of parental responsibility more closely to that of the Family Law Act. Thirdly, it will provide that the minister may refuse to process a passport, on reasonable suspicion of fraud. Finally, it will clarify and extend offence categories relating to fraudulent conduct, in respect of Australian travel documents.

The first set of amendments addresses a scenario in which a person is to be deported from Australia, extradited to Australia or subject to an international prison transfer. Currently, an individual must consent to the issue of an Australian travel document, and there is an unclear legal basis for the government to issue a travel document on an individual's behalf without their consent. Consequently, it is possible for Australian citizens subject to such orders to delay proceedings, which places Australia in breach of its obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organization's Convention on International Civil Aviation. The amendments contained in this bill allow, in these limited circumstances, for the minister to issue travel documents on behalf of an individual. This will allow Australia to meet its international obligations and will reduce procedural delay.

The second set of amendments relate to consent in the issuing of passports to children. This can be a complex matter in circumstances of family break-ups and divorce. Under existing laws, parents who do not have parental responsibility under the Family Law Act but who do have a court order to spend time with or have access to a child are required to consent to a child having a passport. The effect of existing arrangements is that such a person is afforded more parental responsibility under the Australian Passports Act than they are under the Family Law Act.

This bill ensures that persons who do not have guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for a child are no longer required to consent to the issuing of a passport to that child. This will make it easier for children in difficult family environments to be issued with a passport. Deputy Speaker Whiteley, I am sure you, like me, have many constituents panicking in the Christmas holidays when they realise they have not made the necessary arrangements. A key point to note is that it remains an offence under the Family Law Act to take a child overseas without consent from all persons in whose favour a court order is made in relation to a child.

The third set of amendments relate to cases in which it is reasonably suspected that applicants have engaged in fraud or dishonesty in the process of applying for an Australian travel document. In such cases, this bill provides that the minister may refuse to process a passport application if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty in the application.

The provisions in this bill send a very clear message that fraudulent activity in the application for Australian travel documents will not be tolerated. The decision will be reviewable, and a refusal to process a passport application does not necessarily prevent a person from being issued with a travel document. However, in such cases, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a fresh application with the correct information and meet all other eligibility requirements.

I turn now to the fourth category of amendments. Although advances in technology have made counterfeit of travel documents more difficult, it remains vitally important that the integrity of the Australian passport system is maintained. To this end, amendments in this bill clarify existing offences and add an offence to target the making and providing of false Australian travel documents.

One amendment specifies that the existing offence for damaging or destroying an Australian travel document be extended to include the manipulation or tampering of a travel document, with specific reference to the chip embedded within the document. This amendment will make it clear that it is an offence to tamper with the chip of a travel document, improving our ability to track down and prosecute people suspected of fraudulent activity.

The bill addresses cases in which a person has maliciously reported a passport as lost or stolen so that it will be cancelled to intentionally disrupt the travel of another person. It also addresses cases in which a person fraudulently collects someone else's travel document using false identity documents. Such behaviour will now be classified as an offence.

Other amendments of a minor nature are also made. As an example, the bill tightens restrictions on the names and signatures that appear on travel documents. It will now be clarified that unacceptable, inappropriate or offensive names or signatures can be refused by the minister. Examples include names or signatures that are obscene, a racial or ethnic slur, a political slogan or could mislead people into believing that the bearer has been conferred an award, title or decoration.

Australians love to travel, and currently there are more than 10 million issued passports. The amendments proposed in this bill reflect the changing nature of international law, the changing nature of family relationships and the changing nature of passport technology and attempts to circumvent or replicate it. Collectively, these amendments strengthen the robustness of Australia's travel document system and reinforce Australia as a world leader in passport control. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a more important debate than this debate about the provision of identity documents for Australian citizens in the current climate of international unrest and uncertainty. In particular, we have the battle against extremism and we have a significant number of Australians who are engaged in parts of the world and committing a criminal offence. For those reasons, we have a very rigorous debate about the integrity of the Australian passport system. While we have some of the best technology in the world, there is still no doubt that the issuance of identity documentation to Australian citizens remains a matter of great concern to the Australian people. Obviously, not everyone has a passport. Obviously, people who are single nationals may still find that, when they are travelling around the world, their passports can be cancelled. But our international agreements mandate that we issue identity documentation for those who wish to return to their nation of citizenship. That is probably the most controversial area that we are currently debating. The issue of dual citizenship has had plenty of ventilation. There is plenty of controversy in how we and other developed economies deal with dual citizens engaged in these types of activities. This debate brings us to the individual who has single citizenship, a single nationality, who is in possession of a passport that may well be cancelled for a number of reasons and to our obligations to bring them home. I would like to talk a little more about that later.

This bill has a few common-sense amendments, and one area of great interest to the Australian people is the issuance of a passport to children in situations where there are dual carers and people with dual responsibility but not travelling as a family. This has consistently been a problem. We need to identify who the primary carer is and whether the second parent has a legitimate caring role and whether they can refuse the issuance of a passport. This has been an area of great concern to families in my electorate, and I am glad to see that this bill starts to clarify the obligations to obtain parental consent for both parents, including the one who is not the principal carer. The bill also gives the minister increased powers to refuse to process a passport on the reasonable grounds of fraud. Those improvements have been vitally necessary.

I would like to move back to the issue of greatest concern, which is the proof of identity documentation that is currently issued. This is effectively a form of passport, but it is used for a single trip home for someone who has had a passport cancelled; it is often used where, for a range of offences, someone needs to be brought home to the country. We know that, right now, this is not an endemic problem around the world but one specifically pertaining to nations bordering Syria and right. We know that, even as we speak, there are people approaching consulates and embassies in those neighbouring countries seeking to return home but obviously also well aware that they may have contravened Australian law during their travels. Without going into individual cases, we know that these individual's number in the hundreds.

We have spoken before about the challenges for law enforcement officials and Border Force and border protection officials in being able to ascertain the degree of risk in bringing these individuals home. If you can mount a case prior to their return, it is a fairly simple matter. In those sorts of cases, you will often find that individual obtaining legal representation, approaching an embassy and dealing with Federal Police at the time. But the far greater concern, the much larger security concern, is Australian citizens who have travelled to these proscribed areas and are now attempting to return claiming that they have not been involved in anything that breaks Australian law. We have a significant risk of radicalisation in allowing these individuals to come home without every power being given to our Border Force officials to identify exactly what they have been doing. In many cases you simply need time. Proof of identity documentation is often provided a few days after a passport has expired and it is clear that a significant case cannot be mounted against these individuals.

But I think in these circumstances that we are facing it is a way more important issue than that: Australians should not have to move amongst those who have been radicalised if there is a way of further establishing exactly what they have been doing overseas. In many cases, that is going to require bilateral arrangements with neighbouring nations, most of whom are our allies in the fight against terror. We need to ensure that those Australians are fully investigated before they return home. It is a simple request. This is not a refusal to issue that documentation; it is merely a delay while adequate information is collected. In many cases, that does not involve going into a proscribed area and collecting that data. In many cases, it is going to require other refugees crossing the border into Turkey, Syria and other nations and providing some of that corroborating information or former combatants having their stories matched to make sure they are giving a full account of their time overseas. This will probably be the most significant challenge that we will face in passport and proof of identity legislation, and I hope that that will be looked at in the case of single citizens.

Going back to this bill, the highest integrity of the Australian passport system is absolutely vital. These legislative provisions have to meet the user and operational needs. They have to be of the highest quality—world standard—to reduce, where we can, the risk of forgery and make sure that outdated references are addressed and the policies are kept up to date.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian passports are among the most secure and trusted travel documents in the world. The government is committed to maintaining the integrity and security of Australian passports in the interests of all Australians. This ensures that Australians are accepted at borders across the world and gives other countries the confidence to provide visa-free access to facilitate Australians' travel. To achieve this, Australia continuously strives to improve all aspects of the passport system through innovation and administrative and legislative change. This is essential, with more than 1.8 million Australian passports issued last financial year—the most ever—and with 54 per cent of Australians having a passport.

Australia is a leader in passport innovation. In 2005, Australia was one of the first countries to introduce the ePassport—a passport with an electronic chip. This was a quantum leap forward in the security of the passport system. In 2014, the government released a new generation of Australian passports, the P series. The P-series passport includes a number of security enhancements: a new, state-of-the-art, colour floating-image laminate, with several optical and physical security features and a new stronger, lighter, faster chip. These innovations mean our passports are more resilient and impossible to forge without detection.

The security of the Australian passport owes as much to the strength of the passport-issuing process as to the security features of the passport booklet. We have in place stringent identity-proving requirements, to the highest international standards, and we are leaders in the use of facial recognition to help prevent the acquisition and fraudulent use of Australian passports.

In addition to the amendments in the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015, a number of separate reforms to the Australian passport system are being progressed to achieve deregulatory savings for Australians and further protect the integrity of Australian passports, including removing penalty fees for lost and stolen passports to encourage their immediate reporting and cancellation, to help prevent fraud, and simplifying passport application forms.

As part of our continual efforts to improve the Australian passport system, we have proposed a number of amendments to the passports legislation in the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015. The bill seeks to refine and clarify the legislation and to strengthen the government's ability to respond to unlawful activity in relation to Australian travel documents.

The bill includes four principal amendments and various minor and technical amendments. First, the bill provides for the issue of a travel document to a person, on the initiative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to facilitate a lawful requirement to travel. This provision is limited to the following circumstances: to effect the lawful removal, deportation or extradition of a person to or from Australia or to effect international prisoner transfer.

Second, the bill will align the definition of 'parental responsibility' more closely to that in the Family Law Act 1975. Those persons who do not otherwise have parental responsibility for a child but under a court order can spend time with, or have access to, a child will no longer be required to consent to a child having a passport.

Third, the bill provides that the Minister for Foreign Affairs may refuse to process a passport application if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty in the application. This provision does not prevent a person from being issued a travel document if they submit a fresh application with the correct information.

Last, the bill modifies the existing offences framework in the Australian Passports Act and adds a new offence to strengthen the government's ability to respond to the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents. The new offence will target persons who make or provide false Australian travel documents with the intention that those documents may be used as if they were genuine. These amendments are necessary to deter and respond to increasing fraudulent use of travel documents and the wider implications of such activity in enabling serious crime such as terrorism, drug smuggling and people trafficking.

The government is also tabling two amendments to the bill. The first amendment addresses a drafting error. The bill currently excludes from merits review a decision to refuse to issue a travel related document on the minister's own initiative to facilitate a lawful requirement for a person to travel. The amendment removes that provision and instead excludes from merits review a decision to issue a travel related document on the minister's own initiative, consistent with the policy intent as set out in the explanatory memorandum for the bill.

The second amendment enables a merits review for a decision to refuse any name or signature of a person that the minister considers to be unacceptable, inappropriate or offensive. It is appropriate that this decision is subject to merits review, as it is discretionary and affects the interests of a person.

In conclusion, this bill seeks to refine and clarify the existing passport legislation that has stood us in good stead for the last 10 years. It seeks to protect the Australian community by preventing and deterring the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents and related crimes. The Australian passport is unquestionably the most important identity document in Australia. It is held in high regard around the world. It is critical that the government ensure that this does not change. I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.