Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015. This bill deals with remedial amendments in respect of two pieces of legislation which went through this parliament last year. The first is in respect of the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014, which was introduced into the parliament on 24 September last year and was assented to on 10 December last year. This was a bill which, at its heart, strengthened the character test and, in doing so, sought to provide added protection for the Australian public by enabling the minister to have greater discretion to remove noncitizens who had committed crimes and represented a risk to the Australian community. We supported that bill then, and all but one of the amendments in the current bill relate to it. As a result, we support this bill now.

The other amendment deals with a remedial amendment in respect of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014, which was introduced into the parliament on 25 September last year and was assented to on 15 December 2014. This legislation had many schedules, the first of which—which is the one that is being remedially amended by virtue of this legislation—sought to strengthen the legal position in relation to intercepting vessels on the high seas. If you like, it provided more legal ballast to the policy of the government in respect of turning asylum seeker vessels around in the journey from Java to Christmas Island. It is perhaps worth stating Labor's position in relation to this. We acknowledge that what we saw over a number of years with the loss of life on the journey between Java and Christmas Island was a very significant human misery, which we are absolutely committed to being brought to an end. There is nothing compassionate about seeing people drown at sea. The regional resettlement arrangement, which the then Rudd government put in place with both Papua New Guinea and the Republic of Nauru, established a regime of offshore processing which was perhaps the most significant step that was taken by any government in relation to ending the journey between Java and Christmas Island. It was a very important measure, which undermined the business model of people smugglers operating out of Jakarta.

There are many issues that we have with the way in which the regional resettlement arrangement has been operated by this government. We support the principle of it and we support the role that it has played in bringing an end to the loss of life at sea, but we do not support the way in which this government has managed offshore processing in Australia. We do not support it in terms of the lack of transparency which exists. We believe that there should be a negotiation with both the governments of Nauru and PNG to establish independent oversight of these facilities as soon as possible. We are deeply concerned about a number of decisions that the government made in respect of the conditions that pertain to the offshore processing facilities on Nauru and Manus—specifically the decision to keep people living in tents on Nauru, which represented a decision not to complete the construction of the facility on Nauru, is an absolute disgrace. It is effectively a decision to have people, relative to what had been planned, live in worse conditions than they would otherwise have done. Against all that is done globally in dealing with refugees, that is an extraordinary decision for a government to take.

We are and have been concerned about the state of the medical facility on Manus Island, which, to be fair, has now been remediated; but, for a long time, an inadequate medical facility existed there and we did see a person lose their life, Mr Hamid Kehazaei, from what was a preventable condition. Perhaps most significantly, the fundamental question of resolving the fate of the 2,000 people on Nauru and Manus has yet to be solved or addressed by this government. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a future Labor government would make it core business to resolve the fate of the 2,000 people on Nauru and Manus and to get those people off those islands.

The regional resettlement arrangement was a key component of bringing an end to that journey, but another component has been the policy of turning boats back to Indonesia on the journey from Java to Christmas Island. The bill that went through last year provided the legal ballast for that, and the bill that we have before us today, as I say, provides some remedial assistance in relation to that. It is essential that we make sure that we do not alter any of the policies which have brought to an end the journey between Java and Christmas Island. There is nothing compassionate about people drowning at sea, and it would be utterly wrong for any future government to put people smugglers back into business—people smugglers who are right now largely out of business in Indonesia. We are absolutely committed to that. We absolutely understand that maintaining a policy of turning back boats is fundamentally critical, in conjunction with the operation of offshore processing, in keeping this journey shut. We do that, I might say, from the point of view of compassion. We do not want to see that journey start again, with the inevitable consequence of the loss of life.

Because we are driven by compassion, back in July we announced a series of measures which also sought to have a much greater global engagement around the question of humanitarian affairs, including a significant increase in our funding to the UNHCR were we to be elected to government, a doubling of Australia's humanitarian intake were we to be elected to government and playing a leadership role within South-East Asia in a humanitarian space were we to be elected to government. All of that gives expression to our commitment to compassion in the humanitarian space, but an aspect of that is making sure that we do not see people drowning at sea between Java and Christmas Island and so the set of policies that we have in place are important in respect of that. The legislation that was passed last year was important and the remedial amendment which forms part of the legislation before us tonight is an aspect of that as well.

I do, in saying those generalities, want to go to the detail of the bill. Schedule 1 of the bill provides for consistency with respect to deportees who, for one reason or another, find themselves returning to Australia. Currently, where a destination country refuses to take in a person who has been deported from Australia, they are able to lawfully return to Australia without a visa. Indeed, bars which have been in place which prevent them from making further visa applications remain in place. In other words, they come back to Australia in the circumstances as if they had never left. But if their journey overseas is disrupted for some other reason—for example, a flight has to be returned or there is some issue in relation to their being in transit—then prior to this legislation going through they would in fact return to Australia on different conditions. They would not be able technically to return to Australia lawfully without a visa. So what schedule 1 seeks to do is to fix that issue and make sure that all persons who are deported but for one reason or another find themselves returning to Australia do so on the same footing. It is estimated that there might be about five people a year who fall into the category that I have described, and so that is an important issue to resolve.

Schedule 2 goes to the question of the phrase 'character concern' as it is used within the legislation. Character concern is a threshold which provides for those who meet it to have their personal identifiers shared with other agencies throughout the government. What this seeks to do is align that threshold with the threshold that exists in respect of the character test, which means that there is much greater consistency within the legislation. Schedule 2 also deals with decisions under sections 501BA and 501CA. These decisions are decisions of the minister which deal in essence with people who are serving an existing prison sentence and they deal with decisions—if I can put it in this way—down the review process or down the review line. The important point to make in respect of this bill in relation to those decisions is that it puts those decisions on exactly the same footing as ministerial decisions made in respect of people failing the character test under subsection 501(6) of the act. That does represent the original intent of the legislation that was passed last year and does provide a much greater degree of consistency throughout the legislation.

Part 1 of schedule 3 deals with the question of what information needs to be provided and what grounds need to be asserted by somebody who seeks to invoke Australia's protection obligations. Under the character test legislation that was moved last year and that we supported, there was a requirement that the grounds an applicant seeks to rely upon for their protection application need to be put up front. This amendment seeks to make that case in respect of applications which are also made on behalf of other persons. The most likely example of where that would occur is where applications are made on behalf of minors by others. Again, this brings the legislation into a much greater state of consistency and much greater compliance with the intent that was expressed, as this bill went through the parliament last year.

Part 2 of schedule 3 deals with decisions that are made under the new fast-track applications under the new Immigration Assessment Authority. This provides that decisions which are made where there is a refusal on certain character or security grounds are able to be reviewed by the AAT, and that is obviously a desirable thing to occur. It also makes clear that where there are visas which lie dormant behind an active visa that is being relied upon, where that active visa ceases to operate, this provides that the dormant visa also ceases to operate. Again, the likely scenario where that would occur is where there is a bridging visa which sits in the background; again, that is a sensible amendment to make in order to make the act much more consistent.

Finally, schedule 4 deals with the maritime powers that I was describing earlier. These amendments which passed the parliament last year, as I described, sought to provide a greater legal ballast in respect of the policies that the government seeks to implement at sea. Specifically, what this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that maritime powers are lawfully exercised when Australian vessels are operating within the full scope of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. To give you an example of that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker: if you can imagine an Australian vessel which is engaging in peaceful passage through the territorial waters of another country and is consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, what this amendment seeks to ensure is that acting in such a way any exercise of maritime powers that have been done throughout that part of the journey are maintained and are not contaminated, if you like, by virtue of the vessel having passed through the territorial waters of another country—provided that it is all been done in compliance with the Australia's international obligations and particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

All of these amendments, as you can tell from the explanation I have given, are quite detailed and technical. We do support them in this place and we do so consistently with the position is that we have taken here and the positions we have taken publicly. We would note that we have referred this legislation to a Senate inquiry, and that is the appropriate course to occur with a matter as detailed and technical as this. We obviously reserve our position in the Senate until we see the outcome of that Senate inquiry. We acknowledge that these are remedial amendments to primary legislation that we now support and, as a result, we support this bill in the House this evening.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to at some remarks to the Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015. I thank the member for Corio, as he leaves the chamber, for his support for the bill as well. Madam Deputy Speaker, I must say it is great to see you in the chair in this chamber. I would also like to provide the House with some context and comment to the changes being made.

With approximately 37,000 kilometres of shoreline, Australia's migration and maritime powers remain of the utmost importance in maintaining border security. As a nation, Australia is able to offer some of the best levels of education, health care and welfare around the world. It is a highly appealing country because of its willingness to give everyone a go, regardless of their background, and our propensity for backing the underdog. All of this has contributed to the diverse society that we can be so very proud of. To maintain all that we have achieved as a nation, there is a need for the bills and amendments like these to ensure we are able to maintain our freedoms and strengthen our nation as a whole.

I refer to the Migration Act 1958—not a bad year to be born in. In the decade preceding this act, Australia had participated in World War II. Following the cessation of war there was a prevailing attitude among Australians that we as a nation had to 'populate or perish'. As a result we began to look towards northern and eastern European countries, which had been ravaged by war, to provide migrants in numbers sufficient for us to populate as we required. In the 10 years following the end of the war—1945 to 1955—Western Australia's population alone increased by 169,000 people, and this influx, to some extent, continues today. There is broad support for a strong immigration program in this country, as long as it is through legal means.

As Australians, we celebrate the moment when immigrants commit to Australia and its values and become Australian citizens. On a local note, I was very pleased to attend another citizenship ceremony at the City of South Perth last week, which gave me an opportunity to congratulate 79 people of the electorate of Swan on officially becoming Australian citizens. According to the latest census, almost 48 per cent of my constituents were born outside Australia. In the eight years I have been a member of parliament, I have noted the relative harmony that everyone within my electorate lives in, which, in my view, is down to a strong commitment and love of Australia. We enjoy our great diversity throughout the year with community events that include live music, food stalls and performances. It is always a pleasure to be a part of these local events that acknowledge just how important our history of migration is—not only to the electorate of Swan, but to electorates across Australia. Migration has played a major role in the development of local communities and still continues to do so.

Today, though, I want to discuss why we must remain vigilant in adjusting and improving migration and maritime laws so that we are able to maintain and protect our way of life. The amendments in this bill will play a key role in strengthening and clarifying the legalities of the legislation to ensure the removal of any inconsistencies which could potentially threaten the way of life that all of us in this place strive hard to protect. The amendments are necessary improvements that will further this government's ability to safeguard Australia's national security and the lives of every Australian. The coalition government has a solid reputation and proven track record in achieving this, with our strong stance on border protection in regard to those who attempt to seek entrance into our country illegally.

The coalition has again and again demonstrated its ability to maintain our country's border security. Operation Sovereign Borders has been a very effective policy which has stopped the boats and actively deterred illegal immigrants and people smugglers—something the current opposition struggled with, moving from one failed policy to the next, during the previous period of government. I must admit it was encouraging to hear the member for Corio talk about his commitment to the protection of our borders and that we must not allow people to drown at sea anymore. To hear that from the shadow minister is very encouraging.

The amendments made in the migration and maritime powers bill are both timely and extremely important to Australia's national security. The amendment bill is an omnibus bill which effectively covers a range of technical issues and significantly improves its role in government policy.

Schedule 1 ensures that when an unlawful non-citizen is removed from Australia and for any reason needs to be returned to Australia before entering their destination country, the person will be legally able to re-enter without a visa. I understand there have been some unusual cases where this has been an issue in the past, so this change makes sure that these rare circumstances can be dealt with quickly and effectively. It is noted that the person who is returned in this circumstance will be considered to have never left the migration zone and the same visa application bars will continue to apply. This amendment to the aborted removal law effectively clarifies the status of non-citizens in the situation described and tightens loopholes and oversights of the original act.

The character related amendments outlined in schedule 2 of the bill assist in strengthening the framework established in December by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. The amendments made last year sought to enhance the character and general visa provisions to ensure any non-citizens that participate in criminal activity or pose a security risk to the Australian community are liable for visa refusal or cancellation. Last year, we also introduced mandatory cancellation of visas for non-citizens in prison who pose a risk until they had been assessed and their immigration status has been determined. The amendments in this bill greatly complement those made last year, ensuring confidential criminal intelligence—that is, of a critical nature to the decision making process—can be protected. This also sees the alignment of the term 'character concern' with the 'character test' so that the government and associated agencies are able to identify and assess non-citizens who pose a threat to our security.

I move now to the amendments made in schedule 3 of the Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2015. The amendment clarifies that a person who has been refused a protection visa application made on their behalf will no longer be able to make further protection visa applications, regardless of changing grounds or criteria. This is a very important amendment as it prevents a non-citizen from forestalling their departure from Australia. It effectively stops non-citizens using applications as a delaying tactic in an attempt to stay in the country. I am certain the amendment will ensure the law fits the government's original intention behind this section of the act. I know that in my electorate, and I am sure in most of our electorates, there have been many instances where non-citizens have used multiple applications as a delaying tactic in attempting to stay in this country.

Continuing with schedule 3 amendments, I consider the clarification made in regard to fast-track applicants to be a fair and just improvement to the laws under review. For the purpose of this amendment, I note these fast-track applicants are those unauthorised maritime arrivals in Australia who arrived on or after 13 August 2012 and before 1 January 2014 and any other person or persons specified by the minister and conforming to the legislation. The amendments being made allow fast-track applicants who have been refused a protection visa on either character or security grounds the opportunity to apply for review of the decision. All reviews will be handled by the Immigration Assessment Authority, which is a subsection of the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This amendment plays a critical role in demonstrating that the government is committed to dealing with noncitizens posing a risk to the community in a fair, comprehensive and efficient manner.

These amendments also clarify the understanding of ceasing visas. All visas held, regardless of whether or not they are in effect, will be ceased if a ceasing event occurs—a ceasing event being a cancellation or refusal of a visa. Prior to this amendment, there was some grey area in the case of a visa cessation, allowing argument for a dormant visa to be exempt from cessation. The clarification ensures all visa ceasing provisions will be interpreted consistently and in line with the government's intentions for this policy. Regardless of the status of the visa, dormant or otherwise, it will be subject to the provisions outlined in the act. The schedule 4 amendments are associated with the Maritime Powers Act. The amendment confirms that powers under the act are allowed to be invoked 'in the course of passage through or above the waters of another country' in a manner that conforms to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Schedule 4 details three criteria to which the situation must conform in order to exercise the maritime powers outlined. This amendment highlights the government's intention to ensure all action taken under the Maritime Powers Act is consistent and in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is an amendment which illustrates the government's priority of maintaining maritime security whilst conforming to international law as a global citizen.

To make some general points, the amendments outlined are an important step towards eliminating the loopholes in the migration and maritime laws. The amendments are fair and provide all parties involved with the opportunity for review with the AAT, whilst keeping Australia's security interests at the top of this government's priority list. Perhaps the most important amendment in this bill is the improvements made to the mandatory cancellation provisions under the Migration Act. It provides the government with the ability to ensure noncitizens of character and/or integrity concern are available for removal, given they are unsuccessful in having their visa reinstated due to the risk they pose. I see this to be a crucial amendment to the bill, providing the government and associated agencies with the means to act on information that proves a noncitizen to be of character concern to Australia's security and the safety of all Australians.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the minister and the department for their efforts in improving the bill and commend their development of the amendments discussed. I am certain the amendments will strengthen and clarify the legal framework in the original acts and provide consistent interpretation of the original policy. It is another positive step towards ensuring Australia's national security is maintained. I endorse and support the amendments made to the legislation as an important step in ensuring the law operates in accordance with the government's policy intention.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to have the opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill. The bill goes to a lot of matters, and it particularly goes to the integrity of both our immigration system and our national security. Everyone understands that we must set the rules that determine who is allowed into this country. We must know who arrives, and there cannot be any form of compromise. This is the consistent message that the Australian people have had from us and that they continue to get from us under the leadership of Prime Minister Turnbull. I know that some people hoped that the Prime Minister was going to change the working policies of this government, but that was never going to happen. The vast majority of the people support exactly what we are doing. The Australian people know that the Australian borders and the integrity of our immigration system are absolutely safe with us. Obviously it is true that not everyone agrees with our policy. Certainly the Greens, by way of example, do not agree with the policy that we have in place. There are others like GetUp! and their supporters that also do not agree with us. However, the 'open the borders and let everyone come by boat' crowd is extremely small in this country. They are of course deluded that they are in the majority, probably also thinking that a Q&A audience is broadly representative of Australia's mainstream population. Obviously that is not true.

Our policy has delivered integrity for the immigration system, and it is comprised of many aspects. Turnbacks, off-shore processing and the arrangements under which no-one who arrived by boat since our government commenced has been allowed to stay are key elements of our working policy. We have set the rules and through our rock solid consistency those that think about coming by boat understand the way this government operates. Because almost no-one tries anymore, our humanitarian intake is now just from offshore. That also has resulted in the humanitarian dividend of being able to accept 12,000 of those in the worst circumstances from Syria, the persecuted minorities including Christians. We should be in no doubt about this fact. When we look at our televisions and we see the tragedy of Syria and the persecution of defenceless people by a brutal, inhuman and evil organisation, it is then that we need the flexibility to act like we have—but that is not possible if we do not have control over our immigration system.

I know that in the future there will be suggestions that our opponents can maintain that integrity and that the boats will not come again, but that is as untrue now as it was in 2007. Nothing is more certain than the fact that any thought of a return to government by our opponents will see the return of the boats with them. As the sign on the door of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, 'Welcome to Australia for those who've come across the seas.' No-one doubts that the deputy opposition leader and so many others on the other side have a clearly different view from us and the return of the boats will follow any future return of the Labor Party to government.

This bill is about ensuring each aspect of our policy works. It is about ensuring that if things do not work out the way they should when we remove unlawful noncitizens that there are no gaps in the process or arrangements that could result in that unlawful noncitizen being able to stay after having taken advantage of the circumstances. To that end, this bill makes a number of unrelated amendments to the Migration Act 1958 and the Maritime Powers Act 2013. Overall, it helps to advance the intent of previous legislation to strengthen our borders and to maintain the integrity of the migration program.

The amendments to this bill certainly make sense. When unlawful noncitizens are in the process of being removed from Australia and something goes wrong, such as a country of transit refuses entry, we need to have the ability to bring the unlawful citizen back without a visa. Also, of course, such an eventuality should not be taken as a reset of the situation that the person was in before the removal began. It is, therefore, an amendment where such a person will be considered before the law to have never left the migration zone and the same prohibitions will continue to apply for visa applications. This will ensure that, just because they are back, it will not mean that they can apply to stay, so that there is no change to what it was like before the removal process was initiated.

The next matter I would like to raise relates to character, to the cancellation of general visas, and to the legal framework surrounding those provisions being strengthened via the amendments in this bill. This is particularly relevant with the recent events on Christmas Island. Given the success the government has had in reducing illegal maritime arrivals, the balance of those on Christmas Island has shifted to those being deported on character grounds. The violence perpetrated by some of the 200-plus persons detained there, led by those who have violent criminal backgrounds, just bears out the importance of having the ability to remove those whose actions and records demonstrate poor character. These people do pose a risk to the Australian community and should be liable for a visa refusal or cancellation. I very much endorse the introduction of the mandatory cancellation of visas for noncitizens in prisons who do not pass the character test so that those who pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community can be detained until the risk they pose has actually been assessed and their immigration status has been determined.

Certainly it is the case that the core issues addressed by these amendments will also ensure that confidential criminal intelligence that is at the heart of the decision and is the justification for invoking certain character provisions can be safeguarded. There will also be a new power regarding removal to ensure that a noncitizen whose visa has been mandatorily cancelled will be able to be removed from Australia at the end of the process. Also, consistent with the point I made before, the amendments will actually align the definition of 'character concern' with the character test. This will make sure that those with a criminal history can be properly identified by officers and the criminal background of those who come to note because of concerns about their character will be identified.

The amendments contained in this bill also withdraw the opportunity to make an additional protection visa application if they have already had an application made on their behalf and it has been refused. So this will eliminate an applicant trying to circumvent the original failure by using different grounds for the subsequent attempt for the protection visa. What this is ultimately about is preventing attempts to stop the detainee's removal by making further applications. I know this will irritate some people, but the reality is that the vast majority of the Australian people want the integrity in the immigration system that this government has achieved and they want it to be absolutely maintained.

It is not my intention to go through the amendments and quote sections and subsections. It is true that much of this bill is somewhat technical in nature but it is important that the legal framework of the Migration Act is strengthened. With that strengthening comes the maintenance of the integrity of the immigration system and the fundamental basis of our approach—that is, that our system must be fair and people must abide by that system. That said, people should not be able to play the system, they should not be able to work the system and, above all, they should not be able to take advantage of the Australian people and the generous nature of our support.

The approach of this government is to be fair and generous, but that should apply to legitimate people with the most need. As I have said before in many other debates, although this bill is not strictly about illegal maritime arrivals, the humanitarian intake should be absolutely targeted toward those in the greatest need. The priority of those to be taken must be based upon need and not upon cash. Therefore the ability to buy an airline ticket to Indonesia and then to pay the people smugglers to try to get to Australia is not the example that we should be supporting.

It is through this bill and the other related bills that we are making sure that the immigration system has the integrity it needs and through that integrity we can ensure our humanitarian intake remains a priority for those in the greatest need. There is no doubt that the humanitarian intake must focus on those in refugee camps and those being sheltered in the most difficult of circumstances. The priority must be the persecuted minorities from Syria and the Karen or Chin people from Burma or even the persecuted Vietnamese activists who have devoted their lives to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other freedoms that can see them face jail and persecution. We must take people from refugee camps and from places of shelter around conflict zones. This is the compassionate approach and this is the dividend that comes from stopping those who have come by boat, who have bypassed numerous countries thereby undermining their legitimacy and lowering the priority that we attach to their cases. That is the aim of our policy: need over cash. It is through this bill and previous bills and the actions of this government and the ADF that the right policy sees those in the most need receive the priority of our attention and receive the benefit of the support of this nation.

I endorse this bill and the policy of the Turnbull Government and I commend the Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015 to the House.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like my colleague, the member for Cowan, observed, the compassionate approach of this government is something to be recognised. I want to reflect on the words of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection yesterday in the House when he talked about this recent visit to Jordan and Lebanon. He had the opportunity to meet with many people in a camp where there were some 80,000 people, including 40,000 children. He said it was a real eye-opening and sobering experience. He mentioned that he talked to the UN officials there, obviously, about the need for increased humanitarian assistance and also the fact that the situation in Syria is deteriorating and will continue to deteriorate as they enter the colder winter months in the northern hemisphere.

We know that this government has come up with a sensible response that the Australian people have acknowledged is appropriate in these challenging times, and that consists of not just a dollar figure of some $44 million but also assistance to more than 200,000 refugees. They are also providing, importantly, 12,000 places to the Syrian and Iraqi refugee program. Already this November we have had more than 2,200 people being assisted with initial assessments, and they will be arriving in Australia later this year. It was great to hear the minister had already provided families with their immigration cards and travel documents and hopefully those people in particular will be arriving before Christmas. In effect this has resulted in an increase, on a per capita basis, to the highest number of settlements under the refugee and humanitarian program compared to any other country in the world—quite a significant outcome. The number of humanitarian and refugee places will increase from 13,750 to 25,750 with an additional 12,000 places. This is something that we should all be very proud of and, as I said, it is a compassionate response.

This leads me on to talk briefly about the migration and maritime powers amendment bill. My colleagues have covered the technical details of this bill in some detail, so I will just stick to the key points. This bill contains a number of amendments to the Migration Act and a separate amendment to the Maritime Powers Act. These amendments will strengthen and clarify the legal frameworks in those acts, ensuring they will be interpreted consistently with a regional policy intention and operate effectively as intended. Specifically, the bill will ensure that when an unlawful noncitizen is in the process of being removed to another country and before they enter the other country the person is returned to Australia, then that person has a lawful basis to return to Australia without a visa. The bill will ensure that when such a person does return to Australia without a visa, the visa application bars in sections of the Migration Act will continue to apply as if that person never left Australia. The bill will make a technical amendment to ensure that the prohibition against the making of further protection visa applications in section 48A of the Migration Act operates as intended under policy. Importantly, the bill will ensure that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can review certain character or security based decisions to refuse to grant a protection visa to fast-track an applicant.

Consistent with the rest of this bill, these items demonstrate this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively, efficiently and comprehensively. It complements our successful policy of securing our borders. We have seen in Europe over recent months the tragic circumstances facing that continent and the need for a better resolution than what currently exists. Importantly, on our own borders there have been fewer deaths at sea. The Australian public recognises that we have acted appropriately and in the best interests of mankind and of those people coming to Australia. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contributions to this debate. The Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015 is an omnibus bill that makes a number of unrelated and technical amendments to the Migration Act and the Maritime Powers Act. Together these amendments are important to clarify and strengthen the legislative framework around persons who seek to enter and remain in Australia. The bill will amend the Migration Act to ensure that when the department attempts to remove someone from Australia up until that point the person successfully enters the destination country, the person can be returned to Australia without a visa and, if they are so returned, then certain application bars that would otherwise no longer apply because the person left Australia will continue to apply.

The amendments in this bill will also ensure that when the Migration Act provides for a visa to cease, that visa will cease whether or not the visa is in effect at the time. The bill strengthens and clarifies the legal framework established in December 2014 by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014 and ensures that the character cancellation provisions operate effectively as intended. It does this by ensuring that confidential criminal intelligence that is critical to decision-making under certain character provisions can be appropriately protected, inserting a new removal power to put beyond doubt that a noncitizen whose visa has been mandatorily cancelled will be available for removal from Australia at the end of the process, and aligning the definition character concern with the character test to ensure that the department is able to identify noncitizens who have a criminal history or who are of character concern.

The bill will also amend the Migration Act to ensure that fast-track applicants refused protection visas on certain character or security grounds can make an application for review of that decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the existing provisions within the Migration Act. Character determinations can be evidentially and legally complex, and the AAT has particular expertise in this area. By allowing the AAT to review those decisions, the government is ensuring a consistent and rigorous but fair and expert process. The bill will also clarify that when a protection visa application is made on a person's behalf and that person is then refused the visa, the person cannot apply for a further protection visa regardless of whether the application is made on the same or different grounds to the original application.

Finally, the bill amends the Maritime Powers Act 2013 to confirm the powers under the act are able to be exercised in the course of the passage through or above waters of another country in a manner consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Overall, the bill significantly improves the Migration Act and the Maritime Powers Act by removing inconsistencies and ensuring that the law operates in accordance with the government's policy intention. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.