Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum and have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (RETURN TO PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS) BILL 2006

This Private Senator’s Bill is one of a series of Migration Bills which I will introduce over the course of this parliamentary year.

The aim of these Bills is to provide a roadmap for what needs to be done to reverse the many negative provisions that have been introduced into the Migration Act 1958 over the last fifteen years which have undermined the rule of law and restricted or removed the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

This bill repeals provisions of the Migration Act 1958 inserted by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Procedural Fairness) Act 2002. The fundamental concern that the Democrats have with the Act is that it removes the well established common law principles of natural justice and replaces that with inadequate codes of procedure.

The code of procedure scheme which is established in the sections of the Migration Act does not wholly duplicate the existing common law principles. In fact the Minister’s second reading speech during debate on the 2002 bill also conceded that the code of procedure did not provide the full protection of the common law requirements of the natural justice hearing rule.

The problem with this is the flow-on effect that applicants will only be entitled to “second rate” natural justice. These concerns are even greater given the removal of an applicant’s right to judicial review also imposed by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 which was passed by the major parties in the Senate. We do not believe further restrictions are desirable or justified.

We believe that the provisions in the Migration Act has reduced the accountability of decision makers and led to poorer decisions. It has also led to less opportunity for flawed decisions to be overturned.

The Democrats do not support measures which prevent access to review of decisions and seek to repeal these provisions. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.