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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This document comprises a couple of tabling statements of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship under section 46A of the Migration Act. It is probably quite apt in a way that it is dealing with migration matters, as it is flowing straight on from the legislation we have just considered regarding privacy matters and the disclosure of information. Section 46A is one of a number of sections of the Migration Act where the minister has a discretion, if they so choose, to lift the bar, as the jargon goes, to void requirements. Section 46A means that a person who is an offshore entrant, an unlawful noncitizen and in Australia cannot make a valid visa application. It is a way of preventing people who are offshore entry persons from applying for asylum. These are people who arrive at islands outside the migration zone, for example.

Section 46A allows the minister, if they believe it is in the public interest, to give written notice to that person that the bar on making a valid application can be lifted, and when they do so the minister is required to table a statement in each house of parliament setting out that determination and the reasons why they believe that doing so is in the public interest. There are a range of other sections that also do this, such as section 351 and section 417, for example. All of them have minimal information. Indeed, I recall that the last wad of those statements that were tabled contained many hundreds. They can be all tabled at once and they are almost indistinguishable from each other. Sections 33(2)(b) and 48B of the Migration Act also have a similar sort of requirement. They are actually of no value in terms of scrutiny.

In my experience these statements are not normally tabled as documents in this way; they are simply tabled with other government documents, such as regulations and the like. These two particular statements simply state that the former minister has exercised her powers under section 46A of the act, that the circumstances of the cases were such that they were considered to be offshore entry persons and that the minister considered her determinations to be in the public interest. The statements do not set out the reasons for the determinations at all, which is certainly against the requirement of the act.

Having said that, I am actually quite pleased because the exercise of these powers, as has occurred, has allowed the individual and the family involved to make valid protection visa applications. After the debate we have just had about privacy and the disclosure of information, it is interesting to note that section 46 of the Migration Act requires that any statement tabled in the parliament must not include the name of the offshore entry person or any information that may identify the offshore entry person. That has not happened in these statements; as usual, there is virtually no information at all. But I have noticed that the names of the individual and the family to whom these statements apply appear on today’s Order of Business. That is a curious development, and it is perhaps an indication that the unintended disclosure of information is a little easier than people might assume, despite all the assurances we just heard from the minister in the last debate.

I am pleased that the individual, who was detained on Christmas Island, and the family, whom I met in Brisbane last year, are people about whom I made representations to the minister. I am very pleased that the former minister chose to exercise her discretion in that way. It has enabled these people to make applications, and hopefully they will be found to be valid so that they can get on with their lives. But it is curious that their names are listed on the Senate Order of Business as presumably being the individual and family that these statements apply to. I draw that to the attention of whoever’s attention it needs to be drawn to—presumably, the minister and the department. I ask them to clarify what has gone on there and why they have done that on this occasion. I do not imagine it is going to cause any major drama, but if we have these provisions in the act that say people should not be identified then I think it is important that they be complied with. (Time expired)