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

It is 2½ minutes before question time and, in the interests of efficiency, I will collapse my second reading comments on the two migration bills into that 150-second window. The Democrats support the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2007. We share the concerns that Senator Ludwig has outlined at length, but I will not repeat them. The Migration Amendment (Review Provisions) Bill 2006 [2007] was examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I refer the Senate and anyone interested to the additional comments I made in regard to that committee’s review of the legislation. There have been a lot of amendments over the years supposedly dealing with procedural fairness and the like. Most of them seem to me to be more on the side of putting efficiency ahead of fairness. I understand the rationale behind the amendments that are put forward here that were argued by the tribunals before the Senate committee but I also took on board the evidence provided by those people who practise and represent people in this area on a regular basis. They identified some concerns about the potential consequences of these changes and I share those concerns.

I do think that providing an extra discretion for the tribunal to not provide reasoning or not provide information to the applicant in writing, but to only have to provide that information orally, is less than desirable. It is potentially problematic. Whilst it might mean some more paperwork for the tribunal, it is one of those cases where it is better to be safe than sorry. The Democrats are not convinced of the need to make those amendments. The amendments that have been circulated by Senator Ludwig in regard to this legislation seem to me, on the surface, reasonable. So I would foreshadow that the Democrats would give support to those amendments when we reach the committee stage of the debate. However, we are still not convinced that the legislation as a whole is necessary, or that the core provisions in it are necessary. Frankly, I think it is time we had a comprehensive overview and review of the entire Migration Act rather than these continual nips and tucks all the way along that just seem to add to the number of court cases being made.

Debate interrupted.