Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank senators for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Review Provisions) Bill 2006 [2007] and the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2007. In order to achieve some brevity, I seek leave to incorporate my summing-up speech.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I thank the Senators for their contributions to the second reading debate on these bills.

Australia has the most effective and comprehensive entry system in the world. The measures contained in the Border Integrity Bill seek to further strengthen this entry system, and maintain Australia’s position at the forefront of border control technology and initiatives.

The automated border processing system “Smartgate” takes advantage of new passport technology and facial recognition technology to enhance the way in which passengers’ identities are verified. These new processes will aid in combating identity fraud and act as a deterrent to the use of forged or stolen passports. Furthermore, automated clearance at the border will allow greater volumes of passengers to be processed and decrease passenger processing time, while enhancing the integrity of border processing.

The Border Integrity Bill also amends Special Purpose Visas. The Minister can issue a declaration which has the effect of ceasing a person’s Special Purpose Visa or preventing the grant of a Special Purpose Visa to a person. The Bill will allow the Minister to specify a time at which the declaration will take effect. This will provide the department with the authority to better manage the Special Purpose Visa client base.

The measures proposed in the Border Integrity Bill are designed to further strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders, whilst also improving the efficiency of immigration processes and administration.

The Review Provisions Bill strikes a practical balance between continuing to ensure that review applicants receive procedural fairness and ensuring that the Tribunals are able to provide procedural fairness in a way which is sufficiently flexible to be appropriate in each individual case. This is achieved by providing a discretion to the Tribunals to deal with adverse information orally at a hearing. The Bill also clarifies that adverse information which has already been provided by the applicant (other than orally) for the purposes of the decision under review, does not have to be given to the applicant for comment or response.

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs handed down its report on the Review Provisions Bill on 20 February 2007. I wish to record my thanks to the Committee for the valuable work which it has done throughout its inquiry into the Bill. I would also like to thank those people and organisations who provided thoughtful and considered input to the Committee.

The Committee recommended that the Bill be passed with an amendment so that adverse material may only be provided orally at hearing at the election of the applicant. However, the Government supports the passing of the Review Provisions Bill in its original form. This is because the recommendation would, to a large extent, nullify the objective of the Bill to allow the Tribunals flexibility in how they give procedural fairness to review applicants.

The Committee’s proposed amendment would remove the ability of the Tribunals to control the process by which adverse information is provided to applicants. Those applicants who wish to deliberately delay the review process could simply refuse to respond to adverse information put to them orally at hearing, even where they are perfectly capable of doing so. The Government’s long-standing objective of maintaining the integrity of the migration review process could be undermined because the Committee’s proposed amendment has the potential to be open to such abuse. In addition, the Committee’s recommendation would add an impractical process and introduce greater complexity to the conduct of Tribunal hearings.

Finally, I would remind the Senate that this Bill does not affect an applicant’s right to seek judicial review of a Tribunal decision. Access to the Courts remains intact.

I commend these Bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Ordered that consideration of the bills in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour.