Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I move coalition amendment (1) on sheet 7100:

(1)   Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 31), after item 4, insert:

4A Paragraphs 501(7)(b), (c) and (d)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:   (b)   the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or periodic detention; or   (c)   the person has been convicted of an offence and the court orders the person to participate in:   (i)   a residential drug rehabilitation scheme; or   (ii)   a residential program for the mentally ill; or

4B Subsections 501(8) and (9)

Repeal the subsections.

[character test]

I listened carefully to the minister's speech, and one of the things the minister said about why the government is putting forward this bill is that it expects non-citizens who remain in Australia to remain of good character. I agree with that; the coalition agrees with that. However, what I would say to the minister in relation to that statement is: if you expect non-citizens who remain in Australia to remain of good character, why are you proposing a bill that only applies to certain non-citizens, and they are those non-citizens who are in immigration detention? The bill as it is currently drafted does not apply to all non-citizens; it only applies to a certain class of non-citizen.

The coalition can help you with that, as I have already outlined. The coalition's amendment will ensure that the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Bill to strengthen the provisions relating to general criminal conduct under the character test will apply to all persons who are not citizens, not just to those who are or should be held in detention. In other words, the amendment would actu­ally achieve what the government has stated that it wants to do, which is to ensure that all non-citizens who remain in Australia remain of good character. The amendment that the coalition puts forward would enable this same test to apply to those on one side of the fence, in immigration detention, as it would to those on the other side of the fence, not in immigration detention. If the government were of a mind to ensure that we had clear standards about acceptable conduct and behaviour—and the minister has stated that that is what the government does have—it would apply these provisions across the board by supporting the coalition's amendment.

In relation to the allegation that the opposition's amendment will cause chaos in the processing of tourist visas and deny access to subclass 976 visas provided through the electronic travel authority, or ETA as it is known, the first thing I would say to the minister in relation to his comments is this: please don't talk about processing times to those on this side of the chamber. The department is currently gridlocked due to the continuous arrival of boats. It simply, at this stage, does not have the resources to properly deal with the processing of most types of visas. Delays are being experienced, as we have heard in evidence at estimates hearings, across most visa categories. Why? Because of the govern­ment's failure to control Australia's borders. Turning specifically to the amend­ment the opposition has put forward, the allegation that it would cause a collapse of the electronic travel authority and would somehow cause chaos within the processing system is simply wrong.

The condition to deny a person access to the 976 electronic travel authority or ETA visa is specifically provided in the Migration Regulations. It is not provided in section 501 of the Migration Act, which the coalition's amendment specifically relates to. Regula­tions relating to the 976 ETA visa stipulate—and I suggest the minister read this—that regulation No. 8528 is a condition that must be imposed with respect to that visa. If you go to regulation 8528, it clearly sets out:

The holder must not have one or more criminal convictions, for which the sentence or sentences (whether served or not) are for a total period of 12 months duration or more, at the time of travel to, and entry into, Australia.

It is this document here, the regulation, that sets the bar of a 12-month custodial sentence for the ETA; it is not the Migration Act, which is what we are dealing with. They are two completely separate processes.

The coalition agrees that it is important to the national security of this country that we are made aware of any convictions prior to the person entering the country. I am very surprised at the minister's statement in relation to persons that are convicted of an offence with a sentence of less than 12 months. The implication of what the minister has said is that that makes them less of a threat to Australia. The coalition does not subscribe to that position. If you have been convicted of an offence carrying a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, quite possibly you are just as much a threat to Australia, and that is why we are moving these amendments.

We also need to bear in mind, in relation to the amendment put forward by the coalition, that—surprise, surprise—we are not the first country, and I would pre-empt that we will not be the last country, that has a requirement to notify of criminal convictions carrying sentences of less than 12 months. This is not a novel idea that is being put forward by the coalition. It is a standard requirement in China, India, Russia, Canada and the United States. If the minister actually wants to stand by the statement that he made that the government expects non-citizens who remain in Australia to remain of good character, supporting the coalition amendment would be a very good start.