Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am most contrite at referring directly to Senator Carr and I will not be tempted again. The application for further visas was the most substantial part of the bill, though there were a number of technical issues that Senator Carr mentioned. By majority the committee thought that processes like giving the minister the power to remove noncitizens in certain circumstances were good. The committee concluded that the department has the proper processes in place for ensuring that noncitizens with legitimate grounds are not returned in breach of Australia's international obligations. We supported the department's view that people should not remain on indefinite detention. They should be removed if they are not going to come here.

The committee accepted amendments set out in schedule 4 of the bill, because the committee thought that they were aimed mainly at retaining the interpretation of the act that Senator Carr meant prior to MZZDJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. A number of parts of this legislation simply return the interpretation to what everybody thought it was before the High Court made its ruling.The previous government worked on the basis that the interpretation we are implementing through this legislation is the right one. The previous government worked on that interpretation. It was in their time that this case went to the court. The court determined that the interpretation everyone thought it had did not apply. This legislation puts it back to what everyone always thought it was and intended it to be.

The committee recommended that the bill be passed but had a concern about individuals for whom someone else had applied for a visa when they were mentally incapable or too young to know what was happening. A particular case was brought out in evidence, where a young girl's family applied for a visa. She knew nothing about it. Later on, she married in Australia and applied for a visa but was told that she could not get one because of the one her family had applied for on her behalf years ago. The committee was concerned about that. The first recommendation of the committee's report recommended that:

… the Commonwealth government consider whether additional safeguards are necessary to ensure that children and people with a mental impairment are not unfairly prevented from making a subsequent visa application in circumstances where they are unaware of a previous application having been made on their behalf.

I am pleased to say, the committee having alerted the minister to that issue, that the minister has written to the committee indicating that:

I confirm that there are existing safeguards in place to address the concerns of the committee. These include my personal powers to intervene under Section 48B of the Migration Act to lift the legislative bar and allow further application for a protection visa. I also have powers under the act to intervene and grant visas to non-citizens if I believe it to be in the public interest. I am of the view that these safeguards are appropriate to deal with the very small number of genuine cases that may arise where a child or a person with a mental impairment has been significantly disadvantaged as envisaged by the committee.

And Mr Morrision—and I appreciate this and I am sure the committee do as well—indicated that Senator Cash, in her summing up, would be putting those words onto the record on behalf of Mr Morrison, so that they will be there for those who may have had a concern about this. With that, I certainly support the bill and I appreciate the Labor Party's support for it as well.