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

The people of Australia agree with me and I think most in this chamber that Mr Morrison has been a magnificent Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, ably assisted I might say by his colleague minister in this chamber, Senator Cash. Most Australians were appalled at the situation where there was unfettered entry into our country. The coalition prior to the last election promised that we would stop the boats, and I have to say all credit to Mr Morrison and the government more broadly in that they have actually stopped the boats.

I chaired the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which looked into the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014. I did not get an opportunity to speak on the committee's report when it was tabled, so I just want to make a couple of very brief comments on the committee's view of this bill. In so doing, can I again thank the committee secretariat for the work that they have done in presenting a balanced report to the Senate for the Senate's information. Can I also thank all of those who gave evidence to the committee.

This committee has at times made recommendations that were sometimes not of the government's liking, but I am pleased to say that in most instances the minister has been prepared to look carefully at what the committee has said, and in some cases there have actually been amendments. So I thank the minister for that, but, more importantly, I want to emphasise that the committee system does work and that sometimes issues arise in the committees of parliament that were not properly assessed by the department and the advisers to the minister. I am pleased to see that the minister has an open mind on views of the committee.

The whole purpose of this bill—and I am repeating here something from the minister's second reading speech, so it will not be a big quote—is:

… to strengthen the character and general visa cancellation provisions in the Migration Act to ensure that non-citizens who commit crimes in Australia, pose a risk to the Australian community or represent an integrity concern are appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation.

Who could object to that? If people are here applying for visas, but they are committing crimes in Australia, or they are posing a risk to the Australian community, or they are representing an integrity concern, then clearly the minister should have all of the appropriate powers for visa refusal or cancellation.

The bill also 'introduces a mandatory cancellation power for noncitizens who objectively do not pass the character test' or 'are in prison'. Again, which Australian would think that was unfair? If someone were in a prison, obviously for committing a criminal offence, who would think that it is unreasonable that their visa application should be closely assessed? I point out that a variety of submissions to the inquiry questioned the utility of the change.

There is a statement of compatibility with human rights, and this is set out in the explanatory memorandum. I just want to highlight that. The statement said:

The Australian Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from the risk of harm by non-citizens. The Government has a low tolerance for criminal, non-compliant or fraudulent behaviour by non-citizens and should be able to refuse entry to people, or cancel their visas, where they have committed serious crimes or present a risk to the community. Facilitation of entry needs to be complemented with strong cancellation powers and processes to ensure that the Government's ability to protect the Australian community and maintain the integrity of the Migration Programme is maintained into the future.

Again I ask: which Australian could object to that?

You have heard from the previous speaker, representing the Greens, the usual form of inflammatory, usually inaccurate—usually inaccurate, and I emphasise that—commentary on this and any other bill. There is a standard approach by the Greens political party: throw out there every objection, every threat, every misstatement of the truth that you can grab from anywhere that might grab a media headline from the ABC or the left-wing press. A lot of what was said in the Senate today by the previous speaker fits that category: a bit short on fact and reality but good for a one-line grab in the media.

I point out that the Police Federation of Australia, in their submission to the inquiry, said that the proposed amendments are justified on the grounds that they ensure that the migration regime is properly 'enforced in a manner that best protects the Australian community'.

I indicate that the committee noted:

… while the nature of Australia's migration program has changed dramatically over the past two decades, the relevant frameworks in the Bill have not been substantially changed to reflect this change. Generally speaking, the committee considers that the provisions—

of the—

Bill represent a sound and justifiable approach to the need to update the relevant frameworks in the Act so as to bring them into line with the current migration program.

To put it another way, the current rules were there when we had an ordered migration program and when people understood what the rules were for entry into Australia. In the last 10 years or so there has been an influx of illegal maritime arrivals. Under the Howard government these were stopped. Under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, the doors were opened to anyone who had the thousands of dollars needed to pay a criminal people smuggler to come into Australia. This activity, of course, whilst it allowed in a lot of wealthy people who had the money to pay the criminal people smugglers, meant that those who were waiting in squalid refugee camps around the world for their chance to get into Australia under Australia's very generous refugee entry provisions had to wait another year because some wealthy person had jumped the queue, paid the criminal people smuggler and then expected to be welcomed with open arms in Australia. Well, I am sorry; that is not how we do things in Australia. That is how the Greens political party would do it, that is how the Labor Party did it, but that is not the way that most Australians want. This bill is part of a general approach by the minister to do what the Australian people want him to do.

I conclude by making a brief reference to the recommendations of the committee. The second recommendation is that the committee recommends the Senate pass the bill, subject to recommendation 1. The committee acknowledges the human rights concerns raised by submitters. However, the committee noted that the statement of human rights attached to the explanatory memorandum stated that:

… questions of proportionality will be resolved by way of comprehensive policy guidelines on matters to be taken into account when exercising the discretion to cancel a person's visa, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision.

The current guidelines in ministerial direction No. 55 affirm Australia's commitment to upholding its human rights obligations with particular reference to non-refoulement, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The committee acknowledged in its report that:

… these guidelines are not binding when determining matters under the general visa cancellation framework but considers that the guidelines could be extended to apply to cancellation decisions made under the general visa cancellation framework.

So the committee, in its first recommendation, suggested to the minister and the government that the current directions be updated and extended so as to reflect the proposed amendments to the Migration Act and, in particular, to ensure the direction applies to cancellation decisions made under the general visa cancellation framework. I am sure that the minister would have carefully considered that recommendation of the committee and I would hope that the minister may have been able to adopt and accept that recommendation and put it into practice. With that qualification, I strongly support this bill, as did the committee that investigated it.