Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014. I note the concerns raised by a variety of stakeholders in relation to this bill, and I thank those who have made contact with my office. Their views have been extremely helpful for me in reaching a position on this bill.

As we have already heard during this debate, this bill has four schedules. Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments which contribute to the integrity and improve the efficiency of the onshore protection status determination process. The measures clarify the responsibility of asylum seekers and encourage complete information to be provided up-front. The measures apply to all asylum seekers regardless of their mode of arrival. Schedule 2 of the bill contains amendments relating to clarifying the threshold for Australia's non-refoulement obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Schedule 3 of the bill contains amendments relating to making a valid application for a visa, and schedule 4 contains amendments relating to the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal.

I am pleased that Labor has moved amendments to schedule 1; however, I have concerns that, due to the removal of legal assistance and the shifting of the refugee status determination process from an inquisitorial process to an adversarial one, there is a real chance that genuine refugees may be sent back to their home countries, where they face persecution or harm.

I support schedules 3 and 4, but I cannot support schedule 2. Schedule 2 introduces a higher risk threshold for assessing Australia's protection obligations in respect of non-citizens under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the convention against torture. The purpose of this amendment is to restore the risk threshold for complementary protection to the higher threshold that was intended when the complementary protection framework was inserted into the act in 2012. I note that the explanatory memorandum was amended to clarify the operation of the new test, but what really matters here is that the threshold is changing. This change arguably brings a greater chance that people could be returned to persecution or serious harm. Is this increased chance something I want resting on my shoulders? As stated by Mr David Manne during the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hearing:

… the proposed 'more likely than not' test would ultimately significantly increase the risk of Australia making the wrong decision on whether or not somebody should be protected from serious harm. The test raises the real prospect of returning people to persecution or other forms of life-threatening harm, in violation of our non-refoulement obligations. That is the bottom line here.

Last Thursday I attended an event hosted by Maurice Blackburn to celebrate the release of Australian-born asylum seekers and their families from detention. I met with the children and families that I helped prevent from being deported to Nauru. It was an emotional night and one that I will treasure forever. I cannot, in good conscience, support a change that raises a real prospect of returning children and families, such as those that I met last Thursday, to persecution or other forms of life-threatening harm.

There are aspects of this bill that I support, along with the Labor Party. I will be supporting Labor's amendments to remove schedule 2 and I look forward to listening to the debate continue at the committee stage. Thank you.