Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014. As has been stated by many who have preceded me in this debate, this bill came about as a result of the passage of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, which was passed on the last sitting day of the parliament in 2014. Part of that piece of legislation created temporary protection visas. As you know, Madam Acting Deputy President, it was those temporary protection visas that enabled us to get those children who had been in detention on Christmas Island out of detention. It is very important to put in context the importance of what is trying to be achieved by resolving the asylum legacy case load. We had some 2,000 children in detention at the peak, and we have systematically reduced that number. This measure just seeks to ensure that the last of those children are out of detention and that in the future it does not happen again.

Part of this is to make sure that we fast-track the system so that we can accelerate in the most efficient and effective way the reduction of that legacy case load. Senator Xenophon—and many before who have made a contribution on this bill—raised the issue of the complementary protection provisions within the bill. I have to say I was a little surprised to learn that the Labor Party are choosing not to support schedule 2 of the bill in relation to these complementary protection initiatives, particularly given their track record in this area. All this is seeking to do is to make sure that the people who are seeking complementary protection by this mechanism are genuine. It seems a pretty reasonable request to me.

Concerns have been expressed that people may have bogus documents or may not have documents that will be able to substantiate the validity of their claims of who they are, where they have come from and what kind of danger they might be in should they be returned to the country from which they have fled. It is not the only mechanism by which they will be assessed as to the validity of their claim. Senator Xenophon made the comment that the efficiency that is sought by these measures must be tempered by fairness. I do not think there would be anybody in this chamber who does not believe that that statement should hold true across all legislation, but particularly in the area of migration.

There is this idea that we are not going to support a mechanism which gives the government the power to be able to assess whether somebody is using this mechanism to get into the country unfairly. We need to remember, with our migration intake, that every person who seeks to come to this country unfairly or without valid reason, who is not able to genuinely have refugee status, who is not genuinely able to establish their bona fides under the complementary protection mechanisms of this bill, actually puts a genuine person further down the queue.

We also need to remember that, with the limited resources that we have to process the applications that the government is faced with day after day, from people who genuinely wish to come to this country because they are trying to escape persecution from the country which they have sought to leave, we need to have some system by which we can prioritise those people who have got a genuine need to come to this country. I put that on the table—that we need to be balanced in making sure that, in the process of trying to be efficient and effective and deal with those people who most need our help, we do not end up getting our system clogged up to save one person while sacrificing so many of the people who genuinely need help in Australia, to escape the persecution that they may have been receiving in the country from which they have come.

As I said, the bill is intended to improve the integrity and the consistency of decision making. It is to prevent exploitation of the protection visa determination process and the merits review system by applicants who are not genuinely pursuing a protection claim. Let us make it very, very clear. These amendments are specifically to send a message to asylum seekers that they too have a level of responsibility if they wish to come to this country as refugees or under the complementary protection mechanisms of this bill.

It does not seem an unreasonable thing for the person who is seeking asylum to actually have the capacity to establish their identity, nationality or citizenship and to have the responsibility for making the claim as to why they are seeking this particular protection and providing the evidence. As has been mentioned, there are obviously going to be circumstances and cases that will necessitate alternative mechanisms by which the bona fides of their claim are going to need to be assessed, but overwhelmingly the people who are coming to this country will have some method by which they can provide evidence in support of their claim as to why they should genuinely be able to seek to have protection of the Australian government in their claims for migration.

Quite clearly this bill seeks to put some balance into the argument between making sure that we speedily and effectively process these people, many of whom are absolutely genuine—and I do not think anybody has made ever made any suggestion that these people are not genuine—and the process of making sure that we have a speedy—

Debate interrupted.