Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 on behalf of this government. The important amendments to be made by this bill support changes introduced last year by the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014. Among other things, the foreign fighters act addressed the emerging threat of Australians seeking to travel overseas to fight with terrorist organisations. Importantly in the context of this particular bill, it enhances the capability of the new Australian Border Force to identify persons seeking to enter and depart Australia and non-citizens who remain in Australia.

Why is this important? We are facing an increasingly challenging time on our borders. By 2020 we shall have 50 million border crossings a year in Australia and it is absolutely essential that we are able to verify who everybody is—like the old adage, trust but verify. With 50 million movements across the borders every year, it will be essential that we have the technology and the processes to enable us to do this.

National security must always be the primary priority of any national government and it is certainly the priority of the current government, as are, as Senator Smith has just said, the preservation of our democratic freedoms, our human rights and our civil liberties. In one sense, they may seem to be incompatible policy objectives. To balance them is never easy and it is right that they should always be contested in this place to ensure we get the balance right. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Islamic State, people smugglers and other international criminals are a very clear threat to Australia today. In 1986, Margaret Thatcher noted to the British parliament:

Terrorism thrives on a free society. The terrorist uses the feelings in a free society to sap the will of civilization to resist. If the terrorist succeeds, he has won and the whole of free society has lost.

She also noted that:

Terrorism has to be defeated; it cannot be side-stepped. When other ways and other methods have failed—I am the first to wish that they had succeeded—it is right that the terrorist should know that firm steps will be taken to deter him from attacking either other peoples or his own people who have taken refuge in countries that are free.

I know through my own experiences in government, dealing with the threats of al Qaeda and Jamia Islamia taught me that terrorists do not respect compassion, that they will always exploit it and look for a way to get around the system to achieve their aims.

As we all know now in this place, the threat is real and the threat remains. Between 1990 and 2010, 30 Australians were known to have trained or fought with extremist groups in conflict zones, including in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Of these, 25 returned to Australia and 19 became involved in activities in Australia which were euphemistically prejudicial to our national security. At least eight were convicted of terrorist offences. Since that time, with the evolution of Daesh and IS, they have made much greater use of social media and much greater use of technology and also clearly identity fraud. Therefore, the amendments in this legislation are absolutely critical. In fact, it is critical to support the Prime Minister's National Security Statement of 23 February this year, which stated that further legislation was required to combat terrorism and to keep Australians safe. Again as we have seen even as late as this week, recent terrorism related events in Australia and globally serve to remind us yet again that this threat is real. This bill further strengthens Australia's border protection measures by enhancing the capability of the department to identify persons seeking either to enter or to depart Australia and also non-citizens who remain in Australia.

So why as these changes needed and why are they needed now? Recent border and terrorism related events in Australia and worldwide illustrate the need for measures to strengthen community protection outcomes. The measures in this bill will strengthen the department's capability to collect biometrics, to check identity and to do other checks on individuals of concern. We have already heard tonight from other speakers of the recent examples of many Australians who have left Australia to participate in foreign conflicts and the need for additional protections at our borders has been highlighted.

What is the department's history with biometrics? Biometrics are not new. In the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the biometrics program was been progressively expanded over time, commencing in 2006 with the collection of facial images and fingerprints of illegal foreign fishermen; through to 2010, when the department commenced collecting facial images and fingerprints from offshore visa applicants in certain high-risk locations and onshore protection claimants; and through to 2012, when collecting facial images and fingerprints from non-citizens refused entry at Australia's international airports commenced.

While the current legislative framework has effectively supported Australia's border protection efforts since it was introduced more than 10 years ago, it now needs to be updated to provide officers with the tools to more effectively meet current demands and to keep pace with advances in biometric technology. I believe that the success to date of the department's biometric program and the amount of time and expertise they have now developed in this area demonstrates the value of personal identifiers in protecting Australia's borders and strengthening the integrity of Australia's migration program.

Personal identifiers are essential to detect identity fraud and to conduct appropriate security, law enforcement and immigration checks prior to visa grants at what the department calls 'touch points' during travel to Australia, post arrival in the Australian community and for any subsequent visas to remain in Australia.

Personal identifiers are far more accurate than document based checks for biographic details such as name, date of birth and nationality. Obviously, people have false documentation and they can claim to be or assume the identity of somebody who they are not. The current checks of personal identifiers against existing immigration data holdings and the data holdings of Australian law enforcement agencies and Five Country Conference partner countries have revealed undisclosed adverse immigration and criminal history information for noncitizens and serious discrepancies in the biographic information that they provided.

In fact, the department has made more than 9,000 fingerprint matches with Australian law enforcement agencies and immigration departments of other countries. These matches have revealed undisclosed security and criminal histories, as well as discrepancies between biographical data provided to the department and that provided by other agencies. Again, what this demonstrates is that with the projected 50 million movements across Australian borders by 2020 it is absolutely essential that we trust and verify as much as possible the information provided. I will highlight that again: the department has made more than 9,000 matches with Australian law enforcement and other agencies of people who have provided false information to gain access to this country.

It is clear that biometrics are more accurate than document based checks of biographical details such as name, date of birth and nationality because they are relatively stable over time and are significantly more difficult to forge—even today with the advances in technology. As the utility of collecting biometrics results in a foundation of accurate identification, fingerprints provide higher-integrity identity assurance than identity documentation or facial images.

Current biometric measures which have exposed fraudulent and illegal activity have demonstrated that criminals, possible terrorists, people smugglers and others have used very sophisticated technology to enter Australia illegally. The sheer volume—and the 9,000 who have been detected already—is clearly a strain on Australia's border protection agencies. And that is only increasing every day. Therefore, it is even more important that we make the absolute best use of the technology available to streamline the process and to make it more accurate.

It is this government's duty to ensure that our laws are equal to the task which is faced by our border agencies. While the current biometric program has effectively supported Australia's border protection efforts since it was introduced more than 10 years ago, it now needs to be updated to more effectively meet current threats and to keep pace with advances in biometric technology. Therefore, this bill provides for a simplified scheme to collect biometrics, particularly fingerprints. But it is very important to note that it does not introduce a universal biometrics collection policy. I will just say that again, because it is very important: it does not introduce a universal biometrics collection policy. The department will continue to facilitate the smooth travel to Australia of the overwhelming majority of people who are legitimate travellers and who are law-abiding people, without collecting additional biometrics from them. Whilst the government does acknowledge the impact on some travellers in circumstances where a certain amount of identity verification is required, the increased collection powers are proportionate to the legitimate purpose of protecting the Australian community and the integrity of the migration program.

This bill addresses gaps in the existing biometric legislative framework and replaces seven existing provisions in the Migration Act, which separately authorise the collection of biometrics. Streamlining the existing multiple provisions will remove inconsistency and duplication, and enhance the department's efforts to achieve important government policy objectives. These include removing current restrictions on the circumstances where biometrics can be collected and providing flexibility in the collection of biometrics from citizens and noncitizens who are arriving and departing from Australia each and every day.

The bill also provides a wider power to collect biometrics from noncitizens who have been identified as of concern after their arrival in Australia and also from their behaviours while living in the Australian community that raise alarms with our law enforcement and border protection authorities.

Significant numbers—as I have said, they have already detected about 9,000 of these individuals through this process—of noncitizens have not had identity, security and criminal history checks conducted under the department's biometric program, either because of the timing of their entry into Australia or because of their method of arrival. I think that is one of the most alarming current situations—that probably thousands of noncitizens have not had any identity, security and criminal history checks conducted under this biometrics program, again, because of the timing of their entry into Australia or because of their method of arrival. That should be of concern to all in this chamber.

In terms of the balance: it is important to remember that only a small number of noncitizens are required to provide their biometrics for checking every year. In 2013-14 less than two per cent of noncitizens granted a visa—less than two per cent—to come to Australia provided biometrics to the department. It is not very many people who are required to do this; it is actually less than two per cent. But the higher-integrity identity security law enforcement and immigration history checks are now possible using biometrics. These not only use more of a risk based approach they also streamline and make it much easier for the department to focus on those of the highest concern with a much higher degree of accuracy.

Noncitizens who may be required to provide biometrics include those under investigation by immigration officers for identity fraud or for breaches of visa conditions. I would say to anybody in this chamber that those are community standards which I think most Australians would agree with—people who are under investigation for identity fraud, people lying to come into Australia, or people who are suspected of failing to disclose adverse information when they applied for their visa. As I said, the department has already found over 9,000 such people.

Biometrics collected will be used to conduct additional checks with domestic and international agencies to link individuals under review to security, law enforcement and immigration information that may be known to other agencies but which the individual seeking to come to Australia has not disclosed to the department. The ability to verify information against data held by Five Country Conference partners as well as domestic agencies provides greater integrity to the immigration system and protection against the spread of terrorism and human trafficking; and will assist in resolving the current asylum seeker caseload.

So what does this bill actually do? What is the detail of this bill? As we know, the new Border Force plays a key role in protecting the security of our borders. Measures in the bill focus on biometrics, termed 'personal identifiers' in the Migration Act, which are a unique identifier—unique to one single person. The measures in the bill address gaps and remove restrictions. This will assist to identify persons who cross the border—and to conduct security law enforcement and immigration checks.

The measures in the bill enable the old Department of Immigration and Border Protection—now the Australian Border Force—to counter the current initiatives and technology used by illegal arrivals to gain access to Australia as identity and security checks using these personal identifiers are much more accurate than the document based checks of biographical details.

Specific measures in the bill will, firstly, introduce a broad power to collect biometrics for the purpose of the migration acts and regulations, including assisting in identifying persons who may be a security threat to Australia. As we know, that security threat is very real and still very present. Secondly, the bill will provide the flexibility to always require biometrics in some circumstances—for example, in visa applications from persons who are part of an identified higher risk cohort, or not to require biometrics in other cases. Therefore, it will allow our border agencies to really focus their efforts on those 50,000 movements across our borders by 2020 to really pick out the two per cent of those who need the most scrutiny.

The bill will not mean that biometrics will be collected from the majority of noncitizens who apply for a visa to travel to Australia. It does not introduce a universal biometric collection policy, but provides flexibility to require biometrics from particular individuals or higher risk cohorts.

The bill provides for a framework to enable manual fingerprint-based checks to be carried out using mobile, hand-held devices to detect persons of concern. The checks will be conducted at airports and seaports and will take 20 to 40 seconds to complete. A traveller's identity will be checked against immigration and security agency data holdings using up to four finger images. The images will not be retained following completion of the check.

This enhanced capability to conduct meaningful cross-checks with relevant agencies' data holdings will respond to potential alerts or threats before someone boards an aircraft or ship, or is cleared to move into the Australian community. This is another important and very significant change to our border protection measures here in Australia. These mobile devices will also be deployed for use in other circumstances to assure the identity of noncitizens during key transactions with the departments.

The bill will remove existing restrictions in the Migration Act on collecting biometrics from minors and incapable persons to address current inconsistencies in the Migration Act. And, as we have heard from several other speakers tonight, the restriction for minors is absolutely critical; because, while we like to think that young people are not capable of terrible violence, we have absolutely seen not only Australian minors travelling overseas but also minors from many other countries who have been turned into deadly killing machines and suicide bombers. Sadly that is the unfortunate reality for us here today.

Ultimately, I think it can be argued that this is a child protection measure aimed at preventing child smuggling and/or child trafficking as well as the antiterrorism measures. Collecting personal identifiers and fingerprints from children will permit a higher level of integrity to identify minors travelling overseas—including people smuggling and people trafficking.

In conclusion, the Australian government is committed to fulfilling its most important responsibility—to protect Australia, its people and its interests. It is for those reasons that I commend this bill to the Senate. (Time expired)