Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to place on the record Labor's remarks regarding the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017. Labor support the principle of cancelling the visas of noncitizens on character grounds or because of criminal offences, and we support the removal of criminals from Australia under section 501 of the Migration Act. Therefore we support this bill, which has arisen because of cases before the High Court that challenge the validity of section 501. It is not appropriate to comment on those cases, Graham and Te Puia, but it is clearly in Australia's best interests to preserve the validity of effective past decisions to remove people under section 501 of the act. That will be the effect of this bill. Section 501 sets out the grounds on which people can be excluded on character grounds or when the minister reasonably suspects that a noncitizen presents a risk to the Australian community. A person can fail the character test in several ways—for example, by having an extensive criminal record; through membership of a group or organisation involved in criminal conduct, such as a motorcycle gang; if there is a risk that the person will commit a criminal offence; if there is an Interpol notice that the person might present a risk to the community.

Immigration ministers decide to cancel visas on the best information available, including advice from the intelligence and security services. It is reasonable for these agencies to expect that, in some circumstances, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will not disclose the advice. Section 503A of the act protects information the agencies supply to the department's officers on condition that it remains confidential. Ultimately, the minister's decision will be made according to the Commonwealth's interpretation of section 501. Visa applicants who are not satisfied with the decision can ask the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review it. That is a fair system, which the bill is intended to uphold.

The bill has been brought on for debate on the same day that the report of the Senate inquiry into the bill has been tabled. That degree of haste may not be without precedent but it is certainly not usual practice. The Migration Act is a complex piece of legislation, and this government has a poor track record of consulting stakeholders and the Australian people about amendments to this very important act. That's why it's Labor's practice to refer all legislation amending the act to a Senate inquiry so that stakeholders have an opportunity to comment on unintended consequences. Labor notes the submissions made by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Dr Martin Bibby, Refugee Legal and the Law Council of Australia. In particular, I note the concern expressed by the Law Council that this bill should be held over until the High Court makes a decision on Graham and Te Puia. However, Labor believes that it is in our national interest to protect Australians from those noncitizens who do not meet character grounds, by upholding previous decisions to cancel visas.

I remind the Senate that in January the Commonwealth Ombudsman released two reports on Australia's immigration system. The reports highlighted failures by the minister and the department to manage the number of people in detention, leading to mismanagement of cases. One of the Ombudsman's reports concerned the administration of section 501 of the act and is therefore relevant to this bill. That report pointed to people being held for unnecessarily long and potentially indefinite periods of immigration detention. It's beyond question that noncitizens who commit serious offences should expect to be deported, but that does not mean that the minister should act in ways that leave families and children in limbo and increase their distress. Labor will continue to uphold the bipartisan commitments to keeping Australia and Australians safe. We are committed to upholding the integrity of the Migration Act. That includes the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to freely provide the minister with advice. But we will also continue to hold the minister to account for failures of the kinds set out in the Ombudsman's report. With that warning, we support the bill.