Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to also speak on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. First of all, I'd like to make some remarks about the content of the bill itself and the provisions within it, but I will take the opportunity to make some more general remarks about the administration of the Immigration and Home Affairs portfolio by this government and by Minister Dutton in particular.

Dealing with the bill itself, it makes a number of amendments to several existing pieces of legislation: firstly, the Migration Act 1958; secondly, the Customs Act 1901; and, thirdly, the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. Going to some of the things the bill does: firstly, the bill clarifies when a noncitizen is in the migration zone and ensures a bar on the application for further visas remains in place if the process of being removed is interrupted. Secondly, the bill allows the department to provide information to visa applicants via their online ImmiAccount. Many people have found the use of those sorts of online mechanisms to assist with visa processing very useful, so that is an amendment that we support. Thirdly, the bill reduces the risk of breaching the Constitution—which is always a good thing and something that I know Minister Dutton is particularly keen to ensure in his personal circumstances—where refunds are mistakenly made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. And, fourthly, the bill establishes an ability to recover merchant fees for services. As has been made clear already by Senator Carr, Labor will be supporting the passage of this legislation because it does clarify a number of relatively minor issues across the portfolio that was previously known as Immigration and Border Protection. But, as I say, the bill does nothing to assist with the increasing level of maladministration that we see in this portfolio, by Minister Dutton in particular.

Dealing in a little bit more detail with the amendments that are proposed, I begin with the provisions regarding the removal of noncitizens. Schedule 1 of the bill outlines amendments relating to the removal of a noncitizen from the migration zone and ensures that a bar on applying for further visas remains in place if the process of being removed is interrupted. Section 198 of the Migration Act, as it currently stands, allows for the removal from Australia of unlawful noncitizens. Those unlawful noncitizens can include those who have breached the conditions of their visa or have overstayed their visa. I think all Australians would accept that the ability of the department to remove unlawful noncitizens is an important power that any Australian government should have. At times, because of circumstances, the removal of an unlawful noncitizen may be interrupted or aborted altogether, or it might be that a removal is completed but the person is not permitted entry into a receiving country. It does happen from time to time that Australian authorities are able to effect a removal of an unlawful noncitizen, only to find, when a person is deported, that they are refused entry at the country to which they are taken. In fact, there have been some instances where aircraft have been forced, mid-flight, to return to Australia because of the inability or the unwillingness of another country to accept the arrival of an unlawful noncitizen from Australia. There have even been instances where the government has decided to cancel a removal in response to an interim measures request from the United Nations. So it is important that our legislation keeps pace with all of these sorts of eventualities, and that's what's intended to occur here.

If a situation such as those occurs, and a person is returned to Australia as a direct result, then these amendments that we're debating today will allow for that person to have a lawful basis to return to Australia without a visa, and they will ensure that, when such a person does return to Australia without a visa, there is a bar on the person from making a valid application for certain visas. Obviously, if we're dealing with a situation where someone is deported and, in the worst-case scenario, an aircraft is forced to be turned around to take them back to Australia, there needs to be some legal mechanism for that person to regain entry to Australia, at least for a period of time. But these amendments will make sure that the person doesn't have the ability to reactivate any visa application to replace an earlier decision.

In terms of the amendments regarding information being provided via an online ImmiAccount, the Department of Home Affairs can already communicate with individuals applying for visas in a number of ways. They include giving documents by hand, by post, by email, by fax or by other electronic means. But, even as I say those words, you will recognise that they are means of communication that are rapidly becoming obsolete as more and more people move to online mechanisms for dealing with government. The amendments under schedule 2 of this bill amend sections 494B and 494C of the Migration Act to allow the department to provide visa applicants with information and documents via their online ImmiAccount. The department describes the ImmiAccount as the 'front door' to its online services. We on the Labor side hope that these amendments will improve the department's ability to process visa applications in a timely manner. That is something that has become an increasing problem under the current minister, and I'll have a bit more to say about that later.

The third set of amendments concern recoverable payments. In this bill, schedule 3 reduces the risk of breaching the Constitution where refunds are mistakenly made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. For those watching at home who have their copies of the Constitution beside them, section 83 of the Constitution provides that no amount may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund except under an appropriation made by law. The department currently operates mainly on a client self-assessment basis for the collection, refund and drawback of duty in the Integrated Cargo System. Due to this system, there is always a chance that refunds and drawbacks which aren't owed are still made. That would put those refunds and drawbacks in breach of section 83 of the Constitution. I know that Minister Dutton upholds the Constitution extremely thoroughly, so it's good to see him and his department taking action to make sure that the Constitution isn't being breached on this occasion. This amendment will reduce the risk of breaching the Constitution and it also implements a requirement for the secretary of the home affairs department to report in the annual report any payments that Public Service employees are aware of that were made for a particular financial year.

The fourth set of amendments contained here are in schedule 4, and they apply to the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. What they say is that, if a person is seeking to depart Australia, they are liable to pay a charge known as the passenger movement charge. That's the current situation. Currently, the Department of Home Affairs incurs a merchant fee if the passenger pays the movement charge with a credit card. This cost is incurred by the department and, in turn, the Australian taxpayer. I think most of us would concede that it is really the obligation of someone who is paying their movement charge to incur all charges associated with it. These amendments before the Senate now allow for a new paragraph 2 to be added to section 15 of the act that will allow for regulations to recover this cost which is otherwise incurred by the department. This move is consistent with the fee-for-service that the department recovers for other current statutory portfolio charges, fees and duties that are paid by credit card or PayPal. So it's bringing it in line with current practice being followed by the department in other ways.

Finally, there are a number of additional minor amendments outlined in schedule 5 of the bill which apply to the Customs Act 1901. These amendments include some wording clarification, such as adding the words 'to an external place' to two paragraphs in section 58A within the act. The purpose of section 58A of the Customs Act is to control the movement of persons and goods between sea installations installed in the adjacent area and the coastal area of Australia or a resources installation attached to the Australian seabed at an external place. The words 'to an external place' were inadvertently omitted by the Customs Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999, so we welcome the current coalition government fixing the drafting errors of previous coalition governments. I'd encourage them to take the opportunity to do whatever else is necessary as well.

That's what this bill deals with in specific terms. I want to take the opportunity, in the remaining time that I have, to talk more generally about Minister Dutton's administration of his department—or, more accurately, his maladministration of his department. I know Minister Dutton has tried to build up this image of himself as a hard man—the hard man of this government, the man who is going to keep our borders safe and keep the bad people out—and he would like every Australian to think of him with that degree of respect.