Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to make a contribution on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. This bill amends the Migration Act in the following ways. Firstly, the bill clarifies that, if a process to remove a person from Australia under section 198 is unsuccessful, the person does not require a visa to return. The bill provides that, where a person leaves the migration zone but returns as the result of an unsuccessful removal under section 198, they remain subject to a statutory bar against applying for further visas. The bill also enables the department to deliver documents to a person through their online ImmiAccount and to charge people for that so-called privilege.

The Greens have serious concerns regarding the amendments in relation to the expanded application of the visa bar under the Migration Act, and have requested information from the minister in relation to this. These concerns are based largely on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the bill dated 8 May 2018. In relation to removal from Australia and the requirement for a visa when travelling to Australia, section 42 of the Migration Act provides that a noncitizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect. A noncitizen who is in the migration zone without a valid visa would be deemed an unlawful noncitizen. The act requires the removal from the migration zone of any noncitizen who does not hold a visa that is in effect and who is unable to resolve their visa status. The bill requires that that removal must occur as soon as is reasonably practicable. I'll come back in a minute to the phrase 'as soon as is reasonably practicable', which would be rather laughable if the circumstances weren't so tragic.

Firstly, proposed section 42(2A)(d) provides that a visa is not required where an attempt to remove a noncitizen under section 198 is made but not completed, the noncitizen travels to Australia as a direct result of this, and the person would be an unlawful noncitizen if they were in the migration zone. Secondly, section 42(2A) applies where removal under section 198 is completed but the noncitizen does not enter the other country—for example, due to being refused entry by that country—and would be an unlawful noncitizen if they were in the migration zone. The Greens have concerns because these amendments would affect the department's processes in bringing a person back to Australia where removal from Australia is unsuccessful, but they do not change or regularise the person's status. Currently, this visa bar applies only to a person deemed a noncitizen—not 'an unlawful noncitizen', because, as we know, government included, there is no such thing. So the visa bar bars a person deemed a noncitizen by the act from applying for particular visas after they were removed or deported from Australia to another country but were refused entry to that other country, and so were returned to Australia.

The Greens have real concerns in relation to amendments relating to the bar on further visa applications. We have very strong concerns about this. Under section 48 of the Migration Act, a person is barred from applying for most visas if they are in the migration zone, they do not hold a substantive visa—that is, they are on a bridging visa—and, since last entering Australia, they have had either a visa application refused or a visa cancelled. The bill amends sections 48 and 48A in line with its amendments to section 42, with the effect being that, when the person returns to Australia, they will be taken to have been continuously in the migration zone. This means that, if prior to the person's removal they would have been barred from making a visa application under either section, this will continue to be the case when they return to Australia. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised concerns about this measure, which it noted will expand the circumstances in which the statutory visa bar applies. The committee has suggested that the proposed amendments are not compatible with the right to liberty and the right to an effective remedy, as well as the obligation to consider the best interests of the child. Unfortunately, it's another cruel approach from this government.

The committee also suggested that there is a risk that a person barred from applying for a new protection visa, for example, could be subject to immigration detention for an extended period given that an attempt to deport the person has already failed or could be deported even if owed protection obligations. As if in this country we haven't already locked up enough people for indefinite detention, we are building disaster upon disaster with these amendments. This amendment bill seeks to extend that visa bar to people the government has attempted to remove from Australia but, for whatever reason, that removal was not completed or the person did not enter the designation country. This is extending the circumstances in which this draconian, inhumane statutory bar against applying for further visas can be applied to already vulnerable people seeking asylum who the government wants to send back to their country of origin or departure and then that government says, 'No, they are not welcome here,' and they do not—as per the Bill's Digest examples—enter the other country due to being refused entry by that country. So these are stateless people trapped in a limbo by two countries saying, 'It's not my problem.' Imagine being that person and being pinged between countries that are basically saying, 'We don't want you.' We need to ask ourselves, 'When will we see a government acting with integrity, honouring its commitments to the United Nations refugee convention and treating human beings like human beings?'

One of the other points I'd like to raise is on the delivery of documents. The electronic sending of documents highlights another query, being that, as the Migration Act already provides for the delivery of documents by email, fax and other electronic means, this would possibly cover documents via an online account. Under schedule 2 of this bill, the parliament can send these documents to a person through their online ImmiAccount. This is a tragedy just waiting to happen for so many vulnerable people who have come to us for help and for our compassion. This will also apply to minors. A document under this schedule of the bill can be sent to a person the minister 'reasonably believes' to be the carer of a minor. Again, this is a tragedy waiting to happen. You can imagine how many possible slip-ups and mistakes could be made through this process. You can imagine what boundaries will be put around who the minister 'reasonably believes' to be the carer of a minor. I don't want to put any trust into this system and into what the minister would believe is 'reasonable'. There have been so many mistakes and slip-ups, and then, of course, there has been the genuine, full-on cruelty, on behalf of this government, to those seeking asylum and seeking protection by this country. You will forgive us Greens for not trusting that this government would implement the 'reasonable' aspect of this legislation in any sensible way.

The final insult added to injury contained in this cruel and cold-hearted bill is that the government wants to be able to charge people it tries to send back to horrific situations that they have in fact fled. These are people who have come to Australia seeking asylum. The government wants to charge these people for having the door slammed in their face. To add insult to injury, here's the government saying, 'We're saying no. We're slamming the door in your face. We're treating you appallingly. And now, you can pay for it.'

We do not support measures that make life even harder for those seeking asylum. The Greens will not be supporting this bill in its current form, because it is just another version of the government's overreach and an attempt to demonise and humiliate innocent people who have dared to seek the safety and protection of this country. It is an attempt to demonise and humiliate people to whom we have already done so much harm. It is appalling.

The Greens have now, for an extremely long time, stood up for the most vulnerable members of our community and stood up for those seeking to be members of our community—those who have fled the oppression, violence and horrific situations that we have talked about in this chamber many times. We will not be supporting this bill in its current form because it's designed to make life even harder for those people seeking asylum. People will end up being pinged between countries, where we say, as a nation, 'It's not our problem,' and the other country says, 'It's not our problem.' It gives the lie to requiring that their removal must occur as soon as is reasonably practicable. It means that people, as we have seen, are condemned to years and years of being stateless, of not knowing their future, of not having a life, of not knowing what's happening to their family and, as Senator McKim just pointed out, of not even once being able to hug their child. Put yourself in those circumstances: of never having spent any time with your child, simply because you fled an unacceptable, horrific situation—a thing that I warrant that any member of this chamber would do if their families and their lives were at risk, and particularly if their families were at risk. I know personally that I would have done and would do anything to protect my family and my child. Put yourselves into the shoes of those who sometimes have had to make that horrific decision to leave other family members behind. They're still in that situation. They can't go back to their country of birth. Then they're stuck here in this country, being treated appallingly. We will stand against that every single time. We will not be supporting this bill in its current form.