Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

How very disappointing it is that the major parties are on a unity ticket here and will not support a completely uncontentious amendment by the Australian Greens to insert a requirement for a statutory review into this legislation. I won't speak at length. I will just make the point that the people who seek migration advice are often extremely vulnerable people, and the quality of migration advice can often impact on a person's or a family's entire future, including whether or not they can remain in Australia. So, given that circumstance, the Greens believe it is incumbent on this parliament to ensure that the new regulatory framework which is created by this legislation is reviewed.

I'll make the point here by quoting from a submission by the Migration Institute of Australia to the committee inquiry into this legislation, which reminds us all that:

Lawyers have been allowed to continue practicing by their law societies without conditions attached to their practice, even after being barred by the OMARA for gross misconduct and breaches of fiduciary duties.

There it is in black and white, colleagues. OMARA, in some circumstances, has barred lawyers but they've been allowed to continue practising by their law societies without conditions attached to their practise.

I will also quote from a previous submission to an earlier inquiry into the 2017 versions of these bills by the Migration Institute of Australia which contained this observation:

The removal of lawyers from the regulatory system will result in disastrous, unintended consequences for this sector—

the humanitarian migration sector.

It is crucially important that it be protected for both consumers and the large numbers of altruistic lawyers working in this sector. If removed from the OMARA regulatory system these lawyers:

Again, this is a completely uncontroversial amendment that is being proposed by the Australian Greens. It is simply good governance and good practice that, when changes like these are made, the impacts of those changes be reviewed after a period of time that allows for the changes to be bedded in and enough evidence to exist that would inform a review.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments on sheet 8957, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.