Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to make just a short contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. As my colleague Senator Paterson said, the bill before the Senate today amends the Migration Act 1958 to improve and clarify the intended operation of the legislative framework for the giving of notices and other documents, and to remove restrictions on certain noncitizens lodging a valid application for a protection visa. Again echoing my colleague Senator Paterson, I do want to put on the record the coalition's position on this bill. We are providing our support to major aspects of the bill, as the bill is generally administrative in nature and makes some sensible changes to streamline the notification processes around certain visas.

The first two areas of the bill make relatively minor amendments to the Migration Act and will reduce the number of applications for administrative review on minor matters, such as documents being sent to a wrong address or minor mistakes in correspondence. This bill makes clear the instances when the minister or the government must contact a person or persons who could be impacted by the cancellation of a visa, and a person affected by the cancellation of a visa must, under this bill, be notified in writing. It confirms that the regulations can prescribe methods for giving such documents. This both clarifies and reinforces the existing mechanisms within the legislation to help ensure that a person affected by a visa cancellation has the best chance of receiving the relevant documents. The amendments will also improve the operation of the act and reduce the number of matters that go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court on minor technical issues. As I stated previously, the coalition agrees with and is supportive of these amendments.

However, the coalition has raised concerns surrounding the third point of this legislation, which deals with the removal of the requirement for the minister to consider an application to allow someone to lodge a protection visa application due to dual citizenship issues. The coalition believe that this change will have unintended consequences, and therefore we cannot provide our support on this point. If the department is the initial decision-maker, we want to ensure that the change proposed in this bill does not lead to an ability for people to avail themselves of judicial rights just because a decision has been made by the department rather than the minister. It comes down to a case of workload. We believe that the minister, instead of delegating to the department, should rightly still retain that discretion to allow noncitizens who are nationals of two or more countries to be able to apply for a protection visa.

More broadly, it is important that we ensure our migration system remains current and can deal effectively with issues relating to migration into this country. As I said in my initial remarks, the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 largely does do that. But, as I explained, the coalition holds some reservations relating to the unintended consequences of a specific element of this bill.

Our nation has a very long and very proud history of welcoming new migrants to our shores. You only have to look at our cities and our local communities to see the immense impact and positive contribution of our migrant communities. While we always come into this place and speak about our experience in our home states, because that's what we as senators are here for, I must say that in my own home state of Tasmania I'm very proud of everything that our migrant communities bring to our fantastic state. It is truly amazing that so many people from so many parts of the world can come together in one country, work hard, provide for their families and call it home.

It is incredibly important that our migration system is balanced in welcoming migrants but also ensuring that our borders are kept secure. Any legislation that comes to this place and seeks to make that process easier to understand for those attempting to navigate the system is, I think, a good thing, because when it comes to migration there are a number of questions on this front—particularly of late—that I think the government need to answer, in terms of how easy that system is to navigate and being able to solve any issues that individuals might have when they are trying to navigate that system.

I notice that recently my office has received calls from people who want to make Australia their permanent home and who, when going through the application process to make that a reality, can often find themselves caught up in a complex web of departmental bureaucracy surrounding their visa application. I am sure there would be many senators in this place who have had that experience of their constituents coming to them and seeking advice on how to navigate the visa application system. I've had calls from people complaining about the wait times when it comes to processing their visa applications. I've had people call to tell me that the department has provided them with the wrong information or in some cases hasn't even communicated with them regarding their application at all.

It's understandable why these people are so worried and feel the need to pick up the phone to their local politician. From what I've heard from colleagues and in the other place, it's something a lot of us are getting calls about, and these individuals often come to us as the last port of call. But the support that we're able to provide to them is somewhat limited, and I know from personal experience that that can be quite frustrating. This is especially the case when we as parliamentarians are trying to make representations to the government or to the department and are told that we're not in a position to inquire about a visa application on behalf of an applicant. I understand why, for privacy reasons, that would be the case. But, when we go back to applicants and tell them that we, as elected parliamentarians in this place, aren't in a position to help them navigate our migration system, it is effectively just adding to their worry and their concern.

So, in looking at the good things about this bill that we are debating here this evening, I note that it will make notification processes more streamlined. I think that that can only be a good thing in ensuring that individuals navigating the visa application process are appropriately made aware, in certain instances, of what is happening with their visa application.

I had one experience recently of being approached by an individual, a member of the Iranian diaspora community, because they were under the impression that they had to contact the Iranian embassy to get a police check as a requirement of the visa application. I raised this issue at the recent Senate estimates. Certainly, from looking at the information that I was provided with relevant to that individual's application and at the publicly available information on the department's website, it did seem to be the case. Thankfully, in Senate estimates the department was able to set the record straight on this issue and state that it wasn't necessary for these people to get in contact with Iranian authorities or go through the Iranian embassy as part of the application process. However, the fact that I had to raise the issue at Senate estimates does fundamentally highlight the confusion and the information out there that isn't always accurate when it comes to the visa application process. Like I say, anything that streamlines and simplifies this process is a good thing, but the bill that we're discussing here this evening does have to be considered within the prism of some of our concerns in regard to the ability of the minister to maintain a discretion in some specific instances. As I said, in this bill that we're debating here this evening that is a discretion to allow noncitizens who are nationals of two or more countries to apply for a protection visa.

I certainly think that this bill does some good things. There are some areas, as I've said, that the coalition does take issue with, and we will be moving amendments to that effect to try and make this bill as ideal as we would like it to be. That's because our migration system is important; it is important that people understand it and that people are able to easily navigate it. But, as I say, it is also important that we balance that up with the ability to ensure that the correct decision-makers are making appropriate decisions. With the minister retaining this specific discretion here, we think that that's where that decision would be most appropriately made.