David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Again, I want to thank the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Refugee Legal—all of those NGOs that have come in. They engaged with the inquiry and asked the government to be better, to pull this part of the bill. It is so obviously not necessary, because, the High Court has made it clear that these applications should be able to be considered, that there should be a discretion and the ability in the tribunal to consider these applications. I want to give credit to those organisations and also give credit to the government, who has, over to break, further reflected on the submissions that have been made and said that in fact the law as it exists currently, without this bill, should stand and that these provisions will be removed from the bill in the committee process. I want to commend the government, the AG's office, for listening, for taking on board the concerns and seeing those provisions removed in the committee stage. It's a modest but real win for decency and for fairness, so that the tribunal can actually consider the merits of claims and they won't be struck out on the kinds of legal technicalities that bring the law into disrepute.

The other aspect of this bill that I think is important—and, again, it will be reflected in the amendments—is that this was an opportunity to remove some of the systemic unfairness, the two levels of justice—one for people challenging migration and refugee matters and one for the balance of people—because there were so many unfair timeframes that applied to challenges, reviews of migration decisions. Often, it's just seven days that people have to bring an application, and, if you're in immigration detention, you don't have access to a phone, you don't have access to a lawyer and an adverse decision is made against you, how can you seriously bring an application within seven days? We heard again from those organisations that that doesn't work, and it can't work, and it's unfair, and it only applies in migration.

We would love to see all of those unfair time limits removed. Everybody should have access to the 28 days in which to review a decision, and there should be a discretion to extend it. I commend Senator Pocock, who's bringing amendments to that effect, but I will, again, give the government some credit. They have listened to those NGOs. They've listened to concerns that we have repeatedly raised on behalf of the Greens, and there will be amendments to move the minimum time from seven to 14 days. Again, it's still not the same as applies in non-migration matters. There will still be active discrimination against people challenging migration decisions, but I think it is much better, and it is clearly a significant improvement. The advocates and the NGOs in this space that we've spoken to absolutely want the Senate to support that amendment and to see at least that improvement happen. Again, I just want to acknowledge that this is a significant improvement for people in detention, to give the government credit and to give those NGOs credit for the ongoing campaigning and advocacy in that space. It is a win. It's something the Greens have been asking for, for over a decade, and it's a significant win.

There's one amendment from the coalition, seeking to ensure that there will be a minimum of at least one ART registry in each state and territory. This is something that my colleague Senator McKim has been regularly asking for in Tasmania. I know he's on the record repeatedly as saying the AAT—the ART now—should absolutely be guaranteed to have a registry, and the people of Tasmania are entitled to a registry. And that should be written in the law. We agree. We absolutely agree. Small states, large states and territories should all have a minimum of at least one registry. We understand, from our discussions with the government, that that is their current intent, and, for that reason, I understand the government also will not be opposing that amendment, and we actively endorse it and support it.

We are also putting forward amendments proposing a credible pathway for permanency for those who have been subjected to the coalition's cruel and unfair fast-track system. Everybody agrees that the thousands of people who were rejected under the fast-track system were rejected in an unfair process—everyone, of course, except the coalition, who still can't accept that their cruel and nasty fast-track process was unfair. There have been some people who came to Australia before 2013 who have been given a possible pathway to permanency by the government, but, for those thousands of people—some 7,000 people—who were unfairly rejected by the coalition's unfair fast-track process, there is no pathway to permanency being offered by the government. All the government says is that they may consider them at some point, one by one, as individual ministerial discretion cases. How could any minister seriously get their head around 7,000 cases? It's a ridiculous proposal from the government. They know it's not fair. They know it's not true. This would put a pathway in for those who have been unfairly rejected by fast track to have their application fairly reviewed before the ART—to be able to bring their application, bring the original documentation, add fresh documentation and finally have a fair assessment of their claims before the ART. I commend those amendments to the Senate.

While I'm speaking to those, I want to give credit to those people, particularly from the Tamil community, who have been consistently asking for this—not just the Tamil community but also the Bangladesh community and the Pakistan community. But the reason I raise the Tamil community is that they were here in parliament today. They were here in parliament today, again advocating for a fair process for fast track and again advocating for the Tamil people's rights to be respected, for their genuine concerns about the human rights abuses and the ongoing attack against Tamil culture to be recognised and for their asylum claims to be accepted. They were here today. They're doing it not just for the Tamil community but for communities across the board. I want to commend them for their work, for their advocacy and for their strength.

We don't say that our amendment is the only way. There are perhaps better ways to do it—just, on class, accepting their claims—but this is a credible, fair and available pathway for fast track to be resolved, and we commend those amendments to the chamber.