Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is the report for the period from 1 November last year to the end of February this year of the conduct of the Refugee Review Tribunal and reviews that they did not manage to complete within 90 days. It is a very apt time to be considering this report, because, as we have heard in this place particularly in question time over the last couple of days but also in wider public debate, there is legislation before the parliament which seeks to enable the government to send a wider range of asylum seekers outside of the rule of Australian law and outside the reach and the review of the Refugee Review Tribunal completely. It makes a mockery of reports such as this.

This report is a direct consequence of amendments made to the Migration Act by this parliament as a consequence of changes announced by the government towards the middle of last year to improve the time for processing and review of people claiming asylum in Australia. That followed a lot of political pressure, particularly from Liberal backbenchers, most notably Mr Georgiou but also others. As Mr Georgiou would acknowledge, that pressure was the culmination of a wider range of public pressure over a long period of time which was sufficient for the government and the Prime Minister to acknowledge that they needed to make some changes that at least made some effort to improve the processing time of asylum claims.

As with the next report, which deals with protection visa processing by the department itself, both the Refugee Review Tribunal and the department are required to assess claims and appeals within 90 days and provide a report to the parliament indicating those cases that have not met that requirement and state the reasons why. It is not a sufficient requirement, as I said at the time, but it is still an improvement. It is certainly an accountability improvement. It is a regular reminder of the need to keep a focus on this area and keep a spotlight on the performance of the department and the tribunal. It is also a particularly strong reminder at this point in time of how massive a backward step it is for this government to now seek to totally subvert the intent of the parliament and the commitments the government made in the middle of last year by deliberately and knowingly attempting to add a new group of people to those who can be removed from Australia and put outside the reach of Australian law, outside the provisions of the Migration Act, including those under section 440A that lead to this report, and outside the scope of any mechanism for public or independent scrutiny, let alone review.

This report details the performance of the RRT and it provides some useful information that I think will enable those who follow this in detail to measure performance, particularly over a period of time, to see whether we continue to improve the trends and the assessment times, to look at the reasons why some of them go beyond the 90-day period and to seek to remedy that wherever possible. It is a useful mechanism. It is not sufficient, but it is useful—but the government are attempting to toss that usefulness out of the window with their latest piece of legislation.

I know there is a lot of focus and pressure at the moment about whether or not that current piece of legislation will be passed. It is no secret that I hope it is not passed, but I hope that senators and the wider community remember that that legislation does not actually introduce a brand new power. It expands the group of people who will be caught under a provision that already exists in the Migration Act and sent outside the rule and reach of law in Australia.

As we all know, many people have already been taken from Australian territory to Nauru and kept there for many years. I remind senators that there are still two people there who have had no independent review of the reason why they have been refused eligibility for a visa in Australia. They have been there for 4½ years and, for all they know, they may be there for another 4½ years. There are still people who can be caught under that provision. If people recognise that this new piece of legislation should be rejected, to be consistent we should be seeking to reverse the provisions that are already in the Migration Act that allow this travesty to happen. I seek leave to continue my remarks. (Time expired)

Leave granted; debate adjourned.