Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's migration framework underpins our economic growth and social diversity. It is a complex web of legislative provisions, judicial interpretation and policy intentions. Where confusion exists or the intention is unclear, a change is required. This is the reason for this bill, which is intended to end inconsistencies in the application of the Migration Act 1958.

Recently, at a Senate tactics committee meeting, I was quizzed on the provisions of this bill, so I will need to go to some detail of the provisions of this bill. I trust Senator Faulkner will be taking particular notice. This bill seeks, under schedule 1, to clarify restrictions on applying for further visas by amending sections 48, 48A and 501E of the act.

On the current interpretation of section 48, anyone who has had a visa or a visa application cancelled at any time cannot apply for a further visa.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Could you ask people to leave the chamber, perhaps?

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Carr. I want to hear you.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did! On the current interpretation of section 48, anyone who has had a visa or a visa application cancelled at any time cannot apply for a further visa. This is contrary to the policy intention, which is to prevent people who have done something wrong from playing the system to stay in the country.

The amendment proposed in this legislation will ensure that each application is considered on its merits, so that if a person has a violation dating from a previous visit to Australia and is now back in the country, the prior history will not prevent further applications.

Amendments to sections 48A and 501E seek to extend the operation of section 48 to people who may have had a valid application lodged on their behalf—for example, family members, or persons who are mentally impaired. This is a result of a recent Federal Court decision challenging the application of section 48 to a minor on whose behalf an application had been made.    In Kim v Minister for Immigration [2013] FCCA 1526, it was argued that section 48 would not limit further applications by minors who did not know about, or understand, the nature of visa applications that were made on their behalf and subsequently refused.

This could result in families being separated due to inconsistent decision-making. For example, the family may be subject to the bar under section 48 but the children who were part of that refusal would not be prevented from making further visa applications.    This amendment makes clear that the bar will apply even if the applicant was unaware an application had been made.

Difficulties may arise where there is a child involved who was old enough to understand what was happening but is still under 18, and so considered as part of the family unit. But the fundamental point is that the system will assume a parent is acting in the best interests of a child for whom a visa application has been made. This legislation makes that point.

Schedule 2 proposes that the department must remove a detainee who was entitled to apply for a substantive visa or revocation of the cancellation of a substantive visa, but did not do so. The obligation to remove in such circumstances will apply irrespective of whether the detainee has a made a valid application for a bridging visa. And, despite the power of removal in subsection 198(5) of the act, the department must not remove a non-citizen whose valid application for a protection visa has not been refused or finally determined, even if the application was made outside the time limit.

Under the current subsection, detainees may be held in indefinite detention while applications for bridging visas are pending, as the department does not have the power to remove a person who has applied for a bridging visa. There is also no limit to the number of bridging visa applications that a person can submit. A bridging visa application also takes away the removal powers of the department, which can result in detainees continuing to apply for bridging visas after all avenues have been exhausted.

It is important to note that this amendment legislation does not impinge on an individual's right to apply for a substantive visa. To address potential concerns regarding Australia's human rights obligations, a provision has been added to the legislation after subsection 198(5) that ensures, despite the powers set out in the legislation, that protection-visa applicants will not be considered for removal until either the visa application has been refused or the application has been 'finally determined'.

Schedule 3 proposes amendments to section 262 to allow debt recovery from people who have been detained for people-smuggling and illegal foreign fishing.    Under the current provisions of the act, a person is not liable for costs arising from their detention and removal when they are no longer detained because of section 250, or because they were granted a visa, or because they were not in immigration detention at the time of their conviction.

The amendments empower the Australian government to recover detention debts from people smugglers and illegal foreign fishers but not asylum seekers. These amendments are consistent with Labor's policy of providing financial disincentives to engage in people-smuggling and illegal foreign fishing.

Schedule 4 amends section 379G of the act to clarify that the role of an authorised recipient is to receive documents from the minister or tribunals on behalf of a visa applicant, but not to act on the applicant's behalf. This amendment clarifies the decision of the Federal Court in MZZDJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFFC 156, which suggested an authorised recipient was effectively an agent of the applicant and therefore able to act on the applicant's behalf. People engage authorised recipients for several reasons, such as ease of communication where language barriers exist or where applicants have no fixed address, but it is important to note the difference between an authorised recipient and a migration agent. A migration agent will act on someone's behalf and may also act as an authorised recipient.

These amendments also address the finding of the Full Federal Court in SZJDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012], known as FCAFC 27, that the term 'applies for review' in subsection 279G(1) of the act means that an application must have been properly made under section 347 for a tribunal to be obliged to give documents to an authorised recipient. The amendments make clear that technicalities will not make an application to have an authorised recipient invalid—that is, as long as the person has expressed a desire to have an authorised recipient, it will not matter if the application itself is valid.

I turn to schedule 5. This provision inserts a new section, 51A, in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 which will provide administrative access to, and use of, material and information obtained under a search warrant issued under the Crimes Act 1914 for certain purposes of the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act. These include making or assisting to make a decision to grant, cancel, revoke or refuse a visa or Australian citizenship; or to cancel approval of citizenship; or concerning the detention, removal or deportation of noncitizens from Australia. These provisions also insert a new section, 488AA, in the act, which provides administrative access to, and use of, material and information obtained under a search warrant issued under the Crimes Act 1914 for certain purposes, including making or assisting to make a decision regarding a grant or revocation; cancellation of revocation of a visa; or the detention, removal or deportation of a noncitizen from Australia.

In several cases the department, operating with the Australian Federal Police, has uncovered sophisticated criminal networks engaged in fraudulent migration applications. However, at present the information cannot be shared with the department's administrative officers, so the information cannot be used to question applicants. At present, only the department's law enforcement officers have access to information obtained under search warrants. The Crimes Act 1914 allows for information sharing with other agencies, but it must be enabled through the Migration Act 1958 to be legal. If the information is to be shared, it will not have any effect upon an applicant's right to review or explain the anomaly. It is important that the minister, the secretary of the department and administrative decision makers should have access to the full range of information when deciding on citizenship applications, visa applications or other circumstances relating to detention, removal or deportation.

With these matters, Labor is satisfied that the amendments will not adversely affect an applicant's ability to have decisions reviewed, and that procedural fairness and natural justice will continue to apply when Crimes Act warrants are used in administrative decision making.

Finally, on schedule 6, the amendment will bring all visa applications under the code of procedure—section 57 of the act, a statutory embodiment of the common-law hearing rule. At present, section 57 applies only to visa applications made onshore, and common-law procedural fairness applies to applications made offshore. The definition of procedural fairness should be consistent for all visa applications, whether they are made onshore or offshore. A higher standard of procedural fairness should not be applied to offshore applications. The amendment will significantly reduce the risk of jurisdictional error arising from the failure to apply the common-law test appropriately. For these reasons, Labor supports this proposed legislation.

Upon the advice that I have received, following departmental briefings, the Labor Party is satisfied that these are non-controversial changes to the immigration law and that they regulate administrative procedures and provide a more consistent application of the law. As a consequence, we see nothing particularly exceptional in these provisions. I have had to go to some detail to explain the technical provisions, which I am sure was immensely interesting to all those listening to these proceedings. However, it is important to explain that these are not controversial matters and are consistent with a proper and fair application of the law.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 and to put on the record that the Australian Greens will not be supporting this bill. While a number of the amendments to various schedules do relate to administrative issues, they are amendments that have been brought forward by the government to circumvent rulings by court decisions that have happened over the last little while. We are concerned that these measures put a number of vulnerable people at potential risk, whereas it may have been better for the department to work out a way of managing its bureaucracy rather than pushing the burden onto the individual applicant. As we know, many people who apply for asylum in Australia, if they come by boat, are found to be in genuine need of protection, so they are already in a high-vulnerability group.

We believe that this bill will have significant implications for people seeking to engage Australia's protection obligations. It will undermine access to fair, just and due process. We are concerned in particular by the changes in relation to the new application measures, particularly for minors. We believe this may put refugee children at higher risk of not being given protection; also, women are at risk of abuse at the hands of former partners. We are concerned that those women may not now be able to apply for protection simply because of these changes.

This bill will prevent individuals with genuine claims lodging further protection applications, limit a migration assistant's ability to act on behalf of their client—we know that this is really important, particularly for the many people who have been in detention for a long time—and increase the likelihood of Australia breaching its non-refoulement obligations. That is in relation to the schedule allowing somebody to be forcibly returned even if they have a bridging visa application on foot.

Australia has obligations under the refugee convention and international law not to return people to places where they would be at risk of significant harm. These obligations simply cannot be dismissed just because the government and the department want a way of circumventing their own bureaucracy. It is not just an administrative issue, when you are looking at people's applications. For people who are applying for protection it is a matter of life and death. It cannot simply be 'Oh well, administratively that's too cumbersome so we'll try and short-circuit it.' Come up with a smoother way, rather than a way of trying to avoid giving people a fair go.

Despite the experts telling a parliamentary inquiry they had serious concerns about the amendments proposed in this bill, the government and the opposition are clearly both in support of this piece of legislation and so it will pass the Senate today. I again put on the record the Greens' concerns in relation to this. We would have preferred to have seen a more protection focused piece of legislation that still dealt with the administrative issues without putting people at further risk.

The Australian Greens do not support this bill. We believe it is another step by this government, which we know is relentless, in their attempt to limit protection avenues for refugees who are in genuine need of protection. This government is headstrong in doing everything they possibly can to limit the ability of people who need protection to get it. Every piece of migration legislation or regulation that has come before this place since this government took office a year ago has been to punish those who are most vulnerable—to punish refugees and asylum seekers. Rather than dealing with the administrative issues in a humane way, this government has again used it as an opportunity to kick refugees at a moment when applications are on foot. Children who need help with putting forward new applications and women who are at risk of further abuse from former partners will now have no avenue to reapply for protection. We think that is a fundamental problem with this piece of legislation. We will not be supporting it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have an interest in this particular bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, as all senators will have. As an Australian citizen I am very keen to ensure that Australia continues to have a very beneficial and worthwhile immigration program, one that is well-ordered, fair, open and accountable, and one that allows people who fit with Australian law to come into our country. I have a keen interest in this subject.

In passing, I must say that Mr Morrison has done an absolutely magnificent job as migration minister and has put the Australian immigration process back on track so that we are able to bring in properly qualified people who apply for immigration to Australia in the appropriate way and meet the rules. Also, under Mr Morrison, now, we have come back to an ordered arrangement whereby those 13,000-odd refugees we take every year are chosen on the basis of their status under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They are genuine refugees and we take them in an ordered fashion. Under the Labor regime, you were able to push in. If you had the money to pay someone to put you at the front of the queue you got in; but those who have been waiting for years in squalid refugee camps right around the world were left languishing thanks to the Australian Labor Party and the Greens political party.

The Greens were very keen to support the people smugglers. They were very keen to support those who had the money and the wherewithal to get a passage—an illegal passage—into Australia. In doing so, they put those who had been waiting for their turn to get to the promised land for years back yet another year. I give all credit to Mr—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are more refugees in northern Iraq right now—do you want them to just wait? You want them to just wait in line?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not take all of that interjection, but I will say to Senator Hanson-Young with, perhaps, not a lot of respect: you are the people smuggler's friend. The people smugglers did their trade in Australia because the Australian Greens kept encouraging them. They kept saying to them, 'Come here and we'll look after your people. We'll give you a product to sell. Charge the $15,000 per person, put it in your pocket and we'll support you when you get to Australia.' It is absolutely disgusting. I have never been more disgusted about a policy issue in the Australian parliament than I am about the way the Labor Party and the Greens support the people smugglers taking $20,000 off supposed 'poor' refugees to come into Australia because they knew that once you got here you would be fine; whereas genuine refugees, who have been living in squalid refugee camps around the world for years are still waiting because people were allowed to jump the queue, thanks to the Greens and the Labor Party. I do not blame anyone trying to get to Australia. We are the promised land. We are a wonderful country. We are a very rich country. I can understand why people anywhere in the world would want to get into Australia, but we have rules. As John Howard said many years ago, 'We will decide who comes to our country and way in which they come here.'

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald has the right to be heard in silence.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, I congratulate Mr Morrison, who, I might say, was ably assisted by the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Senator Cash, who is doing an equally sensational job in bringing our immigration system back to order.

I chaired the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which looked into this bill in some depth. I note in Senator Carr's opening statement that his colleague Senator Faulkner did not have much confidence in Senator Carr's ability to handle this immigration question, and Senator Carr had to reply to Senator Faulkner: 'I have read the bill. I can now explain to you what it is about.' Apparently he could not do that in caucus yesterday. Good on you, Senator Carr. I hope Senator Faulkner is now happy with your management of the portfolio on behalf of the opposition. I must say I am always confused about who in the Labor Party is dealing with this. At estimates Senator Singh seems to take the lead role, and she seems to know a little bit about it and is reasonably confident. Senator Jacinta Collins seems to know quite a lot about it and makes some very intelligent and worthwhile contributions to the deliberations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which deals with all of these immigration matters. Whether it is Senator Singh, Senator Collins or Senator Carr, I do not know. I do not really care, though it is important. The most important part of Senator Carr's speech was that he, as the shadow minister, and his party will be supporting this bill, and I am pleased about that.

I want to refer very briefly to a couple of issues. Senator Carr has gone through some of the technical details. The second reading speech goes through them in some detail as well.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At length!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr says he went through it at length. Yes, I sat here and listened to you, Senator Carr. I would not like to give you a test on it afterwards. You seemed to be reading someone else's work, but that is fine. Good on you!

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. All comments should be made through the chair not across the chamber.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Please continue Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am most contrite at referring directly to Senator Carr and I will not be tempted again. The application for further visas was the most substantial part of the bill, though there were a number of technical issues that Senator Carr mentioned. By majority the committee thought that processes like giving the minister the power to remove noncitizens in certain circumstances were good. The committee concluded that the department has the proper processes in place for ensuring that noncitizens with legitimate grounds are not returned in breach of Australia's international obligations. We supported the department's view that people should not remain on indefinite detention. They should be removed if they are not going to come here.

The committee accepted amendments set out in schedule 4 of the bill, because the committee thought that they were aimed mainly at retaining the interpretation of the act that Senator Carr meant prior to MZZDJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. A number of parts of this legislation simply return the interpretation to what everybody thought it was before the High Court made its ruling.The previous government worked on the basis that the interpretation we are implementing through this legislation is the right one. The previous government worked on that interpretation. It was in their time that this case went to the court. The court determined that the interpretation everyone thought it had did not apply. This legislation puts it back to what everyone always thought it was and intended it to be.

The committee recommended that the bill be passed but had a concern about individuals for whom someone else had applied for a visa when they were mentally incapable or too young to know what was happening. A particular case was brought out in evidence, where a young girl's family applied for a visa. She knew nothing about it. Later on, she married in Australia and applied for a visa but was told that she could not get one because of the one her family had applied for on her behalf years ago. The committee was concerned about that. The first recommendation of the committee's report recommended that:

… the Commonwealth government consider whether additional safeguards are necessary to ensure that children and people with a mental impairment are not unfairly prevented from making a subsequent visa application in circumstances where they are unaware of a previous application having been made on their behalf.

I am pleased to say, the committee having alerted the minister to that issue, that the minister has written to the committee indicating that:

I confirm that there are existing safeguards in place to address the concerns of the committee. These include my personal powers to intervene under Section 48B of the Migration Act to lift the legislative bar and allow further application for a protection visa. I also have powers under the act to intervene and grant visas to non-citizens if I believe it to be in the public interest. I am of the view that these safeguards are appropriate to deal with the very small number of genuine cases that may arise where a child or a person with a mental impairment has been significantly disadvantaged as envisaged by the committee.

And Mr Morrision—and I appreciate this and I am sure the committee do as well—indicated that Senator Cash, in her summing up, would be putting those words onto the record on behalf of Mr Morrison, so that they will be there for those who may have had a concern about this. With that, I certainly support the bill and I appreciate the Labor Party's support for it as well.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions to this important debate. As has been stated, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 amends the Migration Act and the Australian Citizenship Act to clarify various provisions in those acts resulting from recent court and tribunal decisions that significantly affect the operations of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The bill also makes a number of technical amendments. In relation to the first schedule of the bill it will put beyond doubt the department's longstanding position which has been in place since 1994 that a person who has been refused or held a visa that was cancelled since last entering Australia will be prohibited from making a further valid visa application whilst they remain in Australia. This is irrespective of whether the person knew about or understood the nature of the application.

To address Senator Ian Macdonald's comments, I do note the recommendation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee into this bill that:

…the … government consider whether additional safeguards are necessary to ensure that children and people with a mental impairment are not unfairly prevented from making a subsequent visa application in circumstances where they are unaware of a previous application having been made on their behalf.

In response, these amendments do not deny children and people with a mental impairment the right to be heard in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Where valid protection claims are raised by a child or a mentally impaired person following a visa refusal, Minister Morrison or I can intervene under section 48B of the act to enable a further protection visa application to be made so that any personal protection claims which were not properly or fully articulated on their behalf in the previous application may be assessed.

Seeking judicial review is another option for a child or mentally impaired person who believes that the decision to refuse was incorrectly made because their claims were not properly considered by the decision maker. This provides a robust safeguard against the concerns raised regarding the perceived inadequacies of ministerial intervention powers under section 48B. In addition, before a person is made available for removal, a rigorous preremoval assessment process is undertaken in relation to the person to ensure that the person is not returned if there is a risk of serious harm occurring. This provides an opportunity for people to raise those issues with the department before any removal takes place.

To reiterate, the government's position is that additional safeguards are unnecessary because the availability of ministerial intervention powers under section 48B—the right to seek judicial review, the right to be heard in a judicial proceeding, and preremoval clearance—cumulatively provide appropriate and adequate safeguards for children and mentally impaired people who may be unaware of the previous protection application. By restoring the intended operation of the statutory bar, the amendments will preserve the integrity of Australia's visa program and avoid its abuse by preventing noncitizens from repeatedly making, or having made, on their behalf unmeritorious visa applications in order to prolong their stay in Australia.

The second schedule to the bill clarifies that a bridging visa application is not an impediment to the removal of a person. The amendments also make clear that a person cannot be removed if they have applied for a protection visa and the visa has not been refused or the application has not been finally determined. The third schedule to the bill ensures that the debt liability provisions of the Migration Act apply to all convicted people smugglers and illegal foreign fishers. The fourth schedule to the bill clarifies the obligation of the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal to give documents to an authorised recipient where one has been appointed. The amendments also clarify the role of the authorised recipient and the extent of the obligation to notify an authorised recipient of direct communications made with the person who appointed them. In relation to the fifth schedule to the bill, this will allow for material obtained by way of a search warrant issued under the Crimes Act to be used for the purpose of making certain administrative decisions either under the Migration Act or the Australian Citizenship Act.

As Senator Carr stated—and I thank the Labor Party for their support of the bill—the bill actually makes a number of technical amendments. However, I do want to make a number of comments in relation to the issues that have been raised by Senator Hanson-Young. In relation to the interjections that Senator Hanson-Young was making while Senator Macdonald was speaking, I believe it is appropriate to say that on 8 September 2013 Senator Hanson-Young clearly found her conscience. She clearly found her moral compass because she had clearly lost it in relation to the Labor Party and the Greens unholy alliance over the last six years. Senator Hanson-Young referred to refugees currently in Iraq and Syria and asked what this government was doing. Well let me tell you that it is because this government has restored integrity to our borders that we have been able to announce that we will be quarantining 4,400 places specifically for those people displaced in the Iraq and Syria conflicts. This is something that Senator Hanson-Young was unable to do as part of the previous government because the policies that she supported ensured that in excess of 14,500 people, who have been waiting in camps for five, 10, 15 or 20 years, were denied places in our refugee resettlement program because of Senator Hanson-Young's policies. She also forgets the 1200 people who died at sea as a direct result of the policies that she supported. So, Senator Hanson-Young, when you come into this place and you start to criticise the government's policies, can you at least put a caveat on your comments? Put your hand up and say: 'I found my moral compass; I found my conscience the day after we lost office, because I lost it whilst we were in government and there were disastrous results to our border protection policies. Because I am such a hypocrite, the day that the Abbott government was elected, I suddenly found my voice in relation to those who had died and those who had been displaced.'

I will deal with Senator Hanson-Young's concerns with the bill. Senator Hanson-Young has expressed concern that amendments in schedule 1 to the bill will place vulnerable people in grave danger of being returned to persecution. That is completely unfounded. It should be noted that a person whose protection visa application is refused, because they are found not to engage Australia's protection obligations, cannot by definition be in danger of being returned to persecution. Secondly, the objective of the amendments is merely to restore the long-standing operations of sections 48, 48A and 501E to the interpretation that they have had since 1994. Australia remains committed to adhering to our protection obligations under the refugee convention and any other international human rights instruments. Anyone who is found to engage Australia's protection obligations will not be removed from Australia in breach of these obligations.

In relation to schedule 2, Senator Hanson-Young has expressed concerns that the amendments could potentially lead to Australia breaching its non-refoulement obligations. The amendments specifically provide that a non-citizen cannot be removed where they have made a valid application for a protection visa and the visa has not been refused or the application has not been finally determined. I also clarified earlier that people are not removed if there is a likelihood of serious harm arising from their removal. In relation to the fourth schedule, Senator Hanson-Young raised concerns that the amendments will limit an agent's ability to act on behalf of their client. To clarify: the amendments in no way an agent's ability to act on behalf of their client. This is because the role of an authorised recipient is separate to, and distinct from, the role of a solicitor or a migration agent.

In relation to the fifth schedule, Senator Hanson-Young expressed concerns that the amendment would result in information being used for the purposes that extend well beyond preventing, investigating or prosecuting a criminal offence as intended under the crimes Act. She also expressed concern over whether the amendments would put asylum seekers and refugees at risk, given the confidential nature of a person's case where they are fleeing persecution. To re-iterate the explanatory memorandum:

The amendments would not further extend coercive powers or administrative responsibilities, [they would] simply to provide further information to administrative officers for more effective decision making. This will enhance decision-making and as a result, will enhance the integrity of the migration and citizenship programmes. This enhancement will be particularly prevalent where persons have provided false, misleading or fraudulent information to the Department and have acquired, or will acquire, a visa or citizenship as a result.

An individual's right to privacy in Australia is governed by the Privacy Act. The amendments seek only to use legitimately-obtained information for legitimate policy objectives—namely, the making of certain decisions under the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act. So, once again, Senator Hanson-Young clearly has not read the bill and does not understand the amendments or has come in here once again claiming to have found a moral conscience, which she clearly forgot during the time they were in government. With those comments, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Bill read a second time.