Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek to continue my remarks on this bill. Let's understand here that this bill will make changes to how migration agents are registered, specifically to how lawyers are registered as migration agents. The main purpose is to implement the recommendation of the 2014 review of the MARA which recommended the removal of lawyers from the Migration Agents Registration Authority scheme.

This bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to remove the requirement for lawyers who hold practising certificates from registering as migration agents when providing immigration advice to their clients. This will be achieved by removing them from the regulatory scheme that governs migration agents. Lawyers will not go unchecked, however. Those who choose to provide migration advice will still be entirely regulated comprehensively by their own state and territory legal professional bodies when providing said advice. I hope when this bill becomes law, it will allow more lawyers to perform pro bono migration work for some people who need legal representation more than most in our society, including asylum seekers. Quality, fair and efficient legal representation is one of the pillars of our justice system and it should be treated with equal regard when it comes to migration law.

There have also been some minor and technical changes to this revised bill since its first iteration. This includes updating the academic and vocational requirements for applicants to be registered with the MARA; to complete the graduate diploma and Capstone assessment.

No fewer than six ministers or assistant ministers have had carriage of this legislation, including Senator Reynolds in her former role as the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs. However, the delay in abolishing the dual regulation of immigration lawyers rests squarely at the feet of the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton. As much as the Minister for Home Affairs avoids discussing the migration aspects of his responsibilities, he is the senior minister when it comes to the Department of Home Affairs. While there may be an acting immigration minister at present, Minister Tudge, Minister Dutton is ultimately responsible for the department, its actions and legislation.

It should come as no surprise that there were eight pieces of migration legislation the Minister for Home Affairs failed to pass in the last parliament. They sat on the Notice Paper for an accumulative 3,749 days. The current government has been in power for the past seven years and they are responsible for the administration of, as well as any amendments to, Australia's migration law. Their failures go to the heart of migration law in this country and how the failures of the current government impact the lives of real people. Even the supposed plans the government so enthusiastically spruiked, such as their plan to encourage regional migration, are in disarray—and they were in disarray before the COVID-19 pandemic. The government heralded the Designated Area Migration Agreements, otherwise known as DAMAs, as a solution for Australia's regional migration woes but, as of 31 December last year, prior to the pandemic, only two visas in the entire country had been granted under the government's new agreements—two visas, across six agreements.

We also have a government and a minister willing to ignore the symptoms that are presenting themselves when it comes to the abysmal health of Australia's migration system. Since I became the shadow minister for home affairs, I've sought to challenge the current minister's track record. And, while talking points may be a strength of Mr Dutton, his ability to oversee the Department of Home Affairs and his inability to arrest the emerging problems show how this department is plagued with his incompetence.

The health of Australia's migration system is dire. As of 31 March, there were over 281,000 people on bridging visas in Australia, the majority of whom would be waiting for the Department of Home Affairs to process their substantive visa applications. This has more than doubled since Labor left office in 2013. The processing time for 90 per cent of partner visas is currently at an astonishing 28 months. That's 2½ years Australian citizens are waiting to progress in their lives with their partners, their husbands and their wives. There are more than 180,000 people in that position—over 90,000 Australians and 90,000 of their prospective partners in a state of migration limbo. There are over 62,000 visa over stayers in Australia, and I doubt Mr Dutton knows where all of these non-citizens are.

All of these migration matters are only complicated further by the caseload of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As of 31 May there were close to 64,000 cases before the migration and refugee tribunal of the AAT. Case dates are currently being listed for 2022. The ever growing backlog is not going to improve with ignorance or incompetence. These symptoms affect real people. They affect Australians. They affect the fabric of our society.

Minister Dutton is a minister with no plan for his department or the major issues facing Australia. You used to be able to trust this government to manage Australia's borders but, sadly, that is not the case anymore. Sadly, that is not the case anymore. Let's not forget Operation Sovereign Borders has bipartisan support, but as the airplane people blowout shows you cannot trust this government with our borders anymore.

Let's not forget Minister Dutton is the minister who lost control of the borders. We witnessed the explosion of airplane arrivals in Australia claiming asylum—people being trafficked to Australia on tourist visas in record numbers then made to apply for asylum. This minister, Peter Dutton, and the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, failed to notice when the people smugglers changed their business model from boats to planes. You simply can't trust this government anymore when it comes to borders. I notice the silence now emanating from the other side.

Given the fact that this bill has been an idea for six years you wonder when the minister will take some action to disrupt the people smuggling operations trafficking migrants through our airports in record numbers—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To those senators on the other side, it's not a funny subject. It shouldn't be a funny subject, but yet they find it amusing. Let me say this: there is nothing wrong with claiming asylum. It's an important right. But 90 per cent of applications, such as these, are eventually found to be without merit. Even the assistant minister, Jason Wood, warned of his own government's failures last February on this crisis, which is occurring on Minister Dutton's watch and still Minister Dutton has not acted. It's no surprise, when you think about how long it's taken to simply pass this legislation, Minister Peter Dutton doesn't have a plan to deal with the record number of asylum claims occurring on his watch, with the blowout in processing time for partner visas, with the record number of people on bridging visas. And he has no intention to address the further exploitation and slavery-like conditions these trafficked people are experiencing here on Australian soil.

Finally, of course, there is the Ruby Princess, the largest outbreak of coronavirus in Australia. Mr Dutton failed to stop the one boat that mattered. Let's not forget 850 cases of coronavirus and over 30 tragic deaths, 10 per cent of all cases in Australia. The outbreak in north-west Tasmania is all linked to the Ruby Princess.

While state health authorities have responsibility under the federal Biosecurity Act, when it comes to Australia's migration program and our borders the buck is supposed to stop with the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton. Let's not forget it was the Prime Minister who stood up and said he was going to put arriving cruise ships under the direct command of the Australian Border Force. Four days after the Prime Minister said that, the Ruby Princess came into port and let everyone out, spreading—

Government senators interjecting—

I note the interjections on the other side. Suddenly they're a bit more sensitive about border security. They don't particularly care about the slavery-like conditions of the people who have been trafficked here through their airports and made to apply for asylum, but, when you talk about boats and their failure to deal with the one boat that mattered, they suddenly get sensitive.

So here we are. They know what the Australian people now know, which is that you can't trust this government anymore when it comes to our borders, so I will always hold this government to account when it comes to the Home Affairs portfolio and the Migration Act. Labor will work with the government to support sensible reforms, as we are doing today—sensible reforms that took you only six years to bring into the parliament! We're glad this legislation is finally before the Senate. It took only six years and three prime ministers, but here we are, finally, today. And I am pleased to tell you, Madam Deputy Acting Speaker, that Labor will support this sensible, overdue, long-awaited reform.

Maybe now the Minister for Home Affairs could get on and deal with the excessive backlog of partner visas and bridging visas, with the backlog at the AAT, with the fact that the Department of Home Affairs ranks 93 out of 93 departments when it comes to morale and with the fact that a third of the people who work in Home Affairs would rather work somewhere else. Maybe he could get on with the Future Maritime Surveillance Capability project. I mean, it took only six years to do this simple piece of legislation! Maybe now that he's cleared this big project off his plate, he could get on and deal with some of the substantive issues that are plaguing the Department of Home Affairs. And I haven't even mentioned the Paladin cost blow-out and the massive waste of taxpayer dollars there. Given that the Minister for Home Affairs has finally managed to get this substantive piece of legislation off his desk after six years, maybe he could just get on and deal with some of the bigger, more pressing problems that are facing real Australians in our community and could clear up some of the backlogs in his own portfolio. Incompetence is not an excuse for his maladministration.

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

I had to look a couple of times to make sure we were actually on the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill, but I'm glad the Senate has shown Senator Keneally some latitude, and I'll take advantage of that to make a couple of comments in response to some of the things that she said. But, before I do, I will just directly address the legislation before us, which is, of course, similar to bills of the same name tabled in 2017 and amended in 2018, though with a redrafting of schedule 4 of the regulation of migration agents bill and minor amendments to definitions in the rates of charge bill. It's worth noting that both the 2017 and 2019 bills were referred to and reported on by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

Currently, it's unlawful to provide immigration advice without being registered as a migration agent with the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, or OMARA. These bills, however, seek to change that, driven by an argument that lawyers, regardless of their professional or educational background, do not need to be regulated alongside specialist migration agents because their skills in existing consumer protections are comparable. The Greens do not believe this argument has merit and will not be supporting these bills.

Whereas postgraduate study to become a migration agent includes four migration law subjects, most undergraduate law degrees do not include any study whatsoever of migration law. Yet, with these bills, any and all lawyers will be able to practise migration law solely because they hold a legal practising certificate. The government is therefore suggesting a registered migration agent who has successfully completed a postgraduate migration agent course is no better equipped to advise on migration law than a lawyer, who may not have studied any specific migration law subjects whatsoever.

Under these bills, lawyers practising migration law will no longer be required to subscribe to LEGENDcom, an electronic Home Affairs database of migration and citizenship legislation and policy documents that is continually updated as migration legislation—which is, as all senators would recognise, very fluid—changes. Registration of lawyers by OMARA ensures lawyers comply with a Migration Agents Registration Authority, or MARA, Code of Conduct, which requires practitioners to maintain relevant, specialist and up-to-date knowledge of migration law and processes.

The current system of registration of migration agents includes robust complaints mechanisms and codes of conduct, which, when complaints are lodged, set in motion thorough investigations. These processes are customer focused to ensure the rights and needs of customers are paramount and are protected. This is a particularly valuable safety net for vulnerable customers. The inclusion of lawyers in the migration regulation scheme is similar to the case of an accountant who must undergo further studies if they want to be registered as a tax agent. To practise patents law, a lawyer must undertake further studies in the area before they are allowed to appear in a matter, so it is not an oddity that lawyers should be required to demonstrate some migration law expertise or be required to keep up to date with migration law.

Of particular concern to the Greens and many in the industry is the provision of migration services to vulnerable people. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into the 2019 bills, the Migration Institute of Australia noted:

Those who oppose dual regulation claim that the legal profession has sufficient complaint and disciplinary mechanisms to deal with professional incompetence or malfeasance. However, some law societies do not appear to have the same regard for migrant consumer protection as the OMARA. Lawyers have been allowed to continue practicing by their law societies, even after being banned by the OMARA for providing fraudulent migration advice or breaches of fiduciary duties.

Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns that these bills will lead to a loss of legal expertise or legal aid funded services in large non-legal migration agencies, including refugee services, because lawyers would seek employment elsewhere. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into the 2017 bills, the Migration Institute of Australia warned, in relation to the humanitarian migration sector:

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

This will have dire and wicked knock-on effects for service providers, many of them publicly funded; for early career lawyers wanting to specialise in migration but no longer able to provide advice under the OMARA regulatory system as registered migration agents in non-legal migration practices; and, most importantly, for clients.

The Migration Institute of Australia has further warned that, if lawyers are removed from the regulatory system, the migration advice profession will be opened up to lawyers who are currently sanctioned or banned by OMARA but who will continue to be allowed to practise by their relevant law societies; lawyers who have no knowledge of Australia's complex migration legislation and policy; lawyers who are not compelled to maintain currency of knowledge and professional resources pertaining to this area of law, as required by OMARA registration; and lawyers who choose to practise immigration assistance to supplement their struggling legal practices.

For these reasons, the Australian Greens agree with the Migration Institute of Australia's conclusion:

Much of the emphasis in support of removing lawyers from the regulatory system relies on concerns harboured by the impacts on lawyers, with apparent disregard for the impact on consumers.

The Greens believe that consumer protection needs to be the uppermost consideration in this legislation to protect people who are vulnerable to those who would take fees to provide advice and services in areas that they do not have sound knowledge or practice in. For many vulnerable consumers, the difference between good and bad advice and services can be devastating, and life changing, with bad advice and service potentially leading to financial ruin and/or being banned from this country.

Lawyers could have remained within the regulatory system by being exempted from paying the duplicate registration fee and insurance. They could have been required to undertake studies in migration law practice and procedure and been required to maintain continuing professional development in migration law. But the government, for whatever reason, has chosen not to pursue this option and has instead decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. Currently, lawyers make up just over 30 per cent of all registered migration agents. What these bills will effectively do is carve out nearly one-third of all practising migration agents from the codes of conduct and complaints and disciplinary mechanisms that MARA provides and upholds. But, if this is the path the government and Labor insist on going down, the Greens will try to ensure there is at least some level of accountability in this deregulation of lawyers working as migration agents.

In its report entitled Annual review of regulatory burdens on business: business and consumer services, the Productivity Commission recommended that, if dual regulation of lawyers should cease, an independent review of the performance of these immigration lawyers and the legal profession complaints handling and disciplinary procedures with respect to their activities should be conducted three years after an exemption becomes effective. That is why the Greens will move an amendment to this legislation—to legislate that review into the regulation of migration agents bill.

Senator Keneally has again used an opportunity today to prosecute an argument that she's been prosecuting for a long period of time around so-called airplane people. This is a deeply concerning argument and represents a political attempt by Senator Keneally and the Labor Party to outflank a fascist from the right. They will find it impossible to outflank Minister Dutton on migration issues from the right. They will find it absolutely impossible. But that is, unfortunately, not preventing Senator Keneally from attempting that political manoeuvre and, in doing so, going down a very dangerous path.

I want to put on the record today why the Australian Greens believe it is a dangerous path. Firstly, describing people who come to this country to seek asylum in line with the obligations to which Australia signed up when we signed the protocol to the refugee convention as 'airplane people' uses language perfected by people like Prime Minister Morrison, Minister Dutton and Senator Hanson. It is language deliberately designed to dehumanise and demonise people who seek asylum, and it strongly implies that we in this country have something to fear from migrants and people seeking asylum, when, in fact, we don't.

Secondly, if people have a valid claim for asylum in Australia, they should be allowed to make it. Minister Dutton might not like it and, for all I know, the Australian Labor Party might not like it. But, regardless of whether they like it or not, we are still a signatory to the refugee convention, despite the last 20 years of bipartisan cruelty to people seeking asylum from the major parties in this place.

Finally, and most dangerously, egging on Minister Dutton and Prime Minister Morrison to crack down further on people seeking asylum could have disastrous consequences and could ultimately cost yet more people their lives. Let's face it: the Australian Labor Party were the architects of the most recent iteration of offshore detention when in 2013 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said, 'If you arrive here by boat without a valid visa, you will never be allowed into the country.' Let's face it: this iteration of offshore detention has already cost multiple people their lives and has destroyed the lives of hundreds and potentially thousands of other people. It shouldn't need saying to Senator Keneally or the Australian Labor Party, but Minister Dutton and Prime Minister Morrison do not need further encouragement to ruin and destroy the lives of people seeking asylum. They don't need further encouragement to do that, but that is what Senator Keneally is doing by trying to outflank them from the right on this issue. I beg Senator Keneally to reconsider this approach that she has taken and to join the Greens in our campaign for an immigration system with compassion, decency and respect for international law.

As I said yesterday, this latest iteration of offshore detention is a dark, foul and bloody stain on our country's history, and it's got to stop. I ask the government: when are you going to accept the offer from New Zealand? There are still people in Papua New Guinea and there are still people on Nauru. It has now been nearly seven years since July 2013. We'll be moving some motions in this Senate in due course to reflect that awful anniversary.

The government have a solution staring them in the face. It's a kind and generous offer from the New Zealand Prime Minister, Ms Ardern, to take 150 of these people each and every year into New Zealand and put them on a pathway to citizenship in this country. Of course, that is what Australia should have done because the overwhelming majority of these people have been found to be genuine refugees—that is, their claims for asylum have merit under the refugee convention and they were accepted as refugees; in other words, they had a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. And by 'persecution' in some cases I mean death. If you are a gay man in Iran, you're probably going to be stoned to death or thrown off a tall building. Yet, what did we do when gay men from Iran asked us for help? We exiled them to Manus Island and we exiled them to Nauru.

Shame on the Labor Party for being the architects of this calamitous scheme and shame on the Liberal Party for running it in the most punitive and disgusting way. I was on Manus Island when the Liberal government ordered the cutting off of drinking water and food to over 650 desperate people. I will never forget that and I will ensure, to the best of my capacity, that the Australian people never forget it either.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're debating the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2019 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2019, but you'd never know that because most of the debate that has happened in this chamber about these bills has been about entirely unrelated matters. Senator McKim at least had the good sense to refer to some bits of the legislation, and I thank him for his contribution in that regard. But, golly, the Labor contribution was nothing short of irrelevant.

Let's talk about what this legislation actually does. It really is pretty simple. This government believes that we should impose the lightest possible amount of regulation on people who are in business, professions or anywhere in the Australian community while still ensuring that we have an appropriate amount of consumer protection. That shouldn't be a controversial proposal, yet up until the review that was conducted back in 2014 of the operation of OMARA, the office that regulates migration agents, those legal practitioners—in essence, registered lawyers—who also were registered as migration agents had to comply with two sets of regulation.

There's no real advantage to having lawyers who practise in the area of migration registered under two regulatory regimes. They both aim to do the same thing. In many respects the standards that are faced by legal practitioners under state regulation are in many ways more rigorous, yet there was a complaint levelled from Senator McKim on behalf of the Australian Greens that this is somehow a drop in standards. No. We're keeping legal practitioners subject to the very high standards that apply to legal practitioners under state regimes. Those penalties for failing to comply with the regimes in place for the regulation of solicitors, legal practitioners under state regimes, often involve civil compensation. They involve disciplinary action. They involve criminal action in many cases when the wrong thing has been done by a person seeking representation for migration work. So there's really no compromise in the standard that we're setting for people who want to practise in this area.

But we are doing something that's really important, something that aligns very well with our values: we are cutting the burden of government regulation. It's got to be an uncontroversial proposition. Why should somebody practising in this area have to comply with two regulation regimes when they could comply with one, noting that it is the one that imposes the higher standard of the two? It seems pretty common sense. Maybe that explains why Senator Keneally talked about everything else under the sun and not the bill—because anyone who'd read the bill would go, 'Well, that's actually pretty sensible.' So, for those people who operate in the industry, those people who will need to adapt to this regime, they might need a little bit more detail about how this is going to work.

I mentioned that this change comes out of the review of OMARA that was conducted in 2014. The No. 1 recommendation from that was that legal practitioners be removed entirely from the MARA regime—the migration agents regulation program at the Commonwealth level—and be entirely regulated by their state professional bodies. This bill implements that. There's been a lengthy consultation process, though, in between that report and the present time, and that means that stakeholders across the industry that provides migration advice have been engaged with at length. And the government's committed to continuing that engagement, particularly as the industry adapts to this new arrangement.

One big benefit that this will provide for people operating in the industry in circumstances where they've got a legal practitioner's practising certificate is that they're not going to have to pay the registration and licensing fees for two systems. At a time when many in business are doing it tough and people in the professions are doing it tough, to make it possible for those practitioners to pay one set of fees instead of two would, I thought, have been welcome from all political colours in this chamber. It should be uncontroversial that fewer fees, fewer burdens and fewer encumbrances to people getting ahead in business would be a good thing. But that's what the bill does; it makes it so that those people practising in the industry only have to face the levies, dues and registration fees for one regulatory regime rather than two.

It's really important to note, though, that consumer protection hasn't been forgotten. Lawyers who have practising certificates and who intend to practise in the migration advice field still have access to high-quality educational offerings through their professional associations, and they would retain access to the resources that are produced at the commonwealth level to help make sure we're getting quality advice in the migration field. It is also really important to notice that there will remain highly rigorous processes for consumers who have complaints to be able to get justice. They will be heard, investigations will be conducted and the only difference will be who is doing it. It'll mean that those people who aren't legal practitioners will be investigated by OMARA and those people who are legal practitioners will be investigated by the processes of state and territory law societies. And that's the way it's handled in the states at present in all complaints against a legal practitioner relating to every other field of advice.

In many ways it was a little counterintuitive that, just for those who deal with migration advice, complaints against a legal practitioner were dealt with in a place other than where they would be in every other field of law. field of law would be investigated against a legal practitioner.

People who are working in the industry, though, might be concerned about the way this bill will affect people who, early in their career, are on restricted practising certificates. For those who aren't in the industry, it's worth noting that when someone becomes a solicitor, a legal practitioner, they're put on a restricted practising certificate, usually for a period of two years. That means an experienced lawyer needs to supervise them in their work to help them adapt the ethical approaches and the good practice management practices—and in many ways the analytical rigour and even the self-care—associated with becoming a great contributor to the profession. But of course when you're in that phase you might, if you were to read this bill at face value, be confused about which regime you'd fall into under this new arrangement.

So, we've put in provisions to make it very clear. People who are in that early-career phase where they are supervised can remain on application covered by both regimes in that early period, and that will cover them up to the time when they are released from that supervision period. And that's something that can be arranged with OMARA. It's a commonsense, practical solution that deals with the fact that, as a matter of practicality, people are subject to supervision early in their career. It's worth noting, though, that the references in the bill to people who are subject to restricted practising certificates isn't a reference to people who are subject to supervision for disciplinary or misconduct reasons; that's treated very differently.

Future legal practitioners who have restricted practising certificates will be able to register with OMARA during the two-year eligible period if they've completed the graduate diploma on migration law and practice and the Capstone assessment that was introduced in 2018. Those were brought in to make sure that we are equipping the industry with high-quality practitioners who really know what they're doing and who are well equipped to help often vulnerable people in our community to get the quality advice they need and that we are equipping those practitioners to offer value for money because they really know what they're doing. Future legal practitioners who have not completed those requirements won't be registered with OMARA, but they will still be able to provide immigration assistance in connection with legal practice, and they'll be regulated by their legal professional and disciplinary body.

This is a measure that's been put in place to make sure that people in that early-career supervision phase don't suffer unfairness or hardship as a consequence of these changes. It really is a transition arrangement. An unrestricted legal practitioner, for those watching at home, is a lawyer who has got through that early phase of supervision in their career. They're allowed to be admitted as a lawyer, they're granted a legal practising certificate, they've completed their supervised practice and they've been granted that right to practice without supervision in their state. Once you've got that, if you're someone who's practising in the migration field, you'll be able to do so simply by following the disciplinary arrangements that are put in place by your state or territory legal professional regulation body.

This is a great opportunity to sing the praises of those bodies. I am a Queensland legal practitioner, a member of the bar—a proud member of the Queensland Bar Association—and I have been admitted as a solicitor in the past. While no profession is perfect, I can say with great confidence that the professional associations in Queensland invest heavily in the expertise, in the qualifications and in the good judgement and ethics of practitioners at all levels and work really hard to make sure that people who are practising, whether they're at the start of or towards the more senior end of their careers, have access to the kind of guidance they need in order to make good calls on behalf of members of the community who need help. I have great confidence that those professional associations will continue to do the great work that they do in relation to every other area of law and practice for regulating practitioners and making sure that they are ethical and ensuring that consumer complaints are investigated. I have great confidence that they will also do that well in relation to the field of migration.

The consequence, I suppose, of passing that responsibility over to the states might seem obvious, but I'll pop it on the record. That is, that the OMARA will no longer be able to investigate any existing complaints concerning Australian legal practitioners who are providing, or who have provided, immigration legal assistance and who are not continuing migration agents of a registered kind or former registered migration agents. People who have lodged those complaints will need to re-lodge them with state and territory law associations, and that means that from this point onwards there will be a separation of who investigates what. That makes sense; we don't need to expend Commonwealth resources on investigating things that will remain within OMARA's remit when we already have resources paid for and invested in by practitioners to be delivered at the state and territory level.

As somebody who is an enthusiastic federalist, it pleases me greatly to see more power and more responsibilities being provided back to the states and being provided back to the local professions, and being provided in a way that is decentralised from the Commonwealth. One of the benefits of doing that is competitive federalism. We get to see how things are done in Queensland and compare that to how it's done in New South Wales. Granted, there is a lot of collaboration between people in different states, but we can compare how things operate in Victoria, WA, South Australia or the Territory and harness the competitive natures of these professions to encourage them to do ever better in their provision of services to clients in our community.

Federalism offers many benefits, but seeing responsibilities handed back to the states and the state and territory associations, as this bill does, is consistent with those principles of competitive federalism, and it's consistent with our overarching commitment to always reducing the regulatory burden—always reducing the fees and charges that are faced by people in business and the professions, and always making it simpler and easier to go about your work and your life.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to give a brief contribution on this very important bill.

The government reintroduced a bill package to remove certain legal practitioners from dual regulation by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, the OMARA, on 27 November 2019. The bill package consists of the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2019 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2019. The Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2019 contains measures to implement the recommendations of the 2014 independent review of the OMARA and makes other amendments to improve the effectiveness of the regulatory scheme governing migration agents. The bill removes legal practitioners with unrestricted practising certificates from the OMARA scheme such that legal practitioners will be entirely regulated by their state or territory legal disciplinary bodies. Eligible legal practitioners with restricted practising certificates will still be able to register with the OMARA for two years, which can be extended to four years.

The bill reflects the government's commitment to deregulation by removing the unnecessary administrative burden of dual regulation of lawyers, who are already subject to a strict professional regulatory regime. Legal professional bodies and the statutory schemes underpinning them apply a broader range of powers to resolve consumer related issues, including penalties outside the OMARA's jurisdiction. These penalties include financial penalties for improper conduct and recommending compensation for affected clients.

It's important to note that this bill was subject to extensive consultation with industry and key stakeholders prior to being initially introduced to parliament. It's very important to recognise that there is no evidence that removing any legal practitioners from the Migration Agents Registration Scheme would result in any reduced consumer protection. Lawyers who are no longer subject to OMARA's regulatory scheme will remain subject to a strict professional regulatory regime administered by their state or territory disciplinary bodies. I will leave it there, thank you.

Sam McMahon (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy today to rise to speak to both the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2019 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2019. Those of us on this side of the chamber know a key hallmark of good governance is the delivery of the means by which government structures and processes operate efficiently, not just our internal practices but also those areas where the Australian public must interact with our various departments and services.

This government made a promise to Australians that it would cut red tape and unnecessary costly duplication, and I commend the government for delivering on this promise. Additionally, these amendments reaffirm this government's broader commitment to deregulation across industry sectors. In my experience, as a veterinarian and small business owner, I have witnessed firsthand the impacts poor governance, overregulation and duplication have on small business. In this instance, we are addressing the convoluted registration practices and mandatory continuing legal education and migration agent compulsory education, and, on top of this, the unnecessary additional costs imposed on sole practitioners and small practices.

The amendments for both the migration bills we speak of today are designed to streamline the processes for restricted and unrestricted legal practitioners. Presently Australian lawyers are governed by the strict regulatory rules of each state's law society. Legal practitioners are considered to be either restricted or unrestricted. All legal practitioners are considered restricted within the first two years of admission and must be under the direct supervision and employ of an unrestricted legal practitioner. The restricted practitioner is required to be registered within the law society under the professional indemnity insurance of the practitioner. This structure serves to not only ensure the highest standards of service but also act as a safeguard for both client and lawyer. It delivers accountability and a mechanism for redress and sanctions if a legal practitioner's professional practice is called into question.

Following the restricted period, a practitioner may apply for an unrestricted certificate. To be successful, practitioners must first complete the relevant state law society's unrestricted practicing certificate course and obtain all relevant registrations and insurance. Furthermore, all unrestricted and restricted legal practitioners must complete 10 units of continuing legal education each year, the cost of which can be in excess of $5,000. Any firm that employs a solicitor must bear that cost on behalf of the employee, placing additional pressures on small businesses of two to five solicitors.

Currently, should a legal practitioner train and provide migration advice and services, they are required to do so under a completely separate registration stream that is, essentially, a duplication of the process I have just outlined for regular legal practitioners. With these amendments today we will remove the requirement for that second stream of registration and regulation of legal practitioners by the Migration Agents Registration Authority. In doing so we remove the burdensome and duplicitous chores of additional costs, training and further specialised compulsory legal education. This bill will ensure the removal of these unnecessary and costly requirements by recognising that the dual registration of restricted and unrestricted legal practitioners is an unnecessary administrative burden in circumstances where a strict professional regulatory regime already exists, which is subject to annual and random audit processes. This structure itself is good governance and duplication is unwarranted.

Upon passing of this bill, and pursuant to schedule 1, lawyers who hold unrestricted practicing certificates will immediately be removed from regulation under the Migration Agents Registration Authority and continue to be regulated by the relevant state or territory law society. Those legal practitioners who hold restricted practicing certificates will have a period of two years in which they may be registered as both migration agents and restricted legal practitioners. The clear intent is to provide reasonable opportunity for these practitioners to make any necessary changes to their business affairs and certification.

Once the eligible period has expired these practitioners will also be removed from the OMARA regulations, providing they complete the required programs to be eligible for an unrestricted practicing certificate within the guidelines of their respective state or territory law societies. Because the two existing registration streams are essentially identical, removal of one stream, in accordance with changes under this bill, will not water down any consumer protections. I commend the government for recognising the need for strong regulatory protections for the consumer, particularly those not engaging legal practitioners but instead registered migration agents. Registered migration agents already work to the highest standards and requirements in provision of competent migration advice, and the changes under this bill will not negatively impact upon this.

With the introduction of the Graduate Diploma of Australian Migration Law And Practice in 2018 this sector gained meaningful credibility. Those requirements replaced a five-day course, a course which was not to the standard needed of the profession and not to the standard that consumers deserve. Implementation of this recent qualification has served to ensure only applicants of high standards obtain the registration and also serves to mitigate the risk of neglect or poor advice.

The single most common inquiry my office receives is migration related. It is an extremely emotive issue, often involving families and people whose entire future is on the line. It is vitally important that these people who put their trust in an agent are assured of the quality of the information and advice they receive from that agent. Accordingly, pursuant to schedule 2 of this bill, the period an individual has in which to apply for repeat registration following the completion of the required qualification will be set in the legislation complementing the introduction of the graduate diploma, the qualifications of which never lapse. The existing system does not permit this streamlined process.

I also note this bill seeks to protect the rights of eligible applicants for registration as migration agents by removing provisions to refuse applications where an applicant fails to provide further information. Common sense dictates that not all circumstances are within the control of the applicant to respond to such requests in a timely fashion. Because this bill recognises that, incomplete applications will remain unfinished for an indefinite period, saving the applicant hundreds of dollars and time in reapplying.

Finally, this bill goes further in slashing unnecessary red tape by repealing certain provisions that reflect consolidation of the OMARA into the Department of Home Affairs. I'm pleased to hear that Labor is supporting this bill as they must hate it. Removing red tape and relieving burdens and fees on business is not in their DNA. They're usually doing quite the opposite. So I'm pleased that today at least they have seen fit to support Australian business. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, I'd like to congratulate the Morrison government on practising what we preach when it comes to cutting red tape—this time in relation to the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2019.

The bemusing situation of migration agents who are also lawyers having to register with their state government and the federal government is about as clear-cut as it gets when trying to address regulation in this country. The government has long supported the key measures in schedule 1 to the bill, which will see some lawyers practising in the migration field removed from unnecessary dual regulation by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority—OMARA—and, instead, be subject to regulation by their relevant state or territory legal professional body. The amendments made by schedule 2 reflect the government's commitment to improving the entry-level standards to the migration advice profession through improving and streamlining the qualification requirements.

There are four more changes covered in this bill, and they are all designed to streamline a sector that is very important—especially to regional Australia. Without skilled migrants, businesses in my home region of North Queensland would be forced to close. From the tiny town of Coen in Cape York to the famous Nick's Restaurant in Yungaburra on the Atherton Tablelands or the Laura Johnson Home in Mount Isa, and in numerous cattle stations, cafes and pubs, international arrivals are constantly filling staffing shortages. Everywhere I travel in regional Queensland I'm told by business owners that without migrants things would be very grim indeed.

Last year, at the little town of Richmond, 400 kilometres west of Townsville, I met three young women from Estonia. One was pulling beers at a local pub and the other two were living on local cattle stations, working as general hands. It remains extraordinary to me that there are those people in this place and the other who don't understand that despite the extraordinarily high unemployment rates that we have in regional Queensland of over 20 per cent—and in Townsville, youth unemployment stands at 17 per cent, prior to COVID, I should flag—that despite these high unemployment rates, we still struggle to find employees to work in the most basic of roles. It has become a rite of passage for young people from around the world to travel to regional and outback Queensland and Australia to work in tourism and to work on cattle stations—and for what seems a large number of Irish people to work in regional pubs, where they see the summer at temperatures of between 40 and 50 degrees as something interesting and unusual to do. It is very difficult to find Australians to work in those roles.

In Mount Isa, at the Laura Johnson Home, many of the nurses hail from the Philippines and Sri Lanka, and the centre's manager regards them as virtually indispensable to care for those most vulnerable and elderly of our community. In fact, remote nursing homes at places like Doomadgee, Mornington Island and Normanton are all struggling to fill roles to care for many Indigenous and other Australians who desperately need a ratio of care to make these safe and comfortable places for them to live in. And yet each year those care facilities are forced to pay more and more for contract staff to come and spend some time in these very important communities, caring for these people.

Last year, at Coen, 428 kilometres north of Cairns, a couple from Argentina were out manning a local service station and general store. I've already mentioned Yungaburra on the Atherton Tablelands west of Cairns. Nick Crameri told me he couldn't operate without migrant workers in his kitchen and on the floor as waiting staff. It will probably surprise you, Acting Deputy President Walsh, that butcher shops and other meat-processing facilities across the country rely on skilled tradesmen coming from Africa and other parts of the world to fill these roles, because, in many cases, supermarkets, who now sell over 80 per cent of red meat in our sector, are not training. They're not putting through apprentices as butchers and slicers, so we rely on skilled migrants coming to work as smallgoods makers and in other highly skilled roles in the meat area.

It seems that we talk a lot about the jobs that Australians are looking for around the country, but regional Australia relies on those people who come out to experience the unique and interesting world that we have and to fill these roles that businesses would otherwise just not be able to manage. In Mount Isa, the cafes have a constant stream of young people coming through. They are providing the services and baking the cakes that keep Australians going in coffee shops and other service industries.

It is critical and crucial that the federal government continues to improve and streamline regulations in the migration space, but it must do so without compromising on measures to weed out some potentially rogue operators. I remember, in my time running butcher shops, some of the people who would come to me and tell me stories of migration agents who seemed to make the process particularly long and particularly expensive, which is not right, nor is it fair for those people who just seek to call Australia home. The Morrison government takes seriously its commitment to character and background checks for migrants and is now diligent in its scrutiny of these migration agents. This legislation, while still improving efficiency in this sector, compromises none of this, and that is why this is just one more piece of streamlining and red-tape removal that is so critical to our nation. We know that it is in regional Australia where we build our prosperity, and it is in regional Australia where we build industries where families grow and enjoy a lifestyle. That is why I commend these changes to the Senate.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members for contributing to the debate on these bills. This package of amendments contains two bills, the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2019 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2019. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report, released on 27 February 2020, recommended the Senate pass the bills without delay. The 2014 Independent Review of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority recommended, amongst other things, that legal practitioners be removed from the regulatory scheme governing migration agents. The regulation of migration agents bill draws from this recommendation.

The bill removes legal practitioners with a restricted practising certificate from the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority scheme. Eligible legal practitioners with a restricted practising certificate will be able to register with the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority during a 2-year period and can extend that for a total period of up to four years.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Ruston, you will be in continuation when debate resumes.