Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I concur with the member for Watson that the Migration Amendment (Statutory Agency) Bill 2007 is a very simple one-item bill which is very simply dealt with. The member has made a succinct summary of the bill. His statement to this House has covered pretty much all of the items that need to be covered in respect of this bill. I am pleased to see that it has bipartisan support and it should go through the House as soon as possible. In relation to the member for Watson’s issue about when the bill will eventually get through the parliament, I understand the government has decided to have it implemented by 1 July 2007. If he were here, he would know that I believe that is the intention of the government.

I will just briefly mention a few of the issues that have been raised or add to them. This bill provides for the last remaining recommendation of the Uhrig inquiry relating to the MRT and the RRT. Essentially the Migration Amendment (Statutory Agency) Bill, which we are debating today, inserts a new section in the Migration Act 1958 which will establish a single statutory agency for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999. The proposed agency will consist of a principal member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, RRT, and the registrars, deputy registrars and other officers of both the RRT and the Migration Review Tribunal, MRT, engaged under the Public Service Act. The major change effected by the bill is that under the current statutory arrangements the Australian Public Service employees working at the tribunal are legally employed by the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and if the bill is passed—and we know it will be, because the opposition have said that they will support us—the APS staff will instead be employed by the principal member of the RRT. The minister stated in his second reading speech that, for practical purposes, tribunal staff will be directed by the principal member, who is the executive officer of both the tribunals, under powers delegated by the secretary. It is a sensible amalgamation because this arrangement has been in place for some time and it will give legal effect to arrangements that have been just a loose agreement until this time. We know that since 2001 both the MRT and the RRT have been working closely together both from co-location and from administrative efficiencies using the same members, resources, structures, operations and procedures. In particular, the principal member of the MRT and the RRT is, as I said, the same person, as is the registrar. The bill will not change the functions of either tribunal but will simply clarify the employment arrangements of the Australian Public Service staff working at both tribunals.

To clarify for the House: the RRT is the body that reviews decisions made by DIAC to refuse or cancel protection visas to noncitizens in Australia. The tribunal also has the power, in respect of certain transitory persons, to conduct an assessment of whether a person is covered by the definition of a refugee in article 1A of the 1951 refugee convention. The RRT was established in 1993. The MRT provides a final independent merits review of visas and visa related decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship or, more typically, by officers of DIAC acting as delegates of the minister. The MRT has been operating since 1 June 1999. Decisions to deport a person, decisions refusing or cancelling visas on character grounds under section 501 et cetera are reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I think most people would know that Mr Steve Karas AO is the principal member of both tribunals. He was first appointed to this position in July 2001 and his current appointment is until 30 June 2007.

I will just briefly raise a couple of issues because we are all on the same page on this. One is that, because the functioning tribunals are co-located, I have found it unsatisfactory that when I have had to make representation on behalf of some people from Western Australia there is no permanent officer located in Perth. I believe there is only one part-time officer there. When people have had to have reviews they have had to do it by teleconference, which is highly unsatisfactory given language barriers et cetera even though there might be interpreters. Also, there was a case I am aware of when one of the review officers—and I will mention his name—a Mr Thomas, was arrogant and gave very little decent support to the person for whom I had written a letter of support. So I am not necessarily happy with all the functions of the tribunal and the way they act. Obviously they are a law unto themselves, but when they receive representations from people such as me and my colleagues I think the representations are dismissed almost out of hand. So I am unhappy from that point of view. As the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I have had a lot of issues involving both the MRT and the RRT. I would like to have a better response when I deal with these bodies because in the past it has not always been satisfactory, from my point of view. Be that as it may, this is a sensible instrument in this House and, as I have said and the member for Watson has said, it is supported and should pass by July this year.

See this speech in context