Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to continue my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill. The legislation does not deal with a policy matter—that was dealt with in a previous bill; this is just a series of consequential provisions that are designed to ensure a certain consistency over a range of visa classes, as I understand it. We on this side of the House, when this matter was submitted for consideration to our caucus, said that we wanted to have a look at the triggers that underpinned the visa cancellation on the basis of the character test because we believe that there is a very real argument that these triggers are too sensitive. When we look at the legislation it does seem a little crazy. It sets out the provisions that can lead to the cancellation of a visa. Section 501(3A) of the Migration Act says 'For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record'—and it is 'substantial criminal record' that can be used to trigger a review of their character. So it says a person does not pass the character test if that person has a substantial criminal record, and they then proceed to define what a substantial criminal record is. I think this is where we see that this is not a terribly well crafted piece of legislation. It says

(a) the person has been sentenced to death; or

(b) the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life; or

(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more;

So on the one hand we are saying it is substantial if it is the death penalty or a life sentence, and then we go on to say but it is also substantial if it is a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more. I have to say that there are many people who are convicted of nonviolent offences that many of us would consider not substantial or not generating a substantial criminal offence. The trigger of 12 months I believe is too sensitive a trigger and it has caused us to catch up in this a whole raft of people who are not people we would necessarily want to be sending back home.

This issue came to my attention most graphically when I was contacted by the family of a 53-year-old man who had not even been conscious of the fact that he was not an Australian citizen as he had been here since I think he was some 10 months old. He had been a good citizen of this country; he had been working in the north and he had somewhat of a psychotic episode as a result of which he set fire to a structure, and he was charged with arson and sentenced to prison. He served his time and on all accounts he was an exemplary prisoner. He went onto medication and he was receiving treatment in a more holistic way for his condition. In the past he had been a member of the Army Reserve and he had been in a relationship for some 25 years. As I said, he had spent the vast majority of his life in Australia, and had considered himself to be an Australian; he had served with the Army Reserve and indeed his whole family—his parents, his siblings and his partner of some 25 years—all were in Australia. This gentleman had, as has been accepted, a bit of a psychotic episode. He acknowledges that he committed an offence of arson during that time, and he served his time in prison only to find that after his release from prison instead of going back to his family he was taken to the Northam detention centre and then subsequently to the Christmas Island detention centre as his visa had been cancelled.

We made a number of representations on this gentleman's behalf. I am very pleased to say that the minister acted, eventually, with a good deal of compassion in this case, and the gentleman has had his visa restored and has been able to resume his life. I want to use this as a descriptor and an explanation for why we believe that setting 12 months' imprisonment as the trigger for the failure of that character test and therefore for the mandatory cancellation of a visa is far too sensitive, particularly in circumstances where people have lived in this country for the vast bulk of their lives. It is also important to use this as an alert for those people who have come out here from the United Kingdom—and I have come across many such people over the years of my public life—who, for all intents and purposes, consider themselves to be Australian citizens. Because they were on the electoral roll on 25 January 1985, they can vote; and because they have full voting rights, they do not see any particular reason to take that extra step of becoming Australian citizens. This gentleman and his family are now very alive to the real risks posed to anyone who has not taken out Australian citizenship when eligible to do so. We also know that there are provisions in place which expose people holding dual citizenship to a more severe stripping of their rights.

I call on the government to consider a review of the triggers for the character test. On our side we have made a resolution to review those triggers. I agree that we want to have the capacity to deport from this country people who behave in such a way as to undermine the safety and security of our community. It is quite proper that we do have the powers to deal with that, but balanced against that there has to be some sense of what is reasonable. We must consider the length of time a person has spent in this country, particularly where that person has come to this country as a child, has spent all their formative years in this country and has no other family outside of Australia. We must take care that there is sufficient provision within the legislation to ensure that we are not rounding up all the bikies or terrorists whom we might want to be rid of. We must make sure that we are not enlarging this too greatly.

Again, I would point to what strikes me as the strange wording of the legislation, which equates a prison sentence of 12 months with a life sentence or even the death sentence. The death sentence is obviously a reference to penalties imposed in a foreign country. It is a strange reference—given that we have taken such a stand internationally against the death penalty. If we are trying to establish a regime that takes into account actions that have occurred in another country, then we should be looking at cases where a court in a foreign country has convicted a person for an offence—an offence which in Australia might lead to a lengthy prison sentence but which in that country would have led to the death sentence. There are jurisdictions around the world where women, in particular, are sentenced for actions which would not even be considered a crime in Australia—such as adultery. Notionally, the way in which we have structured this trigger, if a woman had been found guilty of adultery—(Time expired)

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition was elected by a huge mandate in September 2013 to deliver strong government to guarantee a safe, secure Australia. This bill, the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016, is about implementing that promise to the Australian people.

I welcome common-sense notions on the statute books and the codifying of our community values and expectations. This bill has never been more timely or more important. This bill will strengthen the government's ability to deal with unlawful, fraudulent or criminal behaviour by noncitizens. The character test has not changed significantly since 1999. Since then, the situation has changed dramatically, with streamlined processes and higher volumes of temporary visa holders for economic and other purposes. The proposed changes strengthen and widen the powers to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds.

The government will be able to act if there is a risk, as opposed to a significant risk, that a person would engage in a wide range of criminal conduct, according to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill. Reasonable suspicion that a person is, or has been, associated with a group involved in criminal conduct will be sufficient to refuse a visa. Such conduct includes people smuggling, genocide, war crimes, a crime involving torture or slavery, or a crime that is otherwise of serious international concern, even if there is no actual conviction. A person found guilty, even if no conviction was recorded by an Australian or a foreign court, of a sexual offence involving a child will be out. The measure also allows the minister to require state and territory governments to disclose personal information that may have a bearing on character. The most important point that this government wants people to take away is that entry into, and staying in, Australia by noncitizens is a privilege, not a right. The Australian community expects that the Australian government can, and should, refuse entry to noncitizens, or cancel their visas, if they do not abide by Australian laws.

I want to bring to this debate a real lived experience of what it is to be an Australian and what Australian values are. The whole issue of Australian values has become the mission of one of my constituents, Mr Robert Suann. At first, I construed Mr Suann's ardent fervour to hammer home the point of values education on Australian values as some sort of anachronistic and atavistic agenda—well meaning but sort of unimportant. However, the more I listened, the more I realised how important the issues of values and character are to the very fabric of our society. Robert always reminds people of the riots in Cronulla, his home town, in 2005, and of how many of those involved could not identify with our Australian notions of the good and the upstanding. One understands Robert and his motivations a great deal more when one is informed that, for 70-odd years, Robert has been a boy scout.

The question for our community is: how can we take back common-sense, good, wholesome, traditional values from the scrap heap of history? One very easy and effective way is to stop the dilution of those values by persons of nefarious character. There should be no shame in saying that we have values and principles, and that this coalition government is willing to stand up for them. Visas should not be thrown around like confetti. Visas should not be sold to the highest questionable or criminal bidder. Visas are a golden ticket. In my home state of Western Australia, there is a saying that FIFO—referring to fly-in fly-out workers—should really stand for 'fit in or fly out'. Of course, that is the parliamentary version of that re-imagining of the FIFO acronym. I firmly believe that a fit in or fly out approach, or a 'Team Australia' approach, should also apply to our migration program.

The Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 provides the springboard to get to another key idea that has gone completely off the radar—that is, the idea of rights and responsibilities. Under the previous six years of Labor misrule and chaotic misgovernment, the balance of rights and responsibilities became only a question of rights—or, more succinctly, a question of: what can I get and what rights do I have?

In the context of visas and entry to the Australian homeland, this attitude will defile the integrity of the system and our society. By turning a blind eye to gross and aberrant characters, and by accepting all in good faith, we expose our people to unknown dangers. Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' may not have run, but that was because of the strong actions taken by successive conservative governments. I am proud to be part of a government that is bold in its actions and resolute in its decisions.

Let me get back to the idea of cancelling visas, as it fits into the rights and responsibilities paradigm. It is a question of balance or an equilibrium equation. It is a case of looking at the very fundamental building blocks of what it is to be a nation and a society. One looks to the societal contracts of Rousseau or Locke, and there it is in line 1: to protect the bodily integrity of each citizen and the integrity of the state. Even the visual idea of the contract is relevant to this debate—surrounding cancelling visas and making it easier for the minister to do so. After all, the Australian government is honouring its side of the contract or deal by protecting the bodily integrity and security of the person. But they are not living up their side of the deal—the deal being that, if one comes to this country, then one has to play by the rules as they stand, not change the rules because one does not like the rules. The minister of the day has a direct mandate and democratic imprimatur of the people. This is more powerful than a foreign, far-off institution or body. This legislation, through the increased power to the minister, empowers the people.

Let me now speak about the specifics. The Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 will make a number of amendments to give full effect to the substantive amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. These amendments will ensure that noncitizens who commit crimes in Australia, or who pose a risk to Australian society, are considered for visa refusal or cancellation.

This government has protected Australians by previously introducing a revocation power for the minister to personally set aside, in the national interest, decisions by his delegates or the AAT. The amendments in this particular bill will ensure that mandatory cancellation powers are consistent and comprehensive throughout the act so as to enact the original intent of the government's 2014 changes.

Our primary responsibility as legislators in this place is to protect the citizens of Australia. That is our first job and our first priority. The changes outlined in the bill are the first real attempt to update the security and protection features of the visa program since the mid-1990s. The world is a different place now. The changes outlined here demonstrate this coalition government's—and the Australian community's—low tolerance for criminal, non-compliant or fraudulent behaviour by those given the privilege of holding a visa to enter or stay in Australia.

Let me just mention the great unmentionable: the hardworking battler—the underpaid, overworked taxpayer. A weak or low threshold for character tests dilutes the nature of our system and costs us all more in the long run. Security is an expensive business. Prevention is always better than a cure. Prevention is also always cheaper than a cure.

The people we seek to remove from the Australian community, or ban from entering the Australian community in the first place, are against us. They are people who hate freedom. They hate us because we Australians love freedom. It is not enough to have an Australian residency visa to be an Australian. One needs to live the values, the hopes and the dreams of an Australian. One needs to embrace the history of Australia. This bill is carrying the message of John Howard, when he said in 2001:

We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.

This government is continuing that strong tradition of putting the Australian people first. Under Labor, the people smugglers and evil doers came first. Career criminals, drug peddlers and others like them were put first.

This bill will ensure that the confidential information that is critical to decision making will be given the same protections as other character provisions in the act. This bill will give full effect to the policy of mandatory cancellation. It puts beyond doubt that a noncitizen who is subject to a mandatory character cancellation decision will be removed from Australia.

This bill has given this government the strengthened ability to identify noncitizens with character concerns by amending the definition of 'character concern' to be consistent with the character test contained in section 501 of the Migration Act. Noncitizens who meet the amended and broader definition of being of character concern may have a personal identifier disclosed in accordance with permitted disclosure provisions of this act. This amendment has ensured that the minister's power to cancel a visa will not be affected or limited by any visa cancellation provisions of this act.

It is this government's commitment to ensure that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. This bill will allow the detention of a person who is reasonably suspected of being subject to visa cancellation, as well as requiring the release of that person as soon as the officer becomes aware that there will be no cancellation.

This government will also ensure, via this amendment bill, that a person whose visa has been cancelled by the minister under section 501BA of the Migration Act will have any outstanding visas or visa applications they hold cancelled by operation of law. With this bill this coalition government is showing foresight in pulling down the shutters on that type of person setting foot on our golden soil. This should not be a land of opportunity for the young criminal. We will not and cannot let this nation ever become known as a soft touch.

In the final analysis the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the power, under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958, to refuse a person's application for a visa, or cancel a person's visa, if that person fails to satisfy the minister that he or she passes the character test. The Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 will amend the Migration Act to ensure that the substantive amendments made to the Migration Act in late 2014 are given full effect and to ensure that the character-related provisions are dealt with consistently through the Migration Act—not through Human Rights Watch or any other limp-wristed, loony-Left, leaf-eating Luddite organisation.

During the 2011-12 financial year 88 people had their visa applications refused and 157 people had their visas cancelled on this basis. This is a paltry figure, given that we know that Labor's legacy was 30,000 people in community detention awaiting processing. It is a pathetic figure, given that we know that paperwork was often and regularly destroyed, forged or fabricated.

I am calling on the minister to use these new powers with gusto. I make this call because it is what my constituents of Tangney would want—to protect the safety and security of all the people of Australia. That is the mandate that I have in this place.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just when you thought there was nothing further this government could do to make our migration and visa system more obscure, difficult and unfair, it has done it again. While the most egregious provisions are already law via amendments to the Migration Act through the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014, this bill exacerbates the damage to our system of rule of law and justice. I therefore speak against the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 and urge colleagues to reject it as yet another exercise in cynical, nasty, dog whistling against those who are 'other'.

The Law Council of Australia has branded this bill a departure:

… from accepted rule of law and procedural fairness standards, and as a result, may adversely affect protection claims made by asylum seekers, in some circumstances risking refoulement.

The concerns which led the Law Council to recommend against passage of the bill in its current form include: retrospective amendments to the Migration Act, the minister assuming the role of the courts in assessing criminal conduct, the extension of certain visa cancellation provisions to new groups and the disclosure of information in relation to the cancellation and character provisions.

With regard to retrospectivity in the bill, the Law Council explains that this may mean:

… visa holders may have their visa cancelled for previous actions or omissions that did not give rise to a cancellation at the time. This gives rise to risk of refoulement of people with a genuine need for protection.

One example the Law Council gives is:

… where a person serving a sentence of imprisonment may have failed to make representations to the Minister or Minister's delegate about the refusal or cancellation of their visa as stipulated in section 501CA, not realising that the failure to do so would lead to their removal pursuant to the proposed amendments to section 198(2A).

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has expressed its concern:

… about the use of a broad, discretionary power where the Minister may overturn a decision of a review tribunal. The Minister's power is exempt from the rules of natural justice … and will be exercised to 'trump' the considered decision on the merits of a review tribunal. The ASRC believes that a lawful decision of a Tribunal should be subject only to judicial review, which is an option available to the Minister, rather than a use of a discretionary power. The amendments proposed in this Bill would extend the Minister's cancellation powers even further, and are unnecessary in light of the broad powers which already exist in the Migration Act, which provide for the Minister to cancel a person's visa in the national interest …

The proposed amendments in this Bill would mean that those subject to the Minister's cancellation power could be detained if there is a mere 'reasonable suspicion' that their visa will be subject to cancellation under the Minster's power. Like the amendments ushered in by the Character Act, this section effectively makes a determination that a person has been involved in criminal conduct despite the absence of a criminal conviction. Section 501CA(3) of the Migration Act effectively allows the Minister to assume the role of the court in assessing criminal conduct, replacing a proper criminal court process with an administrative process.

The present bill extends the application of subsection 193(1)(a)(v) of the Migration Act to persons serving a sentence of imprisonment who are not thereby required to be informed that they have only two working days to apply for a visa after they have had their visa cancelled personally by the minister under section 501BA.

The Law Council observes that this could result in the deportation of a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment and whose visa was cancelled before they had the opportunity to seek judicial review of the cancellation. The Law Council notes the justification set out in the explanatory memorandum for this denial of procedural fairness is that a person will generally have had their visa cancelled by a delegate and would have been informed at that point. The council:

… considers that this does not appear to be a sufficient justification for denying a person in this situation a fundamental aspect of their right to procedural fairness ...

(a) it is not onerous for the Department to provide a detainee with notice of timeframes within which they can apply for a further visa and information pertaining to the duration of their detention, and this would guarantee procedural fairness; and

(b) some detainees may have difficulty in understanding their legal options and rights for various reasons, such as restricted access to information and/or legal advice and representation while in detention, lack of familiarity with the legal system, or unfamiliarity with the English language. This is further compounded by the strict limits on timeframes for applications in detention and lack of access to legal advice.

Similarly, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has concluded that it is unclear how this amendment is necessary or reasonable. It said:

The committee notes that no specific explanation is provided for why the Bill includes amendments that a noncitizen who has had a visa cancelled by the minister personally under section 501BA does not need to be informed that they may only apply for a visa within 2 working days. Moreover, given the time critical nature of a person's response to cancellation, no justification is provided as to how it is sufficient that such information will have been provided previously in a different context, particularly given the very serious consequences for the individual concerned and given their pre-existing vulnerability as a person in detention.

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has noted:

Given the potentially life-threatening consequences of removal if no other application is lodged, asylum seekers should not be intentionally deprived of information relating to the further options open to them and should have a full opportunity to exercise the rights available to them. It is not onerous for the Department to inform people of their rights: the stated justification in the Explanatory Memorandum is disproportionate to the potential consequences. People in detention must be advised about their rights to apply for any visas, otherwise they may be detained or their detention continued because they were not informed of their options.

With regard to the issue of extension of visa cancellation provisions to new groups, I note that the previous amendments to the Migration Act through the Character Act already dangerously extended visa cancellation powers by, among other things, lowering the threshold from 'significant risk' to 'risk' of a person engaging in criminal conduct or harassment or where a person represents a danger to the Australian community or risks being involved in activities disruptive to the Australian community.

The Law Council notes that these amendments have led to a significant number of people being placed in detention even before charges have been determined by the courts, and, in some instances, the person has been later found not to have been guilty of the offence. In some cases, the person has been found not to have been guilty of the offence and has nevertheless been kept in detention.

Significant concerns about the Character Act were also raised by the Refugee Council of Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission, among others. These concerns have included the considerable risk of prolonged indefinite detention, especially in relation to refugees who cannot be removed to their country of origin due to the risks that they may face persecution or other forms of serious harm in their country of origin and stateless people, who have no country which is obliged to accept them. They also include: the mandatory nature of the visa cancellation powers, which significantly decreases the capacity of the system to consider the individual circumstances of a case before a person is detained; the very low thresholds for visa cancellation which trigger visa cancellations even in the absence of a real risk to the community; and the continued trend towards increasing the personal discretionary powers of the minister, including to reverse carefully made decisions by merits review tribunals.

As the Refugee Council observes:

These concerns have increased since the introduction of the Character Act. There has been a very significant increase in the number of people being detained as a result of visa cancellations. This has included people on permanent refugee visas as well as on bridging visas, and stateless people, all of whom are now at risk of indefinite detention. As at 31 January 2016, there are 549 people being detained as a result of visa cancellations.

The Refugee Council of Australia has surveyed its members to gather initial information on this rapid increase in visa cancellations. The council commented:

Significant concerns so far raised include:

We have already seen these visa cancellation provisions result in a death in Yongah Hill, with a refugee whose visa had been cancelled burning himself to death. There are also concerns that the mixing of detainees with visa cancellations contributed to the death of another young asylum seeker in August 2015.

The bill also expands the definition of character concerns so that a wider range of noncitizens may be required to disclose personal identifiers, including noncitizens who have been found not fit to plead in relation to an offence and noncitizens who are reasonably suspected of association with criminal groups or persons involved in criminal conduct. The Law Council notes that the amendments in this bill build on the problematic section 501 of the Migration Act, which essentially allows the minister or a delegate to make a determination that a person has been involved in criminal conduct despite the absence of a criminal conviction. There are no criteria in the act to determine criminal conduct and no definition of what is meant by association.

The Law Council observes that the act and these amendments are likely to legitimise 'a process of guilt by association'. It therefore considers that conferring a broad executive discretion for the minister to determine that a particular group or organisation is involved in criminal conduct is unacceptable, particularly in circumstances where the consequences are to limit freedom of association and to expose noncitizens to the possibility of being deemed of character concern.

This bill further provides that character concern may be based on a risk assessment by ASIO. Given that only citizens can access AAT merits review of an adverse security assessment by ASIO, this is of serious concern. I have spoken in this place before about the cruelty and unfairness inherent in a system that can allow an unaccountable security agency to make a security assessment of a person based on facts or allegation that the person is not allowed to know.

For those persons who have been assessed to be refugees and therefore cannot be returned to their home country, the result of a negative security assessment is indefinite detention. In March 2012 the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, chaired by Daryl Melham MP, recommended that alternatives to indefinite detention, such as control orders, be developed for refugees in this situation who cannot be repatriated, but so far this has not occurred. The committee also recommended that refugees and asylum seekers have access to merits review in the AAT.

The former Labor government introduced a limited system of review by a retired judge of negative security assessments, but the outcome for a refugee whose negative security assessment is upheld remains indefinite detention. In my view, noncitizens should have access to the AAT as citizens do. It is simply not sustainable for a country that professes to believe in human rights and rule of law to keep refugees who have been convicted of no offence in the dark indefinitely about why they are assessed to be a security risk and to keep them in detention indefinitely. I venture to say it is Kafkaesque.

Finally, it is useful to look at the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' conclusions regarding the following rights and obligations that are engaged by the amendments in this bill. First, non-refoulement obligations: the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's non-compellable powers are insufficient protection against non-refoulement, and international law is very clear that administrative arrangements are insufficient to protect against unlawful refoulement. Second, the right to liberty: the bill reduces important procedural safeguards. Third, the right to freedom of movement: this freedom applies to both citizens and permanent residents who have lived in Australia for a long time and regard Australia as their own country. Fourth, the obligation to consider the best interests of the child: certain provisions, such as those relating to the discretionary visa revocation process and mandatory visa cancellation, do not appear to provide for consideration of the best interests of the child. Fifth, the right to equality and nondiscrimination: the mandatory visa cancellation of individuals sentenced to 12 months or more in prison is likely to disproportionately affect individuals with mental health concerns, which establishes prima facie that there may be indirect discrimination.

In its submission, the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties made some recommendations in relation to the act and this bill's amendments, which I fully support:

In summary, this bill is yet another example of the lack of transparency and accountability that are hallmarks of the immigration department and this government as a whole. I urge colleagues to reject it and to call for a review of the entire legislative framework governing the character provisions of the Migration Act.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. The bill makes a number of amendments to give full effect to the earlier substantive amendments that were made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation Act) 2014.

What were those amendments originally designed for? It was to send a message that if you are a noncitizen of this country and you engage in criminal and antisocial conduct, you will be deported. I will go through the five main points in the provisions of the earlier 2014 act. Firstly, they provide for mandatory cancellation of the visa of a person who is serving a prison sentence where the minister is satisfied that the person fails the character test as they have a substantial criminal record or have been found guilty of sexually based offences involving a child. A noncitizen with a substantial criminal record or a noncitizen that has been found guilty of a sexually based offence involving a child does not deserve the enormous privileges that come with living in this country.

Secondly, the previous bill broadened the power to refuse or cancel visas by including additional grounds on which a person will not pass the character test. Thirdly, the previous bill provided that a person does not pass the character test if there is a risk—rather than the previous 'significant risk'—that they would pose a danger to the Australian community. That was simply lowering the standard. Quite simply, someone that poses a risk of danger to the Australian community and who is a noncitizen does not belong in this country.

Fourthly, the previous bill amended the definition of a substantial criminal record so that a person sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 12 months or more, rather than the previous two years, would not pass the character test. We have seen the lenient sentences of many of the judges in this country. The message is: if you engage in criminal activity and you are sentenced to 12 months or more in jail and you are a noncitizen, your visa will be revoked and you will be deported. Fifthly, the amendments allowed the minister to set aside decisions by a delegate or a tribunal and cancel a visa if the minister thinks it is in the national interest. Ministers of this parliament, quite correctly, should be able to cancel the visa of a noncitizen if the minister thinks that is in the national interest.

The provisions in this bill that we are here debating today will simply give full effect to the policy of this government of mandatory cancellation of visas, by putting beyond doubt that a noncitizen who is the subject of a mandatory character cancellation decision is available for removal from Australia if they do not seek revocation within the relevant time period or are unsuccessful in having their visa reinstated. That is the message. If we are to maintain social cohesion in our country and if we are to continue to give people from all parts of the world the opportunity to be citizens of this country, then this is necessary policy.

Despite the member for Fremantle's comments, I understand that the Labor Party is supporting this—although the member for Fremantle's speech really puts a doubt over that. In the shadow minister for immigration's speech on this bill, he said:

… it is becoming clear that the government—

That is the coalition government that I am a member of—

is utilising ministerial discretion to cancel visas on character grounds to a greater extent than was the case under the former Labor government.

Well hear, hear! This government will stand up for the rights of Australian citizens to go about their lawful business without being subject to the criminal activity of unlawful citizens.

How timely it is that we are debating this bill here in parliament today. We saw last weekend on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne a multicultural war, with hundreds of people rioting in the streets of our two major cities. I have a report from news.com.au which I think is worth reading to show the chaos on our streets. It says:

Melbourne's annual Moomba Festival descended into carnage as hundreds of rival gang members brawled in the CBD … Armed with knives and guns, about 200 members of the Apex and Islander 23 gangs—

Ethnic based gangs with many members who would be noncitizens—

were heard chanting "f**k the police" before launching an all-out brawl that turned Federation Square and surrounding streets into a riot zone.

Police were forced to use batons and pepper spray to break up the warring street gang youths as they punched and beat each other.

A number of people were treated for injuries in the city and taken to hospital after the clash …

These are not the scenes that we want to see on our streets. That is why this legislation is so important. We want to send a message, as the government, that that type of conduct by ethnic gangs—by noncitizens—is completely unacceptable and will result in their deportation.

It was not just Melbourne; it was also in Sydney as well on the weekend. The same article says:

In Sydney, a bloodthirsty brawl erupted outside popular CBD concert venue the Metro Theatre …

It was described as the worst rioting in a decade. The article continues:

The Daily Telegraph reports that two women were seen shoving each other and screaming "f *** the police, f*** them dogs" as they were being subdued.

We have a serious problem in this nation if we give people all the wonderful opportunities that our country offers and yet they come here with so little respect and they disrespect our police in such a manner. This is why we need the provisions to deport them. If you think that I am being tough on these people—and it does not matter what nation they are from—who should be deported, in my support I will quote a recent interview by Mark Colvin of a Deng Adut, a gentlemen who was one of our young Australians of the year and a prominent south Sudanese born lawyer. He called for deportation. He said:

… many of them—

those engaged in the riot, his fellow South Sudanese expatriates—

would be better off if the Australian government sent them back to South Sudan.

He said:

… the best way to help them is actually to consider deporting most of these kids, that are there to cause problems for themselves, their parents and the community at large, and wider Australian community.

He went on:

Because everyone wants to be in peace. Everyone wants to—no-one wants to be assaulted, no-one wants to be in trouble. Everyone want to go home when they come from work, go home and sleep—not being assaulted.

He was then asked this question by the interviewer:

You're saying that if there are young south Sudanese men who are causing problems they should be deported?

DENG ADUT: Yeah.

     …      …      …

It is harsh, but what is, what is there for them, what is life is it there for them? Being in jail every now and then? Go to jail every two months, every three months, every six months, every seven months?

Some of these spend last at least, least 10 years going before the court, so what's the point of keeping these kids here? What's the point?

They're not adding anything to this economy, they're not helping their parents, and they're not helping anyone. And my opinion is basically—it is not working.

We offer enormous opportunities in this country, and Deng Adut—I hope I pronounced that correctly—is an example of the opportunities we give to people from overseas, to refugees. His story: someone who came to Australia illiterate, penniless, a teenager traumatised physically and emotionally by war in South Sudan. In his speech on Australia Day, to show the opportunities this country offers, he said:

I had to wait until I became an Australian citizen to know that I belonged. As an Australian I am proud that we have a national anthem. It's ours and to hear it played and sung is to feel pride, pride that we are a nation of free people.

He continued—this is Deng Adut, someone who escaped from the war in South Sudan:

Australia opened the doors of its schools and universities.

Australia educated me. How lucky I became. How lucky is any person who receives an education in a free land and goes on to use it in daily life.

     …      …      …

I was lucky. You are too. Freedom from fear is about acceptance of our common identity. For we Australians in 2016 freedom from fear is almost taken for granted. We had better take care to keep it.

That is what we are doing in this legislation. We want to make sure that Australian citizens feel free to walk in any part of the country. We want to make sure that the scenes that were seen in our cities, our capital cities of Melbourne and Sydney, over the past weekend never happen again. Those people should be arrested, they should be sentenced and if they are noncitizens they should be deported. We owe it to the refugees and to the migrants of this country who have come here and want to live their lives in peace and to take hold of the opportunities our country offers. That is why the coalition will stand up and we will take tough action on this. We will send a message to noncitizens that if they are engaged in criminal activity, their visa will be ripped up and they will be deported. With that, I commend this legislation to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are here debating the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 because the government will not agree with the amendments passed in the Senate when the provisions in this bill last came before it. The Senate said, 'We'll pass your bill, but we want some changes.' The Senate said, 'We want kids out of detention', and it passed amendments to the bill to get kids out of detention. 'We want to have', said the Senate, 'mandatory reporting of abuse that happens in detention.' The Senate said: 'All child abuse and other assaults witnessed in detention centres must be reported to the relevant independent authorities. Failure to do so should be a criminal offence and currently departmental staff are required to report abuse only to the department.' So the Senate said, 'Let's have applying in our detention centres similar laws to some of the laws that apply here on the mainland, where if you see abuse it is a requirement to report it.'

The Senate also said, when a version of this bill last came before it: 'Let the media into the detention centres to see what's going on. The government say this is being done in our name and we are funding it, including in other countries, so then let's at least be able to test the government when they say everything is fine in this detention centres, when the government say, "We're running them to the best of our ability", but we hear report after report of abuse and of rape. Let us let the media go in and shine a bit of sunlight into these places so that we know what is being done in the Australian people's name and with the Australian people's money.' That is what the Senate said when this bill was last bowled up to it.

And the Senate said, 'Let's also reverse and remove these provisions that make it a criminal offence for people, like doctors, to speak up when they see abuse happening.' Doctors, as well as many other officials, but doctors and other health professionals in particular, are there to make sure people are healthy. They have taken oaths; their obligation is to speak out when they see harm being done to someone. And what is this government's response to that? It is not to stop doing harm; it is to silence the doctor! It is to say, 'We will jail you for a couple of years if you speak out when you see a child being abused.'

The last time this proposal was brought before this place, the Senate said, 'We want some changes.' Faced with that, what does the government do? The government could come back and say, 'Let's debate those changes.' The government, heaven forbid, could even agree and say: 'Yes, we will make it illegal to put children in detention. We will require the mandatory reporting of abuse.' You would not think that too many people would cavil with that. You would not think that too many people, even in the government, would have a problem with saying that, when someone sees abuse taking place in a centre run by Australian money, they have to report it to the relevant independent authorities.

But the government cannot even bring itself to do that. So what does it do? It goes away, parks the bill, with that with Senate amendments, and comes back and cuts out the bits of the bill that it likes and reintroduces the bill. Then it comes in here and talks about events that have happened in the last three or four days to justify this bill that has obviously been sitting there for some time. The government comes back and says: 'No, what we want is just the bits of it we like. We want to continue to run a race to the bottom on refugees. In this bill, we want to give the minister broader power to effectively target noncitizens to be able to cancel their visas.' At the moment, there are provisions that allow the minister to cancel visas, and they are sometimes exercised. But the minister has to be satisfied that the person is a significant risk and is engaging in conduct that people in Australia would find objectionable. Now the minister needs only to reasonably suspect it, whether or not they have been convicted of any conduct of the kind that is objectionable. The minister just has to reasonably suspect something and we will see removal, again, or restriction of appeal rights.

So you have the minister coming back and saying: 'I hear the parliament saying to me that it would like kids out of detention. I hear the parliament saying to me that it would like the media in detention centres. I hear the parliament saying to me that it would like us to mandatorily report child abuse. Forget about that! I just want the powers to be able to beat up on people who come here seeking our help. That is what I want.' Shamefully, in an election year, Labor signed up to it again. Every time the government comes in and says, 'Can we beat up on refugees a bit more?', Labor says: 'How much of a blank cheque do you want? Let's walk hand in hand down the aisle towards the election to make sure that this is another election, yet again, where, instead of putting forward positive visions for the Australian people, where instead of the election being about reaching for the stars, we are going to engage in a race to the bottom. How can we help you? How can we help you so that we in the Labor Party can be "small target" on refugees? As long as you tell us that a piece of legislation has a national security imperative, we will sign up to it.'

We saw that not only with this but also with metadata. Anything that the government wanted, Labor was prepared to sign up to. And now we are seeing it again on refugees. We see it when the minister comes in to this place and defends the treatment of Baby Asha and the treatment of children who are now here in Australia. Some of them are going to Australian schools and the minister still will not give then some basic security that they are going to be allowed to stay here. What do we hear from the so-called opposition? Not a peep! It is left to the Greens, again, to be the real opposition on the issues that matter.

When it comes to the question of immigration, I think everyone understands that it is a complicated issue and everyone understands that we should do everything we possibly can to ensure that people do not die at sea. Of course we should do that. You will not find a member of this place who disagrees with that. The question is: are we really the kind of country that cannot come up with a better way of doing it other than to sanction child abuse? That is what detention is. Not only are we sanctioning child abuse in detention under the government's and Labor's approach; with this bill and with the government's refusal to accept Senate amendments we are sanctioning the nonreporting of it. We are saying that we will not make it mandatory for someone who comes into contact with a child who may have been abused to report it to independent authorities. Can you imagine if that happened here on the mainland? Can you imagine if that happened with one of our kids? Can you imagine any instance of someone living in our community as a citizen here on the mainland in which a government or a political party would sanction the idea that a professional does not have to report abuse when they see it? Of course not! We would all find that reprehensible. Yet, with this bill, we are sanctioning it offshore.

There is yet to be one argument put forward as to why we should not allow the media in. Why not? Why not let the media into detention centres to see what is going on for a bit of oversight? Obviously they are not going to be there all the time, but why not allow them to see what is being done in our name? These are not prisons. These are not prisons in the legal sense. They are prisons in a practical sense, but they are not prisons. The people in there have not committed a crime. So you have people who have not committed a crime, staying in a place, either on an island that they cannot get off or surrounded by cages, and they cannot get out. This is being done in our name. Why not let the media in? Why not have a bit of transparency? There is no argument about that at all. What can possibly be the reason, after everything that we have heard about Baby Asha, for the government continuing to say that it is all right for doctors and health professionals to face a jail term? There are no answers to that, just a request for more powers, and the Labor Party is all too happy to co-sign it.

What could we be arguing for instead? We could be doing a number of things. We could recognise that this country used to do things differently. Look back to the era of Malcolm Fraser, where we had a regional solution where we said people who need processing are going to find somewhere to be processed. Maybe it will be Australia, maybe it will be a different country, but we will strike an arrangement with others who can take them in. And do you know what? It stopped the boats and it ended mandatory detention in the form that we know it now. Yes, people were held for a while and then they were processed, but then they were settled, because the government then looked at people who were fleeing and risking their lives and those of their families and said: 'There has to be a better way. We have to be able to take some of these people in and diminish the risk that people will die at sea.' They did it in a way that did not involve locking people up indefinitely. They did it in a way that did not involve locking kids up until they broke.

That is what we can do again. That is what we should be debating. If you are going to bring a migration bill, listen to what the Senate has told you and ask how we can do it differently and what we could do. We hear a lot about the people smugglers' business model and that we need to break it. People smugglers are again referred to in this legislation. I will tell you one thing: the people smugglers' business model is built on desperation. There are thousands of people in camps in our region—in Indonesia, in Malaysia. Many of them have already been determined to have been refugees, but they are stuck in these camps, waiting for years and years, and they do not see a way out. It is not surprising; despite there being thousands of people in the camps, Australia some years only took a couple dozen of them.

So they are stuck there. Along comes someone who says, 'Tell you what: if you give me a bit of money, I'll hop you on a boat and take you to Australia.' Because they have been waiting there so long and they do not see a way out, many of them do it. What do you do in that situation? One of the things we could do is immediately start taking a couple of thousand from those camps—well within our existing refugee intake—and bring them here. That sends a signal to people in those camps that Australia is taking people again and that maybe, if I wait my turn, I do not need to get on a boat. If I wait my turn, maybe Australia will take me too—or, if not Australia, somewhere else.

Let's immediately take some from the region. Let's put in effort on cooperation like they did 40 years ago with other countries who could take in some of these refugees so that people know that they maybe will not go to Australia but will go somewhere. All of a sudden you start to inject hope again, and then you have discussions about a migration system we can be proud of—one where we accept that Australia, as a wealthy country in the region, has an obligation to take in some people who are coming here seeking our help. It is not a limitless obligation but it is an obligation for which we could do much more than we are doing at the moment. Then, when people see Australia is taking people and other countries are taking people, the incentive to get on boats is reduced. That is what everyone who works in this field and has experience with these people will tell you.

If we did that, we could start having—especially in an election year—a debate about immigration that we could be proud of. Instead we are here racing to the bottom again. It is disappointing to know that the government is doing it. You expect that, but it is disappointing that they are doing it with the full support of the Labor Party.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to commend the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 and the amendments therein. The amendments within the bill allow for the complete implementation of the significant amendments established through the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. The coalition government—this government—is intent on maintaining and ensuring the safety and security of Australia and its citizens now and into the future.

The changes within this bill ensure that the coalition government fulfils its mandate to protect the people entrusted to its care, whether they be first nation people, third-generation Australians or recent migrants and refugees. This government seeks to protect everyone in its immediate care. Our government, through the legislation we pass and the values we hold fast to, seek to affirm right and good character of all our citizens and those endeavouring to be citizens.

It is in the interest of us all to advocate for character within our society that reflects the values we stand for—values that are underpinned by the rule of law, the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of association, among many others that we hold dear in this country. Conversely, it is the role of our laws and justice systems to ensure that those who do not abide by our values can be dealt with accordingly.

In Australia we will always welcome people to our great country, but this requires that those whom we welcome do not just benefit from the rights that are afforded by Australia but also meet their obligations as Australian citizens. A principle central to the Australian project is the principle of mutual obligation. We may be conferred rights by our citizenship, but alongside those rights come responsibilities. We are given the right to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion—as the American founders called it, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'—but alongside that come responsibilities to uphold the rule of law and abide by those laws.

At the heart of the Australian project is a group of people living together, seeking to build a future that is based on prosperity, harmony and security. The character of nations is merely the reflection of the character of their constituent individuals. The Australian society reflects millions of individual lives and the private characters that are expressed through those lives, so it is important that we preserve this project through acts like this. As John Howard said in 2001, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' This migration amendment bill of 2016 is merely an extension of that principle so clearly articulated by the Prime Minister back then.

In the electorate of Canning, the people I represent care very much about preserving the Australian project. I have a lot of migrants in Canning. It was a pleasure to participate in a citizenship ceremony on Australia Day this year in Mandurah, which sits in the heart of Canning. We welcomed new citizens from all over the world: the continent of Africa, Asia, Europe and even from North America. My wife is in fact a migrant from North America. When she came to this country and took on citizenship she embraced both the rights and the responsibilities afforded to her by her citizenship. In Canning we care very much about preserving the fabric of our society. It is disheartening when we see examples like the one reported in the Mandurah Mail in 2014 of a resident on a protection visa who appeared in court for robbing a man outside an ATM. This was one of many crimes that he had committed. It turned out that he was convicted of the robbery. This happened before we made this amendment. I welcome this amendment because it allows the minister to exercise his responsibilities and ensure that people of bad character are not afforded citizenship. This bill will allow us to prevent men like this from entering our communities and creating unnecessary havoc. As some of my colleagues have already said, prevention is far better than cure. This measure allows the minister to prevent situations evolving where we have unsavoury characters ruining the dynamic in our community.

Furthermore, the mandatory character cancellation measure will strengthen our level of protection and allow us to identify where a person is suspected of being of concern. The minister's bill fulfils one of the election promises made by the coalition government prior to being elected in 2014. The bill demonstrates the government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a character risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. Some might ask: why weren't these changes made by the character act in December 2014? Due to the complexity of the Migration Act, several consequential amendments that should have been made to the Migration Act were not identified until after the character act commenced in December 2014.

There are two key amendments and I will outline them briefly. The first is that the new removal powers being introduced in this bill will put beyond doubt that noncitizens who do not seek revocation of a subsection 501(3A) cancellation decision in accordance with section 501CA of the Migration Act within the prescribed time frame, or whose request for revocation is refused, are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. Removals are currently being conducted under a different removal power, but this will put the matter beyond doubt. The second is that it will ensure that confidential information that is critical to decision-making under the mandatory cancellation provisions receive the same level of protection that is currently afforded to confidential information relating to the other character provisions. This is important during the revocation stage. The AFP may have information significant to the decision but which would be detrimental if it were made available to the person seeking revocation—for example, a man was convicted of a child sexual abuse case and served six months, but the AFP advised that he is being investigated for being part of child internet pornography ring. This provision allows law enforcement agencies like the AFP to conduct their investigations without compromising those investigations and still be able to revoke visas.

The mandatory cancellation provisions introduced in December 2014 have resulted in an initial spike of noncitizens having their visa cancelled and subsequently being placed in immigration detention. Noncitizens who have had their visa mandatorily cancelled are able to seek revocation of that decision. A noncitizen awaiting a revocation outcome may remain in immigration detention or leave Australia and await the outcome of their revocation request in their home country. If the revocation decision is favourable, that person would be able to return to Australia.

As someone once said, 'If a speech be good it need not be long; if a speech be bad it must not be long.' I argue that my speech and this bill are the former. They are good. Therefore I commend this bill. The government's clear and ongoing commitment is to ensure that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively, efficiently and comprehensively. I commend the bill to the House and thank you for your time.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to have this opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. This is certainly a bill about accountability. It is about the expectations that this country has of people who come to our shores—the expectation that the law will be abided by and that people will fulfil responsibilities to act in a way that is good for the community. It is one of the things that is obvious to us all—how often issues regarding crime and antisocial behaviour are genuine concerns that people relay to us. People want to feel safe in their homes; they want to feel safe on the streets. They do not like to see crime committed on the streets. They like to see their suburbs in the best possible way. Not just federally but at all levels—federal, state and local—it is right that we are all focused on the primary concern of government: keeping people safe.

Just on Sunday I was at Harmony Day at Ballajura at Karijini Oval, and the issue that came up quite often was: what was happening in the local carparks. Karijini Oval is right next to South Ballajura Primary School. There is a car park on one side. There is the main entrance to the primary school on one side. Wyperfeld Gardens is the name of that street. And on the other side—Badgingarra Gardens and Karijini Court—there is another car park. Both car parks, as I understand it, are owned by the Department of Education. Basically they are provided for the school.

What irritates local people is when, as early in the day as 5.30 pm, in the school's main car park, there are people selling drugs. It is a terrible thing. On the other side, on the Badgingarra side, I have been told that the PE teacher has had to go out and clean up needles and even condoms in that car park before the kids move through the car park to go to a set of basketball courts or across to the Karijini Oval next to it. These are the things that obviously worry people and that do not impress people.

Someone said to me, 'Ballajura, or this part of Ballajura, used to be good when I first moved here.' I think that, really, Ballajura is still good.

I had the opportunity just yesterday to speak to the policeman responsible, Senior Sergeant Wal Brierley of Ellenbrook Police Station. He is aware of the issues in Ballajura. And it is good. The police work very hard there, and I commend them for the work they do. I asked him and one of his sergeants, 'Where do these troubles come from in Ballajura? A lot of people do talk about them.' He said to me that, a lot of the time, crime is inflated by social media and there are perceptions that it is worse than it is. I think that is probably right. I said, 'Where do the people who are responsible for the volume crimes—the burglaries, assaults et cetera—come from?' He said, 'Well, there are some domestic issues in Ballajura. Probably, in a suburb of over 6½ thousand houses, that is not surprising.' But he did say that most of the burglaries are committed by people who come from outside the suburb. So, whilst I have mentioned these great and serious concerns about drug dealing and other antisocial or criminal acts that might be taking place around South Ballajura Primary School, there are very good people in Ballajura and they need to be protected and defended, because most people are not involved in crime and the numbers of local people involved seem to be very small indeed.

South Ballajura Primary School is not far from the South Ballajura shops where, sadly, the antisocial actions of a small number of people have caused Australia Post to temporarily close their SPB, their street posting box, at that shopping centre. It is a small shopping centre. It has a Woolworths and a number of other little shops—a coffee shop et cetera. But it is only about 500 metres from the school. So you have these two places where not good things happen. But what a great example this is of an opportunity where CCTV could be of benefit. So I look forward to working with the police and the City of Swan and the Department of Education to progress that sort of option because I think it is a good one for local people to protect the good people of Ballajura from those who would seek to make their lives harsh and difficult. I do look forward to that.

More specifically on this bill, a lot has been said and written recently about the number of people who have had their visas cancelled on character grounds and are in the process of being deported. I saw a media report which said that it was over 1,050 people. And I think that that is great. I think that is absolutely great.

I think that it is important that, again, when we get down to accountability, there are expectations in this country, when people swear the oath or make the affirmation for their citizenship, that they will obey the rules and the laws of this country. That is not specific to this bill or really about this bill, but obviously we now have laws in this country whereby those involved in terrorism, if they are dual citizens, can have their citizenship revoked and be deported, after all the usual processes. And that is also very good news. I am very pleased to be part of a government that brought that law to the parliament and that it has now passed through the parliament.

But, as I said before, there are over 1,000 people who have had their visas cancelled who are in the process of being deported or have been deported—people involved with bikie gangs; people involved in organised crime—who basically, again, having failed the character test, are now facing that moment of accountability where they have not shown that they are good citizens and that they have been involved in things that are not part of being a good member of this Australian society. So, again, accountability is now coming home to roost. I think we are up to 19 bikies who have had their visas cancelled and have either been deported or are in the process of being deported. I think that is outstanding. And I do believe that the crime to do with drugs is going to be impacted by these sorts of good decisions. I think we should be very firm with people who place our society at risk.

All over the country crime remains an issue. All over the country ice is increasingly an issue. We hear about that all the time, whether it is in the regional centres, in the country or in the suburbs. It is through measures like this that the federal government helps our state and territory colleagues, and even local governments, to combat the organisations that are behind some of this drug manufacture and distribution. I think that that is exactly what we should be doing.

I very much appreciate this bill. This bill has clarified and fixed up a few small issues with regard to the overall issue of visa cancellation on the basis of character issues. We should be doing exactly this sort of work to help all of those involved in the fight against drugs and the fight against criminal behaviour on the streets of our cities. On that basis, I will remind the House that the two key amendments involved with this specific bill are to make sure that removals can be conducted and that there are no issues with that, and to make sure that it is absolutely authorised and is a very appropriate and simple process with regard to dealing with those who seek to have their cancellation overturned. That is important. Also, there is the amendment that the AFP may have the information significant to the decision but which would be detrimental if made available to the person seeking revocation. That is an important part as well—having the information that is necessary for the best and simplest visa cancellation process. These are the things that will be achieved through this amendment.

I look at these sorts of laws and this sort of legislation and I see a very direct correlation between the work that we can do here in the parliament and what is taking place on the ground in our suburbs. Sadly, in the drug trade, for instance, there are small operators. There is no doubt about it. But ultimately, in so many cases, there are levels of organised crime involved. Sometimes it is bikies; sometimes it is others. It is not always the case that people are arrested, charged and convicted. When you have these sort of laws where you can look at the character of people involved and at their organisations and associates, they will help keep our streets safe. That legal ability which is successful, normally, before the courts and in the appeal process. It is so important that we have these sorts of capacities.

I look at places like Ballajura and other places around Perth and around the electorate of Cowan as well—whether it is Lockridge, Beechboro or Wanneroo—and I know that in all these places there are drug issues. Fundamentally, the suburbs are full of great people who just want a safe life, a good life and a good future for their families and themselves. There is no doubt about that. But we must have every available option to deal with those who are creating these problems on the streets. We must look for things like this which can help the state police, territory police and federal police deal with these sorts of problems. If we can get these people who are potentially up to no good out of the country because they are not citizens, we should certainly use all of these options.

Together with the other actions that the government has taken with our Safer Streets Program, particularly with CCTV and lighting in the suburbs, these are the ways in which we, here in the federal parliament, can help out there on the streets to make sure the lives of people are as good as they can be. I commend this bill to the House.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleagues have spoken on this bill at length, so I do not wish to reiterate some of the detail of the provisions in this legislation, but I want to reinforce that these changes are necessary to ensure that the substantive amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014 are given their full effect and that the character provisions are dealt with consistently throughout the Migration Act.

As we have heard from my colleagues, these amendments enhance the government's ability to address character concerns presented by noncitizens in the Australian community. This demonstrates this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a character risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. We are talking about a certain category of individuals that present a risk to our country. It is this risk that we want to ensure is mitigated as much as possible.

The key amendments in this bill relate to the new removal powers, which will put beyond doubt that noncitizens who do not seek revocation of a subsection cancellation decision in accordance with a section of the Migration Act within the prescribed time frame, or whose request for revocation is refused, are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.

The mandatory cancellation provisions introduced in December 2014 have resulted in an initial spike of noncitizens having their visa cancelled and subsequently being placed in immigration detention. Noncitizens who have had their visa mandatorily cancelled are able to seek revocation of that decision. So there is a course for them going forward.    A noncitizen awaiting a revocation outcome may remain in immigration detention or leave Australia and await the outcome of their revocation request in their home country. If the revocation decision is favourable, that person would be able to return to Australia.

I want to say a few words about the communities that I have been speaking to on the issue of migration and integration into our community. Some of the churches and religious denominations in my electorate of Hindmarsh have come to me with some views on immigration, which I have taken on board. For example, they were very passionate about our country reaching out to the Syrian refugees. The decision we took last year to accommodate 12,000 Syrian refugees was a great decision. We reacted promptly and compassionately to the situation involving those refugees. From speaking to the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Immigration, who is working on the project of integration with the Syrian refugees, I know that a lot has been done by the government not just in terms of financial resources; there has been a dedicated focus by government agencies working with service providers, such as the Australian Refugee Association in my electorate of Hindmarsh.

I want to run through some of the organisations that have been involved in contacting me. I recently attended World Prayer Day, which was all about Cuba, at the St Andrews by the Sea Uniting Church at Glenelg. I commend them on the work they are doing in the community more broadly, whether it be Mary's Kitchen, which I have been to at Christmas time twice now, I think. Reverend Adam Tretheway does a great job down there, as do all the volunteers at Mary's Kitchen. Reverend Malcolm Rawlings from the Henley Fulham Uniting Church has contacted me, along with some members of the parish. President Joe Cutillo and others from the Lockleys Catholic Parish Senior Citizens Club have raised various issues with me which I have taken on board. Whether it be foreign aid or matters of integration of refugees, our government is acting appropriately. In relation to our near neighbours, Julie Bishop, who has just returned from Fiji, has told us about the wonderful work the Australian government, the armed services and the aid agencies are doing in Fiji. This happens on so many occasions, whether in the Philippines after the cyclones or in Nepal after the disasters there. When there are natural disasters around the world, the Australian government and the Australian people band together and contribute with open hearts and open wallets to help countries and citizens in need.

My family has been to the Adelaide West Uniting Church at Brooklyn Park on a number of occasions. So I know from personal experience that there are very generous members of their community who have a vested interest in contributing to a safer and a better world. The list goes on of churches in my electorate. Ron Roberts from the Glenelg Church of Christ and everyone down there do a great job in looking out for the disadvantaged not only in our local communities but also overseas, as religious organisations do so well.

In talking about the contribution of community groups, I would also like to pay tribute to some of the Meals on Wheels organisations for the work they do in my electorate. I recognise, amongst others, Colin Humphreys from Edwardstown, Heather Franks from Henley and Grange, and Robert Boyle from West Torrens for their work and that of all their volunteers. There is also a great group in Glenelg North. As I am sure we all know, Meals on Wheels are committed, display great teamwork and are dedicated to helping residents in their local communities. I have been on meal runs a number of times, as I am sure some of my colleagues in this place have. Residents value not just the quality of food they provide but also the personal contact from the drivers and other helpers.

In taking this opportunity to speak on this bill, I want to pay tribute to the migrant community leaders who have had a great impact on my local community and wider society. The Manager of the Italian Pensioners of Thebarton, Francesco Violi, was recently recognised in the Australia Day Honours and is widely regarded by his local community as the driving force behind the work of the Italian Pensioners. I pay tribute to him for his passion for his community and for the hard work he does. I also pay tribute to Kelley Russo, Executive Officer of the PISA Italian Meals and Services. PISA make great quality food for Italian seniors in particular. I recognise John Mitroussidis, President of the Western Macedonian Brotherhood. George Genimahliotis is President of the Pan-Macedonian Federation at Mile End. I have been to a number of their events, including a Melbourne Cup function. There was a lot of colour and vibrancy, and a good afternoon was had by all who attended. Well done in bringing a number of communities together to celebrate in fellowship. They have done a great job in integrating their many communities. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you recognise the contributions such organisations in your own electorate make.

On that fine note, well done to all these organisations and their members. It has been great engaging with you over the journey of my first term in parliament. Your contributions to our community and your hard work and dedication are valued. I pay tribute to you and thank you for your service to our community.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. In doing so, I would like to echo the words of the former Prime Minister, John Howard, who said famously, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' For it is our strict and fair immigration policies that have delivered us a safe and stable Australia. Australia is a nation built by migrants. A healthy and sustainable migrant program has always been at the heart of that growth and, indeed, at the heart of our nation's prosperity.

Consecutive waves of migration have delivered strong and prosperous multiethnic population centres. I am the son of migrants who travelled to this country from Italy and seized the opportunity to work hard for their fortune in this nation, and who have been rewarded in many more ways than can be measured financially. I am, in essence, the product of the strong and fair migratory system which has, of course, long existed in this country. You need only look at the current state of affairs across Europe to see a case in point for the systematic failing of immigration policies in the European Union.

Whilst one must always be careful in drawing comparisons when it comes to policy, it is abundantly clear to me that when migratory processes breakdown chaos quickly follows. In the European experience, we have seen large numbers of people crossing the Mediterranean Sea at their peril—a situation which occurred in our own waters under the failed policies of the Labor governments not that long ago. In the European experience, they have forfeited the ability to apply a rigorous character assessment of migrants, and the result has been profound.

Those that advocate an open door migratory policy should heed the dire warnings which have been laid out by the European experience. The other end of the spectrum, arguably, is occupied by the example of Australia's comprehensive and fair policies enacted and enforced under this government. Whilst this government has stopped the flow of illegal maritime arrivals into this nation, we also remain committed to ensuring that our migration policies, across the board, deliver the best possible outcome for our national interest. It is of course critical that we maintain a strong process to ensure that only people of good character are granted entry into Australia via visas.

Australia enjoys some of the safest and happiest communities in the world and whilst we face many challenges as a country we cannot benefit from granting people of poor character entry into our home. There is an expectation in the community that the government will act in a responsible manner in this space. If we are to remain a safe and prosperous society, we must continue to exercise due diligence when it comes to character assessment. The safety and security of our citizens is the foremost priority of this government, and it is against such a compact that we continue to strengthen our immigration standards, as we do in this bill today.

This bill makes a number of amendments to the Migration Act to improve coherency and consistency in the character related provisions, consequential to the amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. Crucially, this bill ensures that confidential information that is critical to decision making under the new character cancellation provisions receives the same level of protection as that currently afforded to confidential information relating to other character provisions in the Migration Act. It aligns the definition of 'character concern' in the Migration Act with the character test, to ensure consistency and coherency between the operation of the two related provisions and to ensure that the department is able to identify noncitizens who have a criminal history or who have character that is of concern.

This bill will also give effect to the policy of mandatory cancellation. It will put beyond doubt that a noncitizen who is subject to a mandatory character cancellation decision is to be removed from Australia if they do not seek revocation within the relevant time period or, indeed, if they are unsuccessful in having their visa reinstated. That will deliver a better process for our citizens. Consistent with the original intent of the character and cancellation act, this will facilitate the lawful disclosure of noncitizens' identifying information where a noncitizen is suspected of being of a character of concern.

This bill demonstrates this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively, efficiently and comprehensively. It has been documented that, since this government brought in tougher cancellation provisions, there have been more visas cancelled. It stands to reason. The media, of course, have kicked up a fuss, particularly about our cousins across the ditch in New Zealand who have had their visas revoked, but I must stress that these actions are never taken lightly and that, in a vast majority of cases, individuals of ill repute have been removed from our country because of their own actions. In a sense, they are authors of their own circumstance.

Access to Australia via a visa or the grant of Australian citizenship is a high privilege. It is a privilege that billions across the planet will never achieve, notwithstanding that many of them aspire to it. It is absolutely essential that we ensure that those who visit this country are of good character and it is absolutely right that we revoke the visas of those who do not meet that exacting standard. Our comprehensive and secure migratory program protects that privilege, and I am proud of the coalition's record in this space. We have consistently made the tough decisions when it comes to immigration policy in Australia, and it is no different today.

It is not enough that we screen candidates thoroughly in the visa process. We must ensure that whilst they are in our nation they meet their mutual obligations under their visas. It is paramount that we hold each and every person to account for their actions. In doing so we deliver a clear message that we demand that those on visas adhere to our expectations as a nation. I again echo the words of former Prime Minister John Howard: 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' Indeed, I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of this bill, which ensures that we will decide who will stay in this country and that they will deliver on their mutual obligations.

This government is delivering a safer and more prosperous nation, and it is doing it without compromising our long-held position on tough but fair migratory policies. It is in the national interest that we continue to deliver a targeted and fair program, and we should never relinquish our capacity to cancel visas and indeed citizenship of those of poor character. 1 commend this bill to the House.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. In 2014 the Australian government put forward the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act to strengthen the character and general visa cancellation provisions in the Migration Act. This has ensured that noncitizens who commit crimes in Australia or pose a risk to the Australian community are appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation. This migration amendment bill builds on our successes since 2014 and includes further amendments. I will touch on these amendments in a moment, but I want to first explain the importance of what we are doing.

From day one, since we came to government in September 2013, we promised the Australian people a strong, prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia, and that was very important. It is one of government's primary obligations, of course, to protect Australian citizens and ensure that we keep Australia safe. You will know that we stopped the boats; we stopped illegal immigration into Australia. We increased defence force spending, and we have strengthened anti-terrorism laws, and all these things are very important. In relation to the boats, we know that the Australian people were very clear at the last election, after 800 boats carrying 50,000 people had arrived due to the cancelling by Labor of the Pacific Solution. It caused chaos in our community. It really galvanised people in support of having sovereignty over our borders. And since we have been able to stop the boats and the drownings at sea and so forth, we have now been able to take legitimate refugees, and we have announced some 12,000 from Syria who will be allowed to come in. These are people who are fleeing for their lives. One thing I know is that the department and the minister ensure that there is proper security and health checks.

We have also increased defence spending, which had almost $16 billion ripped out of it in the six years leading up to 2013. It is very important that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have the adequate equipment and hardware to ensure that we are cutting-edge, that we play a leading role in Asia, and we want to have the best defence force locally. Our 2015-16 budget delivered on our promise to grow rather than cut the defence budget.

I had the opportunity through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program to visit Afghanistan in 2014 and meet some of the men and women in the Australian Defence Force who serve our nation. And I want to say very publicly here in this place that I thank them for their service—the men and women of the ADF who live in Petrie and in Brisbane and throughout Australia. I thank them for what they have done. It was really an opportunity for me, as someone who has never served in the ADF, to go there and see firsthand the great work that the men and women of the Army, the Air Force and the Navy do over in Afghanistan. In 2015 I had the opportunity to go to HMAS Stirling base in Western Australia and have a look at a submarine fleet and the frigates and so forth over there and to talk to many of the men and women in the Navy and thank them for the great job they are doing as well. I support the federal coalition government's commitment to continue to increase spending. It is very important.

Since our election the government has invested more than $22 billion in defence capability projects, and obviously new projects were announced in the defence white paper last week, which looks at how, for the next 10 years and beyond, we are going to adequately equip the ADF men and women with new hardware to make sure that we are cutting-edge in our region. We have strengthened anti-terrorism laws as well in the past couple of years, which is very important. We have passed new laws to strip dual nationals who have been convicted or suspected of terror offences of their citizenship.

And I must say, getting back to our refugee intake, that it is very important that we have those proper security checks and health checks. If you look at the flood of people who have come into Europe in the past 12 months or so, and the recent terrorist attacks in France, where it was reported that some of those terrorists came in with the flood of refugees, hiding amongst them, it just goes to show—and I know that people in my electorate want to make sure that legitimate refugees who come to this country are properly checked for both security and health. I know for sure that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and the minister, are making that happen. So we have done a lot in the past couple of years to ensure that Australia has its sovereignty back in place and that we have a better equipped defence force and sovereignty over our borders.

The first responsibility of a national government is the safety and security of its people. In this migration amendment bill we are not talking about terrorists, but we are talking about the safety of Australian people in the electorate of Petrie and all around Australia—simple law and order. This bill will enhance the government's ability to address character concerns presented by noncitizens in our communities. This bill specifically introduces new removal powers, so noncitizens who do not appeal a cancellation decision in time or whose request for revocation is refused are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. In my electorate I have many people who were born overseas. Regularly, every few weeks, I attend citizenship ceremonies in my electorate of Petrie. I have people from all over the place who have moved into Australia and become Australian citizens, which is great, but many of them are just living here on a permanent basis and are not Australian citizens. Those who have become Australian citizens are from places like South Africa, New Zealand and other parts of Africa. There are many Europeans as well. They are playing a great role in contributing to the Petrie electorate, and I thank them for it.

This bill also ensures that people who have committed serious crime or have been to jail do not have the opportunity to remain living in Australia. If they have committed a serious crime—whether it be murder, rape or some sort of drug dealing—they are the sorts of people that we do not want in this country. We do not want those people living here in our country, and this bill ensures that we have the opportunity to make sure that they are not able to stay here. I support that 100 per cent. The minister has the opportunity to look at each individual case as well, if there are particular circumstances where people may have reformed and might be able to stay and play a part here, which I think is important as well.

The bill ensures confidentiality of information to ensure confidential information critical to decision making under the new character cancellation provisions receives the same level of protection currently afforded to confidential information relating to other character provisions in the Migration Act. It demonstrates this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. I know that the Australian people, and particularly the people in my electorate, support this 100 per cent.

It was reported in the Herald Sun on 9 March 2016 that, under the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's watch:

More than 1000 foreign-born residents, including bikies and organised crime figures, have been ordered out of Australia in the past 15 months.

These 1,052 people 'failed to meet minimum character requirements under migration laws'. This is very important. It gives the government an opportunity to determine that, if foreign-born residents who are not Australian citizens are involved in illegal gangs or crime, they are not welcome here. They are not welcome to stay here and they will be deported. That is very important. The article continues:

Italian crime figure Francesco Madafferi has also lost his residency status and will be deported, as will a former Iraqi refugee after a criminal case against him relating to a $6 million drug smuggling ring is concluded.

As Minister Dutton said:

There is no greater responsibility of any government than to protect the community. The public is acutely aware of the criminal threat that outlaw motorcycle gang members pose. They are violent thugs that peddle drugs and misery for a profit, and Australians are sick of it. If foreigners come to our country, join bikie gangs and commit serious crimes and think they can remain here, they are wrong.

He is absolutely right, and this has the support of the people who I speak to in the Petrie electorate. We do not want people coming into this country who break the law or do the wrong thing. It is a privilege to live in Australia—an absolute privilege. If people are going to break the law it gives the minister and the government of the day the opportunity to send them packing. Let us be clear about that: you will not be welcome to stay if you commit a serious crime. It is a privilege to live here.

I want to thank all the people in my electorate who obey the law and do the right thing. It is not just the people who are born here but the migrants who have come here—and attend those citizenship ceremonies that I have been to—who play a wonderful role in our community. They are raising their families, going to work, getting involved in the community and volunteering. There are so many good people whom I meet at those citizenship ceremonies, and I thank them for it. But we do support this bill, in particular, and I thank the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as well as staff from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for enforcing these policies. We thank you for your public service and so do the Australian people. I thank the minister for the work on this bill, and I commend the bill the House.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. Before I get to the nuts and bolts of the bill, I want to tell you why immigration and migration are good for our country. This evening, out in the courtyard of the parliamentary annexe here, we had the very first concert for the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music. It is called the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music, but who was there? A young Scottish immigrant by the name of Jimmy Barnes, who came across here as a 10-pound Pom sort of thing. What about Suze DeMarchi? That is hardly an Australian name. The whole thing about immigration in this country is about what people add to us—the depth of flavour and the depth of character that immigration brings to our country. While we are talking about the music industry, look at Glenn Shorrock. He is English. Then there is John Farnham, Tina Arena, Michael Hutchence, Joe Camilleri and the boys from Hunters and Collectors—who have strong Irish roots. It is all about who we want in this great country. It is about what they add to us.

Wave upon wave, generation upon generation, decade upon decade, century after century, people from all walks of life, from all around the world, have come to our country to make a better life for themselves and their family. We are without doubt, and with great pride, the single most successful migrant nation on the face of the earth. Whilst—

Mr Husic interjecting—

my good friend sitting at the table there, the member Chifley—we do make sweeping assertions about people, by and large Australians take people as they come, as individuals. It is not about the colour of your skin. It is not about your ethnic background. It is not about whether you are Catholic or Protestant. It is about whether you are prepared to muck in and have a go.

There is a lot of talk about the way we change these things, and I always talk about my great-grandfather, who arrived here in 1902. He was a qualified civil servant in Wales before he came here, but he could not get a job in the Queensland civil service because he was a Catholic. Tiger O'Reilly said that he would have played a lot more test cricket if the Don were not a Mason and Tiger were not a Catholic. When we talk about migration, we are talking about the barriers put in front of migrants and how they work around them.

I have done many jobs in my life. My favourite job and the one I most identified with was as an auctioneer. I worked in sheds where we had a forklift driver and foreman who could not read or write English. He was of Italian background. He had actually served with the Italian army during the Second World War. He used to call all us auctioneers 'Mr Touchy', because we used to touch the people who went past as we took their money. He could not read or write English, but he never got run over, he never missed a load and he could read a docket perfectly. He knew which set of Z-purlins was going on which thing. He could do the whole lot because he had been given that opportunity.

In the last 25 years, we in this country have made it very hard for immigrants to get that start. For the Italians the Greeks, the Polish, the Irish and everyone who came to Australia post the Second World War, there was the opportunity to get a start doing anything. No matter their background, the ability to get a start in a shed or a factory or push a broom and build on that for their family was always there. But, little by little, things like workplace health and safety—and we do not want unsafe workplaces—and red tape have precluded a whole non-English-speaking generation from being able to get a start in Australia, get that job that they want, and it is mainly men. As men we are largely identified by what we do.

When someone comes across to Australia and does not speak English, it is very difficult. I would hate to go to another country where I had to learn to speak another language; at my age, I think I would find it incredibly difficult. I would seek out another Australian, going as far and as wide as I could possibly go to find them. I would accept and obey the laws of the land, but I would find it very hard to adapt and, if nobody gave me a start, I would find it very hard to provide for my family.

I think one of the biggest challenges today when it comes to immigration is: how do we get a first-generation migrant, especially one who does not speak English, into the system? How do we get them that start to be able to provide for their family—to get that grubstake and put the pole in the ground and say, 'This is mine; I'm going to work for it'? No matter what kind of people have come through, it was the first generation that worked hard and took any job there was. The next generation became doctors, solicitors and accountants. They were the ones that made sure they did so because of what their parents sacrificed for them. The migrants that come to Australia now are no different, but they have been precluded, by red tape, from being given that go.

In my city of Townsville, we had a whole heap of trouble trying to get African migrants, Somalis and the like, into rental accommodation. When they turned up, the rental agents were not really keen on it because they did not understand their customs. The migrant resource centre came to me. I rang one of the local real estate agents who had a big rent roll and I said to him, 'You won't just be getting that family; you'll be getting the entire community. The entire community will come round and make sure that that person does the right thing by that property.' Once that barrier was knocked down and they got an opportunity in that space, they went on to prosper. Those people are now part of our community. When you came to Townsville to our intercultural festival, you will see how proud we are of our different ethnicities and of our diversity.

There are exceptions. There are people who come here and bring bad habits from their land. There are people who come here and abuse what is given to them by the Australian people. They are the people that this bill is about. They are the people that we do not want here. Out of five million Vietnamese, to pick a number, there might be 25 or 1,000 or 50,000 who are no good. They are the people that we do not want in our country. That is what this bill is about.

This bill is not about persecuting people. This bill does not mean 'one mistake and you're out'. This bill is not about that. This bill is about the kind of people that we do not want in our land. People who are chronic criminals or violent criminals who make that their life's work and go out of their way to do that do not belong in our society, and they should go home and never be allowed back here. It is a fairly simple proposition.

The changes in this bill are necessary to ensure that the substantive amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014, or the character act, are given their full effect and that the character provisions are dealt with consistently throughout the Migration Act.

On this side of the parliament, there is a general will to make sure that the first order of government is to secure its country's borders and keep its people safe. That is our first order. Whether it is Scott Morrison, the member for Cook and now Treasurer, or Peter Dutton, the current minister, we hold that duty very close to our hearts. If we stop the boats, if we make sure that our borders are secure, then we can move in this space and be the generous nation that we are. That is why we are able to not only raise the migrant intake limit from 13,750 to 18,000 but also to take an extra 12,000 on top of that. We will take our time to make sure that they are the right people—that they are the most at risk, the most persecuted; that they are the people that most want a second chance; and that they are the people that want to come to Australia.

No system is infallible. But, if someone steps out of the line over here and continues to step out of line, committing a violent crime or dealing drugs or doing any other sort of crime, they do not deserve to be in this country and we will send them home. That is what this bill is about. These amendments enhance the government's ability to address character concerns presented by noncitizens in the Australian community. The bill demonstrates this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a character risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently.

In Queensland bikie gangs have been running roughshod in areas on the Gold Coast. When the Liberal-National Party coalition was in power, they brought in the VLAD laws and made sure that the bikies were shut down in Queensland. We do not want them in our country. Some of these bikers are from other countries; some of them are not Australian citizens. They should be excused from being in Australia and sent home.

Due to the complexity of the Migration Act several consequential amendments that should have been made to the Migration Act were not identified until after the character act commenced in December 2014. This says that we are doing this as we go along—when we find the holes, we will plug them up. We have made a commitment to the Australian people that we will make sure we are ever vigilant on this. The price of vigilance here is a lot less than the price of being slack, the price of letting border policy go and letting these people stay in the country. It costs a fortune to keep someone in jail, and I know they will serve their sentence here but we will send them out after that.

The new removal powers being introduced in this bill will put beyond doubt that noncitizens who do not seek revocation of a subsection 501(3A) cancellation decision in accordance with section 501CA of the Migration Act within the prescribed timeframe, or whose request for revocation is refused, are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. Removals are currently being conducted under a different removal power but this will put the matter beyond doubt. We are serious about this, and we are saying to people that we welcome you in our country and we will make sure that this is a great place to be, but you must respect our laws, you must respect our customs, you must respect our people, you must respect that you live in a society which does not condone this sort of action, so what we have to do is make sure that these things take place.

This bill will ensure that confidential information that is critical to decision making under the mandatory cancellation provisions receive the same level of protection that is currently afforded to confidential information relating to the other character provisions. This is important during the revocation stage; the Australian Federal Police— who are doing a fantastic job—may have information significant to the decision but which would be detrimental if it was made available to the person seeking revocation, for example a man has been convicted of a child sexual abuse case and has served six months but the AFP advise that he is being investigated for being part of child internet pornography ring. That is a fairly stark example and is not the sort of thing that many people are comfortable with, but we should make sure that we are trying to deal with these things.

The mandatory cancellation provisions introduced in December 2014 have resulted in an initial spike of noncitizens having their visa cancelled and subsequently being placed in immigration detention. Noncitizens who have had their visas mandatorily cancelled are able to seek revocation of that decision. A noncitizen awaiting a revocation outcome may remain in immigration detention or leave Australia and await the outcome of their revocation request in their home country. If the revocation decision is favourable, that person would be able to return to Australia. We are not saying it is impossible—we are not saying it is an open and shut case. What we are saying is that we want a country where people feel safe and we will attack the individual who has transgressed; we will not attack an entire cohort of people.

It is similar to the lockout laws in Queensland and Sydney, where everyone has been punished for the actions of a few. If we apply the same logic that the Queensland government is applying to the lockout laws in Queensland, particularly Brisbane, with live music and that sort of thing, we would see an entire cohort of people expelled from Australia. That is not fair, that is not right. What is fair and what is right is that the person doing the damage, the person throwing the punch, the person committing the crime, the criminal, the grub, the dross of society, should be made accountable and we should go to the ends of the earth to make sure they are put out of our country. It is the same as the drink safe precincts in Queensland—we should be attacking the individual who is transgressing, we should be making the fines appropriate. At the moment they ban people from drink safe precincts for 10 days. These people are only going out once a fortnight. Make the sentence correct—get rid of these people out of the drink safe precincts, make sure that criminals are no longer welcome in Australia, and make sure that we are doing the right thing for everyone. We will end up with a better and more welcoming Australia and better people in this country. We have a great country—we are a multicultural country, I am from a multicultural state and my city is very proud of its heritage and traditions. We should be proud and we should support this bill.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I thank members for attending.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.