Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015. I am pleased to indicate that Labor will be supporting this legislation. In a world where international travel continues to increase, this bill recognises the fact that the security and efficiency of our passport regime depends on continually reviewing and keeping our legislation up to date with both our international obligations and our domestic laws. This legislation does both of these things. It also closes a loophole by creating the offence of falsely reporting a document as stolen or fraudulent.

Historically passports were about having the protection of a king or other ruler extended to the carrier—I am glad we are past that. They were not initially documents for identifying citizenship but documents for safe conduct—permission for foreigners to travel within a country, sometimes only to specific places. It was not until the mid-19th century that they took on the nature of a document identifying an individual and declaring their citizenship and it was not until after World War I that they became generally required for international travel.

Once they were generally required for international travel it then became important for nations to standardise passports. The first agreement on standardising passports was reached by the League of Nations in the 1920s, but progress was slow and irregular until passport standardisation finally came about in 1980—as late as 1980—under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization. An international standard is so critical for passports because they are by their very nature a document issued by one government for the purpose of being presented to another.

In the last three years 24 passports were alleged to have been used by people attempting to impersonate the identity of a genuine passport holder. In circumstances that we are currently witnessing throughout the world, particularly in respect of Daesh in the Middle East and individuals seeking to travel to the Middle East and participate in some of the activities of Daesh, we have seen cases of not only Australians but also other nationals attempting to use either counterfeited or fraudulent documents or indeed attempting to impersonate others in order to leave the country for the purpose of travelling to the Middle East to be involved in fighting or at least to be involved in the activities of Daesh.

These reforms are aimed at ensuring that that cannot occur. That is why they have the wholehearted support of the opposition. The integrity of our passports is crucial for individual Australians who rely on them for safe travel and as an important means of verifying their identity. In these days of heightened security concerns and increasingly sophisticated international criminal syndicates, Australia's passport security is paramount.

Australia's passport regime is, however, on the whole, robust and respected around the world. On the 2014 Henley and Partners Visa Restrictions Index Australia ranked seventh, with our citizens being able to travel without a visa to 168 other countries. Australian governments must take very seriously the responsibility to make sure that our passports are as secure as international standards require and as modern technology can ensure. When in government, Labor introduced the N series passport, the additional fraud countermeasures of the ghost image and retroreflective floating image, as well as images of Australia printed throughout the document, making every visa page unique. This resulted in a passport which was very difficult to falsify through page substitution or through tampering.

The bill came about as a result of a review of Australian passports legislation, and it amends the Australian Passports Act 2005, the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security Act) 2005 and makes some minor consequential amendments to a number of other acts. It also repeals the Australian Passports (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2005.

We are all aware of the fact that, in recent times, people have been attempting to tamper with passports, and have been attempting, through some very sophisticated measures, to tamper with and, indeed, counterfeit passports. There have been quite highly sophisticated and well documented cases of this occurring. Even highly sophisticated documentation and safeguards will not stop brazen fraudsters from attempting to tamper with these documents. On 18 May of this year the Herald Sun reported that, in the past three financial years, 65 Australian passports had been suspected of being forged or tampered with and 114,000 passports had been reported as lost or stolen.

On occasion a person reports a passport lost or stolen so that it will be cancelled in order to intentionally disrupt the travel of another person. There are people who attempt to manipulate the travel document and passport system in this country so as to disrupt the travel plans of another person. Unfortunately this is most often the case of separated parents where one parent is attempting to travel overseas, in particular to take a child of the relationship overseas, and the other parent seeks to disrupt those legitimate travel plans. That is something that will be dealt with by these reforms. It is a sad fact of the system and a sad fact of circumstances when parents try to manipulate the system for their own personal gain. Under this legislation and under this amendment, which came about as a result of a review of the operation of passports and travel documents, this was one of the issues that was raised in that review. Under this amendment, making a false or misleading statement in respect of a travel document or a passport will be an offence if the statement is made on or about an Australian travel document or an application for an Australian travel document.

This bill does a number of other things. One of them is that it aligns the definition of parental responsibility more closely with that of the Family Law Act to provide more certainty surrounding the issue of who is required to consent to a child's passport or travel document. This goes to the issue of parents attempting to manipulate the system by attempting to stop or tamper with the efforts of others to travel overseas with children. It came about as a result of a review of the operation of these provisions.

As a result of these reforms and this bill, the following persons are required to consent to a child having a passport: firstly, parents who have not had their parental responsibility removed by a court; persons who, under a court order, have parental responsibility or with whom the child is to live; and persons with guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for the child under an Australian law. Persons or individuals who have a court order to spend time with or enable access to a child, but who do not have parental responsibility, will no longer be required to consent to a child having a passport. Again, this came about as a result of the review and is attempting to deal with those cases of people with 'spend time with' orders or 'access to' orders attempting to disrupt the travel plans of those who may seek to leave the country with a child.

It is also important to note that these amendments do not remove the requirement contained in the Family Law Act for a person taking a child overseas to seek the consent in writing of all persons in whose favour a court order is made in relation to the child or all other parties to proceedings for the making of a parenting order in relation to the child. That aspect of the operation of the law in respect of consent by parents regarding the travel of children overseas will remain the same.

The bill bolsters Australia's strong passport security protocols and it also ensures that the minister retains power to issue travel related documents and specifies the circumstances in which a document can be issued. The explanatory memorandum goes through those circumstances in which the minister may issue a travel document. The power to issue the travel document is still retained by the minister, but the bill expands the circumstances in which that travel document can be issued. Those circumstances are the lawful extradition of a person to or from Australia; the lawful deportation or removal of a person to or from Australia; and the lawful prisoner transfer of a person to or from Australia.

This reform is meant to deal with circumstances in which a person may be under an extradition order with a country with which Australia has an extradition treaty. The person may be subject to a deportation order because of a criminal conviction or the like but that person refuses to sign for, or make an application for, a travel document. Currently, the power for the minister to issue that travel document to ensure that the transfer occurs is somewhat limited. This amendment will deal with that, granting the minister, in those circumstances, the power to issue the travel related documents. Importantly, all the powers of the minister are subject to merits review, principally by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. An important element of an administrative review, or executive decision, with respect to the cancellation of a passport or travel document or the issuing of a travel document in circumstances to facilitate an extradition or transfer, will be that it is reviewable by the courts.

In conclusion, these reforms come about as a review of the operation of the Australian Passports Act. The opposition believes the reforms strengthen the integrity and the operation of the issuing of passports and travel documents. They do not affect the operation of the family law provisions in respect of parental consent, but they do bolster the circumstances in which the minister can cancel a review, a travel document and order, or issue travel documents for the deportation or extradition of Australians to or from Australia.

On that basis, we believe that the reforms strengthen our security protocols and ensure that our system of operation for passports and travel documents are strengthened. I commend the bill to the Senate.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is in a name? Well, according to the foreign minister, quite a bit. If she or her underlings find your name unacceptable, inappropriate or offensive, you might have to change it if you want a passport. This power to refuse a name in a passport application is included in the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015 and, because of this inclusion, I oppose the bill.

Australians have a right to freedom of movement, to leave and re-enter the country as they please. In the absence of criminal considerations, like outstanding bail conditions and arrest warrants, Australians have a right to a passport, but the government clearly do not agree. The government think that a passport is their document. So, if ministers or public servants do not like your name, they can withhold a passport from you and violate your freedom of movement. What would they think if Minister Greg Hunt had a previously unknown sister, Kerry Hunt?

The government believes that the restriction on our names is reasonable and necessary because passports are documents which are presented to officials in other countries. This is the most sycophantic instance of cultural cringe I can remember. It is not the role of our government to make sure we present a nice name to customs officials at foreign airports. Equally, it not our government's role to make sure that, when we go through customs at foreign airports, we have nicely brushed hair, neat clothes and a nice smelling deodorant. Our government is not our mother. The idea of restricting the individual to bolster the pride and status of the nation has a name in political theory. It is called fascism. This provision amounts to an officious preoccupation with trivia. It indicates a failure to recognise that offence is taken, not given. It is overkill, given that state law already bans the adoption of names that are considered obscene, offensive or otherwise contrary to the public interest.

The name-banning provision is not the only egregious provision in this bill. For instance, the bill allows the minister to issue a travel related document to facilitate a person's departure from Australia, even when an Australian court has declared that the person should not travel internationally and should not be issued a passport in light of an arrest warrant, law court order or bail condition. This either represents sloppy drafting or executive contempt for the judiciary.

This is a poorly thought through bill. It has received minimal scrutiny, and it is about to be waved into law in this empty chamber. This bill, and this process, should be condemned.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Cameron for a very enlightening history lesson at the beginning of his speech about the history of passports. I think we can all, monarchist or republican alike, be glad that the king no longer controls where we might travel in our own nation. If only that were true of many other nations in the world.

Senator Leyonhjelm gave me notice that he was going to speak this afternoon. I appreciate his contribution in this section of the Senate order of business. I am not in a position to address directly the concerns he raised but, if he wishes, I will be able to get back to him.

The bill has the support indicated on behalf of the opposition. I have always thought that, when it comes to the issue of difficult names or tricky names, we do have laws about that at the state level, Senator Leyonhjelm, both on names and on other things like car and motorcycle numberplates. I think they have their place, personally. I have always thought that the poor person who works in the department of motor vehicles or VicRoads, who has to sit there and try and decipher the latest meaning of six digits and letters and hope it is not offence, has a very difficult job. I will say that there is obviously the principle of having restrictions on that at state and Commonwealth level. I appreciate your disagreement is long established, as is the principle of ministerial discretion involved in the issuing of passports.

I thank senators for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.