|
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at March 2019.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa
Processing) Bill 2018 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958
(the Act) to allow the Minister to require certain classes of visa applicants
to provide their biometric data as a precondition to lodging a valid visa
application.
The Department states this will streamline the existing
process in which visa applicants can only be legally required to provide
biometric data once they have lodged their application.[1]
Background
Biometrics
collection under the Migration Act
Under the Act, biometrics are referred to as ‘personal
identifiers’, and can include fingerprints and handprints, height and weight
measurements, facial images, audio or video recordings, and an iris scan or
signature.[2]
The Explanatory Memorandum to the present Bill describes the importance of such
data as follows:
Once ‘anchored’ to a person’s biographic information, such as
a name, nationality and date of birth, a biometric adds significantly to
verifying that a person is who they claim to be, and to linking an individual
to security, law enforcement and immigration information.[3]
Section 257A was inserted into the Act by the Migration Amendment
(Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Act 2015, and provides the
Minister and immigration officers with broad powers to require non-citizens—as
well as Australian citizens entering or leaving the country—to provide
biometric data for the purposes of the Act or Regulations.[4]
This may be done by ‘identification tests’ performed by Departmental officers,
through automated systems such as airport SmartGates, or in another way specified
by the Minister or officer.[5]
Despite the broad collection power, there is currently no
express statutory requirement that visa applicants provide personal identifiers
at the time of lodging their application. The power to collect biometrics under
section 257A is structured around requiring personal identifiers from ‘a
person’, rather than imposing a general obligation to provide biometrics in specific
circumstances, or on a specific class of non-citizens. This means that a
requirement to provide personal identifiers can only be made under section 257A
once the application is lodged. Nonetheless, failure to provide personal
identifiers when required to do so in connection with a visa application
renders the application invalid, unless the Minister chooses to waive the
requirement.[6]
Current
biometrics program
Since 2010 the Department of Home Affairs (DOHA) has been
running a biometrics program for offshore visa applicants in designated countries.[7]
This involves taking a digital photograph and fingerprint scan at the time the
person lodges their application.[8]
Applicants applying from a country and for a visa that are part of the program
must provide these identifiers at an Australian Visa Application Centre (AVAC)
or Australian Biometrics Collection Centre (ABCC) located in the relevant
country. These centres are operated by four companies with which the Department
has service delivery arrangements.[9]
The DOHA website lists 45 countries as currently part of
the biometrics program.[10]
The Department states that the current locations for biometrics collection have
been selected on the basis of national security and fraud risks, locations
where the Australian Government can share facilities with Five Country
Conference partners (Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United
States), and for broad geographic coverage.[11]
Currently applicants provide their biometric data on an
ostensibly voluntary basis, with an officer able to invoke section 257A if a
person refuses to comply or has submitted an application other than in person.[12]
Use and
protection of biometric data
The Privacy Act 1988 and Australian Privacy
Principles (APPs) regulate the handling of personal information by Commonwealth
government agencies and certain private sector organisations.[13]
Under the Privacy Act, biometric information is considered ‘sensitive
information’ if it is used for the purpose of automated biometric verification
or identification, and therefore afforded a higher level of protection than
other types of personal information.[14]
Limitations include that sensitive information can only be collected with
consent (unless a specified exception applies) and can only be used or
disclosed for a secondary purpose to which it was collected if this is directly
related to the primary purpose of collection.[15]
However, it is an exception to these restrictions if the collection, use or
disclosure is required or authorised by an Australian law.[16]
The Migration Act authorises the use and disclosure
of identifying information for a range of purposes.[17]
This includes, for example, disclosures:
- for
the purpose of data-matching in order to authenticate the identity of a person,
identify persons who may be of ‘character concern’ or a security concern, or to
combat document and identity fraud[18]
- that
are reasonably necessary for the enforcement of federal, state or territory
criminal law[19]
- that
are required by or under an Australian law[20]
- to
federal, state and territory agencies to verify the person is an Australian
citizen or holds a particular class of visa[21]
and
- to
a foreign country or law enforcement or border control body in a foreign
country (if authorised by the Secretary or Australian Border Force
Commissioner).[22]
It is an offence to access or disclose identifying
information without authorisation.[23]
A key concern in connection with the 2015 legislation
which introduced section 257A was the privacy impact of the Bill’s
measures—particularly in light of the broad discretion conferred by section
257A—and the absence of a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of the Bill.[24]
The Department produced a PIA for the Bill in August 2015, which found that
‘while the privacy of individuals may be affected by the Bill, the expansion of
the powers to collect personal identifiers is necessary and proportional to
achieve the purpose of the Bill’.[25]
The explanatory materials for the current Bill do not state that a PIA has been
conducted or is planned.
Committee
consideration
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee
The Bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report. The Committee issued
its report on 25 February 2019, with the majority recommending that the Bill be
passed.[26]
The Committee stated that Bill’s proposed changes:
... are an important measure towards making Australia's visa
processing system more efficient, and will help officials to identify
criminals, terrorists and other applicants of concern faster than is currently
the case.[27]
The Australian Greens issued a dissenting report which
recommended that the Bill not be passed. The Greens pointed to concerns about
the Bill raised by the Law Council of Australia and the Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Human Rights, and questioned the capacity for all people subjected
to the legislation to provide fully informed consent to the collection of their
biometric data.[28]
The Greens also raised concerns that the Bill could operate to discriminate
against people based on protected attributes (such as race, sex, religion or
national origin), by permitting a
non-disallowable instrument to require collection for specified classes of
applicants.[29]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills reported
on the Bill on 5 December 2018. It expressed concern that by enabling
the Minister to determine by way of non-disallowable legislative instrument,
classes of visa applicants subject to biometric collection requirements, the
Bill leaves to delegated legislation ‘significant elements of the visa
processing framework—including matters that may have significant impacts on
individuals’ privacy’.[30]
It requested advice from the Minister on the necessity and appropriateness of
this. The Committee also sought advice as to the appropriateness of amending
the Bill to:
- require
that the Minister’s determinations be disallowable and
- include
specific consultation obligations prior to the making of a determination,
including a requirement to consult with and consider the views of the Privacy
Commissioner.[31]
The Minister’s response was included and considered in the
Committee’s first report of 2019.[32]
The Minister advised that the Bill will not expand or impact the nature or type
of personal identifiers that can be required, or the purposes for which they
can be collected. The Minister stated that exempting from disallowance
instruments made under Part 2 of the Act ‘ensures certainty in visa operational
matters for the Department, as well as certainty to visa applicants...’.[33]
The Minister further advised that no specific consultations were intended to be
undertaken prior to making an instrument, stating that the Privacy Commissioner
was consulted prior to section 5A (which defines ‘personal identifiers’ and
lists the purposes for which they can be collected) being inserted into the Migration
Act.[34]
The Committee noted the Minister’s advice, but reiterated
its concern about the appropriateness of leaving significant matters to
non-disallowable legislative instruments, and drew its concerns to the
attention of Senators.[35]
Policy position
of non-government parties/independents
Labor Senators were part of the majority of the Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee which recommended the Bill be passed. As noted
above, the Australian Greens issued a dissenting report opposing the Bill. Other
non-government parties and independents have not commented on the Bill at the
time of writing.
Position of major
interest groups
There has been little commentary on the Bill from interest
groups, with only four submissions (including one from the Department) made to
the Senate inquiry. The Legal Services Commission of South Australia expressed
its support for the Bill.[36]
The Law Council of Australia expressed a number of concerns with the Bill,
querying the practicality of and rationale for requiring biometrics to be
provided as a criterion for valid application lodgement, rather than as part of
the
post-lodgement assessment process.[37]
In its submission, the Law Council argued that the proposed changes:
- may
place onerous requirements on certain applicants, such as those living in
remote,
poverty-stricken conditions, by requiring them to travel to an Australian
Consulate post or similar agency
- in
relation to onshore applications, appear to be contrary to the Department’s
move towards online applications
- require
further clarity regarding the way personal identifiers are to be used in the
visa processing framework, and the extent to which applicants will be informed
of these processes and have an adequate opportunity to respond
- without
adequate parliamentary oversight and consultation requirements for the making
of determinations, ‘may cast doubt over the non-discriminatory nature of
Australia’s migration programme’.[38]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum states the Bill will have a low
financial impact.[39]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[40]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reported
on the Bill on 12 February 2019. It raised questions as to the Bill’s
compatibility with the:
- right
to privacy
- right
to equality and non-discrimination and
- rights
of the child.
The Committee sought advice from the Minister as to
whether the Bill’s measures are proportionate to its stated objective to ensure
the integrity of the visa system and protection of the Australian community.[41]
It queried whether the Minister’s power to determine classes of persons who
must provide personal identifiers is ‘sufficiently circumscribed and
accompanied by adequate safeguards’ and whether safeguards are in place for
individuals incapable of understanding and consenting to the collection.[42]
The Committee also sought advice as to whether there are safeguards in place to
ensure the determination of ‘classes of persons’ is based on reasonable and
objective criteria, noting the potential for this to lead to distinctions based
on protected attributes.[43]
In regards to the rights of the child, the Committee
stated that the:
... collection, use, disclosure and retention of biometric
information from children as young as 5 years is a serious intrusion into their
privacy. It raises specific concerns that it may not be the least rights
restrictive approach to achieving the stated objective.[44]
The Minister’s response has not yet been published.
Key issues
and provisions
Rationale for
the Bill
The Bill was introduced in the House by Minister for the Environment,
Melissa Price. In her second reading speech, Minister Price stated that the
Bill is aimed at ‘streamlining ... the process by which personal identifiers are
required and provided at the time of a person applying for a visa’ and argued:
It is important that identity checks are able to be conducted
against personal identifier data to detect individuals of concern as soon as
they make a visa application. Personal identifiers are superior to checks
undertaken using biographic details such as name and date of birth that are
contained in identity documents.[45]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that obtaining personal
identifiers up front in the application process ‘promotes early detection and
assessment of critical information’.[46]
Minister’s
determination
Existing section 46 of the Act sets out the requirements
for making a valid visa application. Subsection 46(2A) currently provides an
application will be invalid if the applicant has been required to provide
personal identifiers under section 257A and has not complied with the requirement,
unless the Minister has waived the operation of this provision. If a visa
application is invalid, it cannot be considered.[47]
Item 1 of the Bill repeals this existing subsection
and substitutes proposed subsections 46(2A) to (2D). Proposed
subsection 46(2B) provides that the Minister may determine, by way of a
non-disallowable legislative instrument,[48]
that visa applicants in a specified class must provide one or more specified
types of personal identifiers in one or more specified ways. The Explanatory Memorandum
states that the way in which groups of applicants will be specified is ‘highly
flexible’, and could include the circumstances of the applicants (such as their
country of residence) or the class of visa being applied for, ‘or a combination
of different factors such as these’.[49]
It further notes:
The flexibility about what classes of applicants ... can be
required to provide a personal identifier will enable the Department to collect
personal identifiers from specific cohorts in response to emergent risks based
on specified circumstances, recent events, and detected or realised threats.[50]
Proposed subsection 46(2C) provides some indication
of the broad scope of proposed subsection 46(2B), by stating
non-exhaustively that the Minister’s determination may specify: a class of visa
applicants ‘in any way’; different types of personal identifiers to be provided
by different classes of applicants; or the way in which a personal identifier must
be provided, including by way of identification tests carried out by an
authorised officer or authorised system.
Under proposed subsection 46(2A), a visa
application will be invalid if the applicant falls in a class of applicants
specified by the Minister’s determination under proposed subsection 46(2B)
but does not comply with the requirement to provide personal identifiers as
specified in the determination.
Proposed subsection 46(2D) states that an
application will be taken to have complied with the requirement to provide
personal identifiers of a specified type if the applicant is in immigration
detention, and during the detention has provided a personal identifier of that
type as required under the Act.
Absence of an
exemption/waiver provision
There is scope under existing provisions in the Act for
exemptions to be granted to the requirement to provide personal identifiers
under section 257A—this is not the case in regards to the determination power
proposed by the Bill. Section 258 states that the Minister may determine, by
way of legislative instrument, a specified person or class of persons who must
not be required to provide personal identifiers under section 257A.[51]
Furthermore, existing subsection 46(2A)—repealed by the Bill—allows the
Minister to waive a requirement to provide biometric data in connection with a
person’s visa application. The Department’s current exemption policy captures
persons such as sovereigns, heads of State, Government Ministers, diplomats and
their families, as well as Special Purpose Visa (SPV) holders (such as members
of airline crew and transit passengers).[52]
The following persons are subject to a partial exemption and may not be
required to provide fingerprint scans:
- minors
under five
- ‘incapable
persons’, defined under the Act as persons incapable of understanding the
general nature and effect of, and purposes of, a requirement to provide a
personal identifier[53]
and
- physically
incapacitated persons who may not be able to provide some or all fingerprints.
There is also a general discretion to exempt a person from
the requirement to provide biometrics in exceptional circumstances. The
Department’s policy guidance suggests this is limited to:
- emergency
or compassionate situations (including where the applicant needs to travel
urgently to visit a family member with a serious life threatening illness) or
- where
there is ‘compelling national interest’ (such as where Australia’s trade or
business opportunities, or relationship with a foreign government, would be
adversely affected if the person is not granted the visa).[54]
In contrast, the provisions in the current Bill do not provide
for similar exemptions or waivers—if a person is captured by a determination by
the Minister under proposed subsection 46(2B), there does not appear to
be a mechanism by which they can be exempted from complying. This has the
potential to operate harshly for certain applicants, such as those who, for
example, may need to travel to Australia urgently in compassionate
circumstances but who live a long way from a biometrics collection centre in
their country.
The Statement of Compatibility states that the policy
intention is that the Minister’s determination will impose the following
requirements on children applying for a General Skilled Migration visa (as
dependants on the parents’ main application):
- children
aged up to four years will need to provide a photograph and
- children
aged at least five years will need to provide a photograph and fingerprints if
resident in a specified country where personal identifier collection is
available.[55]
This appears consistent with DOHA’s existing exemptions
policy. However, the Statement of Compatibility also indicates that
requirements for the collection of personal identifiers will extend to ‘incapable
persons’, and states:
...these persons will have had an application made on their
behalf by their legal guardian. Their legal guardian will also need to make
arrangements to have the incapable person’s personal identifiers collected.[56]
Proposed subparagraph 46(2C)(c)(ii) provides that
the Minister’s determination may specify that a type of personal identifier be
provided in a way other than through an identification test or an authorised
system. The Explanatory Memorandum states that this recognises:
There are circumstances where it is not practical or
efficient for personal identifiers to be provided by way of an identification
test carried out by an authorised officer or authorised system.[57]
It is not clear whether this could be used to accommodate applicants
who, due to emergency or compassionate circumstances, may be unable to attend
an AVAC or ABCC. The Department’s policy guidance provides that offshore visa
applicants can currently be required to provide personal identifiers:
- at an office of an agency contracted by the department, being an office
with personal identifier collection capabilities (for example, at a visa
application centre or biometrics collection centre operated by an SDP)
- at a diplomatic, consular or migration office maintained by or on behalf
of the Commonwealth outside Australia, being an office with personal identifier
collection capabilities (for example where biometric collection takes place at
post)
- at an office of Immigration in Australia, being an office with personal
identifier collection capabilities (for example, at a State/Territory office,
if the applicant has travelled to Australia on another visa before having
provided their personal identifiers for the application being processed outside
Australia)
- directly to an officer (who may also be a delegate), who has a
capability to collect personal identifiers (for example, to an officer
operating a Mobile Biometric Collection Unit in the field) or
- in any other way specified (at present there are no additional ways in
operation).[58]
Consequential
and application provisions
Items 2 to 7 make consequential amendments to
existing provisions of the Act which deal with the collection of personal
identifiers. The effect of this is that certain requirements that currently
apply to the collection of biometric data under section 257A, will also apply
to collection pursuant to proposed subsection 46(2B). This includes
requirements that:
- authorised
officers carrying out identification tests inform the person of any prescribed
matters[59]
- the
collection of personal identifiers be done in circumstances affording reasonable
privacy to the person and not involving the removal of more clothing than
necessary, or more visual inspection than necessary for carrying out the test[60]
- a
person not be required to provide personal identifiers in a cruel, inhuman or
degrading way, or in way that fails to treat them with humanity and with
respect for human dignity.[61]
Item 8 is an application provision which states the
Bill’s amendments will apply in relation to visa applications made on or after
commencement.
Concluding comments
The Bill strengthens the legislative basis for collecting
personal identifiers from visa applicants at the time of application. Due to
the broad collection powers which already exist under the Act, it is unlikely
to significantly expand the circumstances in which such information can be
collected. As a matter of practice biometric data is already collected from
certain classes of offshore visa applicants at the time of lodging their
application.
However, the Bill does not appear to contain scope for
discretionary exemptions which exist in relation to the existing collection
powers. It is not clear from the explanatory materials why such an exemption
provision has not been included.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. M
Price (Minister for the Environment), ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 29 November 2018, p. 11981.
[2]. Migration Act 1958
(Cth), section 5A.
[3]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018,
p. 2.
[4]. Migration
Act, section 257A. Note that separate provisions deal with the collection
of personal identifiers from non-citizens in immigration detention—see Division
13AA of Part 2 of the Act. For information about the Migration Amendment
(Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Act 2015 and the history of biometric
collection under the Migration Act see: MA Neilsen, Migration
Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015, Bills digest,
111, 2014–15, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015.
[5]. Migration
Act, subsection 257A(5); Department of Home Affairs (DOHA),
‘Collecting personal identifiers onshore under section 257A of the Migration
Act’, Legend database.
[6]. Migration
Act, subsection 46(2A).
[7]. DOHA,
‘PAM3: Biometrics for Offshore visa processing’, Legend database.
[8]. DOHA,
‘Meeting
our requirements—biometrics’, DOHA website.
[9]. DOHA,
Annual
report 2017–18, DOHA, 2018, p. 195.
[10]. DOHA,
‘Meeting
our requirements—biometrics’, op. cit.
[11]. DOHA,
‘PAM3: Biometrics for offshore visa processing’, op. cit.
[12]. Ibid.
[13]. Privacy Act 1988
(Cth); Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), ‘Privacy Act’, OAIC
website.
[14]. Privacy
Act, section 6; OAIC, ‘Chapter
B: key concepts’, APP guidelines, OAIC website, version 1.2, March
2015.
[15]. Privacy
Act, Schedule 1, APP 3 and APP 6.
[16]. Ibid.,
Schedule 1, APP 3.3 and 3.4(a), APP 6.1 and 6.2(b).
[17]. Migration
Act, Part 4A. Identifying information includes personal
identifiers obtained by the Department and information connected with this
(section 336A).
[18]. Ibid.,
subsection 336E(2)(a).
[19]. Ibid.,
paragraph 336E(2)(ea).
[20]. Ibid.,
paragraph 336E(2)(eb).
[21]. Ibid., paragraph
336E(2)(da).
[22]. Ibid.,
section 336F.
[23]. Ibid.,
sections 336C and 336E.
[24]. MA
Neilsen, Migration
Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015, op. cit., pp.
5, 7; Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Migration
Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 [Provisions],
The Senate, Canberra, June 2015, pp. vii, 16–7, Recommendation 2.
[25]. Department
of Immigration and Border Protection, Migration
Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015—Privacy impact
assessment, 10 August 2015, p. 3.
[26]. Senate
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Migration
Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018 [Provisions], The
Senate, Canberra, 25 February 2019.
[27]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[28]. Australian
Greens, Dissenting
report, Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018 [Provisions],
The Senate, Canberra, 25 February 2019, pp. 9–10.
[29]. Ibid.,
p. 10.
[30]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2018, The Senate, Canberra, 5 December 2018,
pp. 25–28.
[31]. Ibid.,
p. 28.
[32]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 1, 2019, The Senate, Canberra, 14 February 2019, pp. 57–61.
[33]. Ibid.,
pp. 58–9.
[34]. Ibid.
[35]. Ibid.,
pp. 60–1.
[36]. Legal
Services Commission of South Australia, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018 [Provisions],
10 January 2019.
[37]. Law
Council of Australia, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018 [Provisions],
25 January 2019, pp. 2–3.
[38]. Ibid.,
pp. 1–4.
[39]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018, p. 3.
[40]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pp. 11–19 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[41]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, 1, 2019, Canberra, 12 February 2019,
pp. 39–45.
[42]. Ibid.,
p. 42.
[43]. Ibid.,
pp. 43–4.
[44]. Ibid.,
pp. 44–5.
[45]. M
Price (Minister for the Environment), ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 29 November 2018, p. 11981.
[46]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018, p. 3.
[47]. Migration
Act, subsection 47(3).
[48]. Under
clause 10 of the Legislation
(Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 (Cth), a legislative
instrument is not disallowable if it is made under Part 1, 2 or 9 of the Migration
Act. Proposed subsection 46(2B) is contained in Part 2 of the Act.
[49]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018, p. 6.
[50]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[51]. No
instruments currently appear to be in force under this provision.
[52]. DOHA,
‘PAM3: Biometrics for offshore visa processing’, op. cit.
[53]. Migration
Act, subsection 5(1) (definition of incapable person).
[54]. DOHA,
‘PAM3: Biometrics for offshore visa processing’, op. cit.
[55]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018, p.
17.
[56]. Ibid.,
p. 18.
[57]. Ibid.,
p. 8.
[58]. DOHA,
‘PAM3: Biometrics for offshore visa processing’, op. cit.
[59]. Migration
Act, section 258B, amended by item 2 of the Bill.
[60]. Ibid.,
section 258E, amended by item 5 of the Bill.
[61]. Ibid.,
section 258F, amended by items 6 and 7 of the Bill.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth
Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party,
this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and
communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as
long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence
terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this
publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of
publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists
in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may
be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and
any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament.
They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available
in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do
not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the
relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments
or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official
status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be
directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are
available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members
and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or
the Library’s Central Enquiry Point for referral.
Top
|