The key issues
2.1
This chapter considers the need for the Migration Amendment
(Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018 (the bill), and discusses a number
of issues raised with the committee by submitters in respect to the proposed
changes to the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.2
The chapter concludes with the committee view and the committee's
recommendation with respect to the bill.
The need for the bill
2.3
As set out in the Minister's second reading speech, the amendments to
the existing character test at section 501 of the Act that would be made by the
bill would strengthen 'the current legislative framework in relation to visa
refusals and cancellations on character grounds'.[1]
2.4
In referring to the stated purpose of the bill, some submitters suggested
that the Minister already has expansive powers to refuse or cancel a visa on
character grounds, and questioned whether the bill is justified or necessary.[2]
For example, the Law Council of Australia (Law Council) stated that while it 'recognises
that it is both necessary and appropriate to regulate people seeking to enter
and remain in Australia by reference to questions of character', the need to
expand the existing visa cancellation provisions 'has not been made
sufficiently clear'.[3]
2.5
Similarly, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) questioned the need
for the bill, which it argued 'will offer no greater protection or safety to
the Australian community beyond what is already provided for in existing law'.[4]
2.6
The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) highlighted the
existing powers of the Minister to refuse and cancel visas:
...under the existing act, persons can already be deemed to
have failed the character test if they pose any risk to the community, on the
basis of their criminal of general conduct, or due to an association they have.[5]
2.7
The Visa Cancellations Working Group (Working Group) also submitted that
adequate powers to cancel a visa already exist:
The Bill categorically does not enable the cancellation of the
visas of any person for whom cancellation is not already available. It merely
removes a decision maker’s power to assess whether or not certain individuals
meet or fail the character test, making failure mandatory in prescribed
circumstances. This will make disproportionate and ill-informed decision‑making
that is out of step with community standards immensely more likely.[6]
2.8
However, the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) explained that
the proposed amendments made by the bill:
...will ensure non-citizens who are convicted of certain
serious offences—and pose an ongoing risk to the Australian community while in
Australia or will pose a threat if they are allowed to enter Australia—do not
pass the character test and are appropriately considered for visa refusal or
cancellation.[7]
2.9
The bill would achieve this end by amending the character test at
section 501 of the Act, providing delegates 'with a clear, objective ground
with which to consider refusing or cancelling a non‑citizen's [sic] visa'
due to a conviction for one or more offences, such as:
-
violence against a person;
-
non-consensual conduct of a sexual
nature;
-
breaching an order made by a court
or tribunal for the person[al] protection of another person — such as an
apprehended violence order;
-
using or possessing a weapon; or
-
involvement in any of the above.[8]
2.10
The Department explained that, in determining whether to refuse or
cancel a visa on character grounds, a delegate 'must consider a wide range of
factors contained within binding Ministerial Direction 65', which includes:
-
protection of the Australian
community from criminal or other serious conduct;
-
best interests of minors in
Australia;
-
expectations of the Australian
community;
-
Australia’s international
obligations;
-
impact on victims; and
-
the nature and extent of a
person’s ties to Australia.[9]
2.11
The Department provided three case studies which illustrate why these
changes are necessary to protect the Australian community, including the
following:
Mr C is an adult permanent visa holder in Australia
who has links to youth gangs. Mr C was found guilty without conviction for
theft related offences, for which he received a youth supervision order. He
subsequently was also convicted of a violent offence and sentenced to a period
of four months imprisonment. Mr C has not been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 12 months or more and, under the current character provisions,
does not objectively fail the character test on the basis of his criminal
history.
Mr C’s visa cannot be considered for cancellation under
section 116(1)(e) of the Act on the basis that he may present a risk to the
community, as this power does not apply to permanent visa holders who are in
Australia.
Mr C will remain in Australia as the holder of a permanent
visa, unless sufficient adverse information becomes available to find that Mr C
does not pass the character test under subjective grounds.
However, under the proposed designated offences ground in the
Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018, Mr C would objectively
fail the character test as he has been convicted of a violent offence, which is
punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of five years.[10]
Groups affected by visa cancellations
2.12
The majority of submitters to the committee discussed the proposed
changes in the bill with reference to the 2014 amendments to section 501 of the
Act—discussed in chapter 1—and the effect of these amendments, and the anticipated
effect of the proposed amendments, on particular groups. Some submitters also suggested
that, contrary to the government's stated position,[11]
the bill does not accord with community expectations.[12]
2.13
This section discusses the evidence received in respect of those groups
most frequently identified by submitters as being potentially affected by the proposed
amendments in the bill.
Children
2.14
A number of submitters expressed concern that the current visa
cancellation provisions apply,[13]
and that the proposed amendments will also apply,[14]
to minors.
2.15
For example, the Refugee Council of Australia (Refugee Council) stated
that the bill:
...lowers the bar for visa cancellations to such an extent
that a child could be subject to indefinite detention or deportation for
sharing an intimate image of their girlfriend or boyfriend, or for shoplifting.[15]
2.16
Legal Aid New South Wales (Legal Aid) offered a case study that, it
suggested, demonstrated how the proposed changes would trigger the character
test for a person both as a juvenile and as an adult:
Before he turned 18, Abbas got into an argument with his
sister about what they were watching on TV. The incident escalated and resulted
in Abbas shouting and pushing his sister. Abbas’ mother called the police, who
charged Abbas with assault and took out a provisional ADVO. Ultimately, Abbas
received a bond in the Children’s Court and was made the subject of a final
ADVO for a period of 12 months.
Several months later, and after Abbas turned 18, he again has
an argument with his sister and swore at her. His mother called the police, who
charged Abbas with breaching the ADVO.
He was ultimately dealt with in the Local Court by way of a
section 10A conviction with no further penalty.[16]
2.17
In its submission, the Law Council expressed concern about 'the impact
of the proposed measures on children', noting that while the explanatory memorandum
to the bill provides that the provisions would apply to children 'only in
exceptional circumstances...it does not prescribe what these exceptional
circumstances will be'.[17]
2.18
As such, the Law Council considered that 'there is a high possibility
that this will negatively impact families and young people' and submitted the
bill should be amended to capture the intention set out in the explanatory
memorandum—that a child's visa will only be cancelled in exceptional
circumstances.[18]
2.19
Another way in which submitters suggested the proposed changes may
adversely affect children is through a child's relationship with a primary visa
applicant.
2.20
For example, the Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office (ACMRO)
of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference expressed concern about the
effect of a primary applicant's visa being cancelled on character grounds on
spouses and children. The ACMRO submitted that spouses and children 'are not
the ones who have committed the crime, but consequential victims of the action
of the primary applicant's criminal behaviour'.[19]
The ACMRO suggested that the proposed changes to the Act could serve to uproot
and disorient children's lives 'because of actions taken which were not in
their control'.[20]
2.21
It was on that basis that the ACMRO urged:
...that due consideration is given to families, spouses and
children, caught up in these situations beyond their control when drafting and
proposing the necessary Legislative Instruments that will guide the decision
making processes.[21]
2.22
Similarly, the ASRC outlined how a relationship with a primary visa
applicant could adversely affect women and children who are victims of family
violence:
The physical elements of a 'designated offence' in the Bill
include breach of 'an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal
protection of another person'. This provision will most commonly, and is
intended to, apply to intervention orders relating to family violence. This
provision highlights our existing concern regarding the cancellation of visas
of family violence offenders, in circumstances where the affected family member
is dependent on that same visa.
Most often, the victim of family violence is the wife and/or
child of the perpetrator. When families are present in Australia as visa
holders, there is generally one primary visa holder (often the husband) and one
or more 'dependent' visa holders (often a spouse and/or child). When a husband's
visa is cancelled on account of family violence offences, any 'dependents' will
also have their visas cancelled. This means that a wife and child who have
suffered family violence will have their visas cancelled and they will be
removed from Australia together with the perpetrator.[22]
2.23
The statement of compatibility with human rights with respect to the
bill addressed the issue of the rights of minors, and noted that the best
interests of the child will be taken into account regarding a decision to
refuse or cancel a visa in accordance with Australia's international law
obligations:
While rights relating to family and children generally weigh
heavy against cancellation or refusal, there will be circumstances where they
may be outweighed by the risk to the Australian community due to the
seriousness of the person’s criminal record or past behaviour or associations.[23]
2.24
Indeed, as noted above, delegates who are considering whether to refuse
or cancel a visa on character grounds are required to consider the best
interests of minors in Australia.
New Zealand residents
2.25
A number of submitters discussed the anticipated effect of the proposed
changes to the character test on New Zealanders with reference to the effect of
the 2014 changes on this group of visa holders.
2.26
New Zealanders living in Australia have a unique visa status and, owing
to their broad set of rights provided by this status, 'have had a far lower
citizenship take‑up rate compared to other migrant groups'.[24]
As a result, New Zealanders tend to be more liable to deportation than visa
holders of other nationalities.
2.27
Oz Kiwi, the peak body for the issues affecting the rights of New
Zealanders residing in Australia, provided an overview of the current visa
arrangements for New Zealanders:
New Zealanders arriving in Australia have been granted a
Special Category Visa (SCV) since the introduction of the universal visa system
in 1994. The SCV is a nationality-specific visa that allows New Zealand
citizens to reside indefinitely in Australia. It has been included in both the
repealed Australian Citizenship Act 1948 and the Citizenship Act 2007
(Cth) as a visa that can fulfil permanent residence requirements, subject to
ministerial declaration. However, since 2001 ministerial declarations have only
extended 'permanent resident' status under citizenship law to certain SCV
holders who were living in Australia by 26 February 2001.[25]
2.28
Oz Kiwi discussed what it considered to be the disproportionate effect
that the visa cancellation provisions introduced in 2014 have had on New
Zealanders:
Since s501 was amended in December 2014 1,200 New Zealanders
have been deported. Visa cancellations have increased tenfold under the revised
s501. Of the 2,850 people deported between July 2014 and June 2017, 51 per
cent were New Zealanders.[26]
2.29
Statistics produced by the Commonwealth Ombudsman for its 2016
investigation report into section 501 of the Act, illustrate the high rate of
visa cancellation for New Zealanders, set out at Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Nationality of
people with visas cancelled under s 501, 1 January 2014–19 February 2016
Source: Commonwealth Ombudsman, The
Department of Immigration and Border Protection: The administration of section
501 of the Migration Act 1958, December 2016, p. 7.
2.30
The Border Crossing
Observatory observed that, since the changes to the character test
introduced in 2014, New Zealanders have also 'become the largest nationality
group for visa cancellations and deportations under s501 which has included a
number of long term residents'.[27]
2.31
Oz Kiwi attributed this overrepresentation to several factors, including
that 'any individual who has resided [in Australia] for a decade is no longer
protected' from visa cancellation and subsequent detention.[28]
2.32
Figure 2.2 illustrates the rise of New Zealanders in immigration
detention.
Figure 2.2: Number of New
Zealanders in immigration detention
Source: Border Crossing Observatory, Monash
University, Submission 12, p. 7 citing Department of Home Affairs, Immigration
Detention Statistics
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/visastatistics/live/immigration-detention.
2.33
In its submission, the New Zealand Government set out the reasons New
Zealanders 'have been disproportionately affected by Australia’s deportation
policies since 2014':
-
The lowering of the criminal
record threshold inevitably led to greater numbers of non-citizens liable for
mandatory visa cancellation. This affected New Zealanders more than other
nationalities due to their lower dual citizenship rates.
-
The removal of protection from
deportation for long-term residents (of 10 years or longer) had a particularly
disproportionate effect on New Zealanders, because New Zealanders are the only
nationality with the ability to reside for longer than 10 years in Australia
without permanent residency or citizenship.[29]
2.34
The New Zealand Government suggested that the visa cancellation
provisions introduced in 2014 'have been corrosive to the New Zealand –
Australia relationship due to the disproportionate effect of Australia's policy
on New Zealand and the lack of reciprocity of treatment'. It noted, for
example, that:
The underlying principle of New Zealand's deportation policy
is that New Zealand accepts some responsibility for the behaviour of people who
have lived in New Zealand on residence class visas for long periods of time –
they’ve made New Zealand their home and New Zealand has benefited from their
contribution.[30]
2.35
The New Zealand Government submitted that, just as New Zealand has some
responsibility for long-term residents of New Zealand, 'Australia has
responsibilities for those people who are products of Australia'.[31]
The New Zealand Government concluded that the proposed changes 'would make a
bad situation worse for New Zealanders and therefore for New Zealand'.[32]
2.36
The responsibility of the Australian government for New Zealanders who
have long resided in Australia was also discussed by Oz Kiwi, which
expressed concern about the expected effect of the proposed changes on
long-term residents:
Oz Kiwi has long been concerned about the impact that visa
cancellation may have on a person who has been residing in Australia for a long
period of time. The proposed Migration Amendment Bill will cast the net wider.
Prior to 1998, the deportation of non-citizens who had committed criminal
offences was covered by sections 200 and 201 of the Migration Act 1958
(Cth). Under these sections, the Minister could only deport a non-citizen who
had been convicted of a crime (punishable by imprisonment for two years or
more) if the non-citizen had been resident in Australia for less than ten
years. Subsequent amendments to the Act in relation to section 501, have been
used to cancel the visas of permanent residents who have lived in Australia for
more than ten years.[33]
Humanitarian visa holders
2.37
A number of submitters raised concerns that the bill is inconsistent
with Australia's non-refoulement obligations under international law that
prohibit Australia from returning someone to a country where they will face
persecution or serious human rights violations.[34]
2.38
In its submission, the ASRC set out the effect of the visa cancellation
provisions on refugees and asylum seekers with reference to non-refoulement.
The ASRC suggested that requirements in departmental guidelines to consider
such international obligations are insufficient, and that:
The state of domestic law is that, if a person's visa is
refused or cancelled, they may be returned to their country of origin even if they
face persecution or other serious harm.[35]
2.39
The Refugee Council informed the committee that the consequence of a visa
cancellation for refugees 'is indefinite detention, as they cannot be returned
to their country of origin without breaching our non-refoulement
obligations'.[36]
The Refugee Council informed the committee that, more recently, it has heard
that:
...visas are being cancelled without people being detained.
Instead, these people are left without a valid visa in the community, without
the right to work and without other means to support themselves. Such enforced
destitution is also a breach of our international obligations.[37]
2.40
In its submission, Refugee Legal provided a case study example of a
Rohingya[38]
refugee to illustrate its submission that the bill would 'have a significant
adverse impact on the lives of vulnerable people, including children, refugees,
people seeking asylum and victims of domestic violence'.[39]
In the example of the Rohingya refugee, it stated the adverse impact could be indefinite
detention of a stateless person.
2.41
In respect of the time spent in detention as a result of visa
cancellations, the Commonwealth Ombudsman reported in 2016 that:
The average length of time in detention for those who
requested revocation was 150 days in the period 1 January 2014 to 31 December
2015. On 29 February 2016, the average time to process a s 501(3A)
revocation request had increased to 153 days. We note at the close of business
on 1 March 2015 there were, however, 158 cases where persons have spent six
months or more awaiting an outcome and 21 cases where persons have spent 12
months or more awaiting an outcome.[40]
2.42
Although these concerns have been raised with the committee by
submitters, the statement of compatibility with human rights in the explanatory
memorandum to the bill emphasises Australia's commitment to its non-refoulement
obligations.[41]
These obligations 'are considered as part of the decision whether to refuse or
cancel a visa on character grounds', such that:
Anyone who is found to engage Australia’s non-refoulement
obligations during the refusal or cancellation decision or in subsequent visa
or Ministerial Intervention processes prior to removal will not be removed in
breach of those obligations.[42]
Other issues
2.43
Submitters to the inquiry also raised broader issues of concern
regarding the proposed amendments to the existing character test in the Act.
2.44
Other issues that were raised but are not examined in this section included
the use of the phrase 'knowingly concerned' in respect of criminal conduct;[43]
the constitutionality of the provisions;[44]
foreign convictions;[45]
and the issue of rehabilitation of prisoners.[46]
Aiding and abetting a designated
offence
2.45
One of the designated offences that will be introduced if the bill is
passed is the offence of 'aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring' the
commission of one or more of the offences set out at subparagraphs 501(7AA)(a)(i)–(iv).[47]
2.46
The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA)
expressed its concern with this provision—proposed subparagraph 501(7AA)(a)(v)—
which it suggested 'will disproportionally affect women, involved in a
relationship with an offender, who are often victims of intimate partner and
domestic violence'.[48]
2.47
The Law Council also expressed concern with the inclusion of 'aiding' or
'abetting' in the definition of a designated offence, stating that the
provision 'could have a considerable impact on vulnerable individuals and in
particular women involved in a relationship with the offender' and could, in
turn, 'serve to de-incentivise individuals from cooperating with authorities'.[49]
2.48
The NSWCCL considered that this provision would 'strongly discourage
people from letting the police know of offences in which they or those they
care about have played a small part'.[50]
2.49
However, as the explanatory memorandum states, the physical elements of
the designated offence set out at proposed subparagraphs 501(7AA)(a)(v)–(viii) are
intended to:
...capture those non-citizens with links to those activities
that pose a risk to the Australian community, such as (but not limited to)
organised crime, outlaw motor cycle gangs or those who, without committing the
physical elements as set out in subparagraphs 501(7AA)(a)(i)-(iv), have a level
of involvement in the commission of a designated offence that gives rise to an
offence in and of itself. This makes it clear that the intention is that non‑citizens
who are criminals or who are associated with criminal activity should not
remain in, or be allowed to enter, Australia.[51]
Maximum sentencing penalties
2.50
Proposed paragraph 501(7AA)(b) of the bill introduces the elements of a
designated offence with respect to offences punishable by imprisonment for a
maximum term of not less than two years.
2.51
The Law Council expressed its concern with this provision—it considered
the maximum sentencing penalty provision has 'the potential to undermine the
sentencing function of the judicial system and the discretion it possesses with
regards to sentencing offenders'.[52]
The Law Council also stated:
30. Proposed paragraph 501(7AA)(b)... seeks to shift the
threshold for visa cancellation or refusal away from an individual’s imposed
sentence (which reflects the seriousness of the actual conduct) to the offence
itself and its maximum possible penalty, regardless of the actual sentence
handed down to the individual.
31. It is noted that maximum penalties are reserved for the
worst, most serious examples of an offence. The Law Council is concerned that
this shift fails to appreciate the role of criminal sentencing and the careful
consideration that is given by the courts to a range of social factors when an
individual is convicted of an offence, including mitigating circumstances such
as age, health, disability, moral culpability, or the objective seriousness of
the relevant offence.
32. The Law Council submits that having a cancellation
provision based on the maximum possible sentence rather than the actual
sentenced imposed fails to consider both the legislative structure of the
criminal law legislation or the circumstances of the offence and individual
concerned, and does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the individual’s
conduct or risk. The law has long recognised that different circumstances give
rise to different standards of culpability. As such, possible maximum sentences
are not a proper basis for determining seriousness.[53]
2.52
Legal Aid made similar observations in its submission, and suggested
that the role of the sentencing court is undermined by the bill, explaining:
The actual penalty imposed in a particular matter is a more
reliable indication of the objective criminality, than the maximum penalty.
Weighing the objective seriousness of an offence with the subjective features
of the offender is the very purpose of the sentencing exercise.[54]
2.53
The Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) provided examples of
those offences which may be punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years
or more, but for which it may not be appropriate to impose the two year
sentence of imprisonment 'and which the Australian community would consider to
be a minor or trifling offence':
For example, in Western Australia the summary penalty for
damaging property by graffiti ranges from a community based order to a two year
term of imprisonment The criminal law system appropriately already has the
power to consider the risk a person who damages property by graffiti may pose
the community and determine that it does not warrant a two year term of
imprisonment. Further, it is implausible that the Australian community would
consider that the offence of graffiti is serious enough to warrant the refusal
or cancellation of a visa, even though it can potentially attract a two year
term of imprisonment. However, this is the type of offence the Bill captures
through its expansion of powers without any proper consideration of the actual
sentence imposed by the criminal law system.[55]
2.54
In regard to the proposed introduction of the two-year maximum
penalties, the Working Group noted that maximum sentences provide 'for
aggravating circumstances in the course of offending, where harsher punishment
is warranted':
In the vast majority of cases limited or no such circumstance
exists. Courts, accordingly, rarely impose the maximum penalty. An actual
judicial sentence is a more appropriate indication of the seriousness of
offending.[56]
2.55
The Working Group submitted that 'the Bill will capture a significant
number of individuals whose conduct may not fall under the commonly accepted
definition of a serious offence'.[57]
2.56
The Working Group also expressed concern with the low criminal threshold
in the bill, stating that the bill:
...will capture a significant number of individuals whose
offences could not fall under the commonly accepted definition of 'serious
offences'. This is primarily due to the inclusion of certain offences with a
potential sentence of not less than two years, regardless of the judicial
sentence given. For example, some offences which would fall under this category
include:
...
-
Any attempted offence of the
nature stipulated, being an offence not carried out.[58]
2.57
However, the explanatory memorandum to the bill provides that the
intention of this proposed amendment 'is to make it clear that a designated
offence must be a serious offence, and not merely a minor or trifling offence'.[59]
Further, the proposed amendment:
...also sets an objective standard for the determination of
what constitutes a designated offence, which relies upon established existing
criminal law and law enforcement processes in states and territories to
determine the seriousness of a given offence.
This will ensure that discretionary visa cancellation and
refusal decisions are based on objective standards of criminality and
seriousness.[60]
Access to justice
2.58
A number of submitters suggested that the proposed amendments to
section 501 of the Act would provide limited access to merits review.
2.59
For example, FECCA outlined how, in its view, the proposed changes 'may
lead to grave injustice and the eroding of individual human rights and
freedoms' in the context of merits review of a decision to refuse or cancel a
visa on character grounds.[61]
FECCA explained that:
The current review process for refusals and cancellations is
characterised by great expense to the individual, no access to legal
representation and a strict timeframe for review which relies on the subject of
the order understanding the complexities of the AAT. The removal of an
individual from Australia—including some who have spent their whole lives in
this country—can have a devastating impact on the individual, their family and
community.[62]
2.60
The Law Council expressed similar concerns, and informed the committee
that it had found that there had been a 'significant increase in demand for
legal assistance following the expansion of visa cancellation powers'.[63]
2.61
In its submission, the ALHR spoke to equality before the courts and
tribunals:
...the practical impact of the Bill undermines this right
because it undermines judicial direction and the determinations the criminal
law system makes during sentencing as to whether a person poses a risk to the
community and therefore whether the Court should impose a sentence of
imprisonment or not. The Bill not only reinforces a discriminatory regime where
two people who have committed the same crime are treated very differently
depending on whether they are a citizen or not, but also introduces a regime
where a non-citizen may commit the same offence, but in a less serious context
and receive a less serious sentence, yet still be subject to a more serious
outcome, including arbitrary detention and removal from Australia.[64]
2.62
The Refugee Council stated that:
...non-citizens could be held in indefinite detention or
deported without any form of substantive independent review, as there is no
right to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if the decision is made
personally by a Minister. Even if the Tribunal can review the decision, this
can be overturned by the Minister.[65]
2.63
However, the statement of compatibility with human rights provides that
the bill does not amend 'the relevant procedures and review mechanisms
available', and that the bill accords with Australia's international
obligations:
To the extent that a larger number of people may have their
visa cancelled as a result of this amendment, possibly leading to their
expulsion, the processes are in accordance with the procedural requirements of
Article 13 [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]
and review of the decisions is available – merits review by the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal and/or judicial review for decisions made by a delegate, and
judicial review of decisions made by the Minister personally.[66]
Retrospectivity
2.64
A number of submitters expressed concern that the proposed measures of
the bill may be retrospective in nature. For example, the Law Council considered
that, as a result of the proposed amendments, a non-citizen could be removed 'for
their historic involvement in a designated offence, which in the absence of the
proposed amendments may not have amounted to a failure to pass the character
test'.[67]
The Law Council submitted that:
...there has been insufficient justification for the possible
retrospective nature of the proposed measures, particularly when consideration
is given to the considerable impact on the lives of those that may be affected
by the reforms.[68]
2.65
The ASRC also discussed this issue, stating that item 7 of the bill 'undermines
the rule of law and creates legal uncertainty for legal applicants', and also
that it is:
...unjust to apply the new character requirements to offences
committed prior to the commencement of the concept of a 'designated offence.'
This would result in visa holders who may have lived in Australia for decades
and received a fine or minimal sentence for a 'designated offence' many years
ago, become suddenly liable to visa cancellation, regardless of the fact that
they could not have predicted their actions may result in visa cancellation at
the time. We submit that this is an unacceptable outcome.[69]
2.66
Legal Aid also expressed concern with the retrospective nature of the
bill, a measure which it opposed on the following grounds:
Firstly, the Bill impacts significantly and in a punitive
fashion on the rights of affected people. Secondly, the necessity for
retrospectivity is not justified, given that the Department and the Minister
already have broad powers to issue NOICCs under sections 501(1) and (2) of the
Act for any offences that are defined as designated offences. Finally, Legal
Aid NSW is concerned that retrospective consideration of the expanded test - in
circumstances where no previous action has been taken to refuse or cancel a
visa following an earlier conviction - cannot be undertaken fairly and
transparently.[70]
2.67
The Department did identify in its submission that the new designated
offence ground proposed by the bill 'will apply retroactively—meaning the
decision-maker can consider convictions for a designated offence which occurred
before, on, or after the commencement of this Bill'.[71]
However, the Department also stated that this is consistent with previous
amendments to the character test, such as:
-
1998 amendments to sections
501(6)(a)—relating to a person [who] has a substantial criminal record,
501(6)(c)—relating to past and present criminal or general conduct and
501(6)(d)—relating to a person’s conduct if they were to enter or remain in
Australia.
-
2011 amendments to sections
501(6)(aa)—relating to convictions while in, or escaped from immigration
detention, and 501(6)(ab)—relating to convictions for escaping immigration
detention.
-
2014 amendments to section 501(3A)—the
introduction of the mandatory cancellation framework.[72]
Committee view
2.68
The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by some submitters with
respect to the proposed amendments to the Act by the bill. However, the
committee considers that the amendments are necessary to strengthen the current
visa refusal and cancellation provisions at section 501 of the Act.
2.69
The committee acknowledges and agrees with the view put by the Minister
in his second reading speech—that is, that the bill:
...ensures that noncitizens who have been convicted of serious
offences and who pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community are
appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation.[73]
2.70
The committee also agrees with the Minister that the bill sends a message
that the Australian community will not tolerate non-citizens who have been
convicted of serious offences.[74]
2.71
The committee further considers that there is need to strengthen current
provisions to protect Australians against harm from non-citizens. The committee
considers that the Australian government must therefore legislate to ensure
that the Australian community is safe and secure—the community expects the
government to do so.
2.72
The committee is satisfied that the bill strikes the appropriate balance
between the protection of the Australian community and the rights of
non-citizens who have committed criminal acts, and therefore recommends the
passage of the bill.
Recommendation 1
2.73
The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page