Chapter 1
Introduction
Referral
1.1
The Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures)
Bill 2015 (the Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives by the
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon Peter Dutton MP, on 14 October 2015.[1]
The Senate referred the provisions of the Bill to the Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Legislation Committee (the committee) on 15 October 2016 for inquiry
and report by 18 February 2016.[2]
1.2
The proposals to refer the Bill by the Senate Selection of Bills
Committee requested that the committee 'further investigate potential impacts
and unintended consequences of the Bill',[3]
and whether this 'will potentially see people in genuine need of protection
returned to danger'.[4]
Conduct of inquiry
1.3
Details of the inquiry, including a link to the Bill and associated
documents, were placed on the committee's website.[5]
The committee wrote to a number of organisations and individuals, inviting
submissions by 26 November 2015.
1.4
The committee received 20 submissions for the inquiry. The list of submissions
to the inquiry is listed at Appendix 1; details of the public hearing are
provided at Appendix 2; and questions on notice and other material received by
the committee are listed at Appendix 3. The committee thanks the Department of
Immigration and Border Protection and other organisations that assisted with
the inquiry.
Purpose of the Bill
1.5
The Bill seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) 'to more
closely align the statutory complementary protection framework with the
statutory refugee framework'.[6]
Background
1.6
The Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2011,
introduced by the previous government, amended the Migration Act to allow
protection visas to be granted on complementary protection grounds. 'Complementary
protection' is a category of protection for people that are not refugees, but
cannot be returned to their home country because there is a real risk that they
would suffer a significant harm that would engage one of Australia's
international non-refoulement obligations under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or the Convention Against
Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).[7]
1.7
According to the Migration Act, a person will suffer 'significant harm'
if:
-
the person will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life;
-
the death penalty will be carried out on the person;
-
the person will be subjected to torture;
-
the person will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or
punishment; or
-
the person will be subjected to degrading treatment or
punishment.[8]
1.8
The government has stated that the Bill has been introduced as part of a
legislative reform process that seeks to ensure a more effective and efficient
onshore protection status determination process.[9]
It has also stated that the Bill would align the complementary protection
statutory framework with the refugee statutory framework, and diminish the
likelihood that certain individuals would be granted protection, such as those
involved in serious crimes or associated with criminal gangs.[10]
1.9
In 2013, the government introduced the Migration Amendment (Regaining
Control Over Australia's Protection Obligations) Bill 2013. This sought to
repeal the complementary protection provisions of the 2011 Act. In the second
reading speech, the minister discussed a number of concerns with the
complementary protection provisions, these included:
-
cost and inefficiency;
-
creating an incentive for people to come to Australia;
-
people associated with criminal gangs or that have committed
serious crimes satisfying the criteria for complementary protection;
-
the criteria being complicated and difficult for decision makers
to apply; and,
-
interpretation by the courts in a way that has broadened
Australia's obligations beyond what is required by international law.[11]
1.10
The committee considered the Migration Amendment (Regaining Control Over
Australia's Protection Obligations) Bill 2013, and recommended that it be
passed.
1.11
That Bill was passed by the House of Representatives in December 2013,
but was not debated in the Senate and was discharged in October 2015. When the
current Bill was introduced into Parliament, the minister stated that the government
had considered concerns raised in response to the 2013 Bill and had decided to
modify the complementary protection provisions in the Migration Act rather than
repeal them.[12]
Overview of the Bill
1.12
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Migration Amendment
(Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015 would amend the
Migration Act to:
- strengthen
the statutory complementary protection framework by aligning its standards with
equivalent standards established in the new statutory refugee framework, as
inserted by Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Legacy Act;
- clarify
the reference to 'protection obligations' in subsection 36(3), by specifying
the source of the obligations;
- clarify
that the 'country' in subsection 5H(1), which outlines the meaning of 'refugee',
is intended to be the same country as the 'receiving country', by referring
directly to the definition of 'receiving country' in subsection 5(1) of the
Migration Act;
- align
the statutory provisions relating to protection in another country (third
country protection) with the definition of 'well-founded fear of persecution'
in section 5J of the Migration Act;
- amend
subsection 36(2C), to remove duplication between paragraph 36(2C)(b) and
subsection 36(1C) in the Migration Act, which both operate to exclude an
applicant from the grant of a protection visa on character-related grounds;
- amend
subsection 336F(5), which authorises disclosure of identifying information to
foreign countries, to include information pertaining to unauthorised maritime
arrivals who make claims for protection as a refugee and fall within the
circumstances of subsection 36(1C) of the Migration Act;
- amend
subsection 502(1) of the Migration Act, which allows the minister to personally
make a decision, that is not reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
(AAT), to apply to persons who have been refused the grant of a protection visa
on complementary protection grounds for reasons relating to the character of
the person; and
- amend
subsection 503(1) of the Migration Act, which relates to the exclusion of
certain persons from Australia, to apply to persons who have been refused the
grant of a protection visa on complementary protection grounds for reasons
relating to the character of the person.[13]
Consideration by other committees
1.13
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills sought advice
from the minister to explain why merits review of a decision in the AAT is not
warranted in relation to declarations that a person is an 'excluded person'.[14]
The minister responded that the intention is to ensure consistency when dealing
with non-citizens of serious character concern, and noted that merits review is
not an international treaty obligation. However, the Scrutiny of Bills
Committee observed that judicial review is significantly narrower than merits
review, and responded with 'its view that an appropriate form of merits review
is warranted in relation to the making of these decisions...and leaves the
question of whether the proposed approach is appropriate to the Senate as a
whole'.[15]
1.14
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) assessed the
proposed changes against article 3(1) of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and articles
6(1) and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The PJCHR sought the advice of the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection as to how the changes can be compatible with Australia's non-refoulement
obligations.[16]
To date, no response from the minister has been published.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page