Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate—clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to start with some questions regarding the commencement, because what we see in the Amendment Paper today is that clause 2(3) refers to a number of sections which will not come into effect until the first anniversary of Royal assent, and the rest of the Act comes into effect upon Royal assent. When I look at those sections, they relate specifically to the electronic monitoring system. We are really happy with the changes in the Amendment Paper around safeguarding people so that electronic monitoring is not used as a form of detention and that it has been narrowed, and it is on that basis and from the Education and Workforce Committee work and the understanding that electronic monitoring was one of the biggest issues for us that we have supported this bill.

I just want to seek clarification from the Minister and I apologise that I’m asking for some context here, but it is an Amendment Paper that we saw today. Does this mean that there will be a transitional period of about a year where the limiting of the electronic monitoring provisions will not be in effect, and what does that mean if there were to be a mass arrival in that time?

I would like to remind the committee that the reason Labour is not fixated but very concerned about electronic monitoring is because of the international conventions and legal principles, which include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They all basically say that deprivation of liberty should only be used as a last resort, if at all, and that electronic monitoring should not be seen as arbitrary, that it shouldn’t be a digital shackle. It talks about privacy concerns, vulnerability, and the issue that the Minister has mentioned herself in some ways when she talked about immigration detention being different from criminalisation and from civil punishment, and yet there is this blurring around the edges. The overwhelming message in international law and best practice is that the goal should be to manage individuals in the community through less intrusive means wherever possible.

Now, because this Amendment Paper is quite new, it may not have the effect that I think it has, and in that case, I’d like to know what effect it does have, but it just feels like there is now a separation of when everything will come into effect. So you’ve got the original amendment from Royal assent and then you’ve got the subsequent amendments that have come in that limit the intrusion into people’s rights that are going to take longer, if I am reading that correctly.

That might explain, then, why my Amendment Paper on sections 40A and 40B was declined, but in the absence of that, what is the situation in that transition period? And even if I am not interpreting that correctly, it still does cause some confusion, clearly for me as a parliamentarian, but probably more so for people trying to work out what the arrangement is around electronic monitoring and the different time frames.

A subsequent question which is similar, and I won’t dwell on it, is the other period of time which talks about some of the sections—I won’t read them all out—coming into force three months after Royal assent. What is the rationale for that and what is the advice around—clearly there’s been some advice, I would assume, to have these different milestones coming in. Hopefully, they are to support the human rights of people. They may well be to make sure that the regime is set up adequately to be able to cope with an influx of people. My concern is that if there isn’t a system and process in place that assures the limiting of the electronic monitoring provisions that we are so keen on in Labour, and which is part of why we are supporting the bill as it’s currently being drafted up to the amendment, then we’d like to hear from the Minister exactly what that looks like, for clarity. Thank you.

Yeah, I think, just for clarification, the delays in the commencement of the electronic monitoring relate purely as you sort of suggest in your outline. It’s about establishing the systems and processes to ensure that all of that system is place—it is a complex system—to ensure it’s done right. So it’s that 12-month period to ensure all of the contracting and the system is set up in place.

Subsequent to that, then, is it correct to understand that the electronic monitoring may still take place but with the much broader incursion into the rights of people who might be detained under the mass arrivals provision, or will there be no electronic system in place?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions, one on the title, which is: considering that the bill actually increases the number of people who would be liable for deportation, does she think that the title accurately describes the bill to a layperson watching this debate? Because otherwise, who is the system supposed to keep the integrity for? This term of “system integrity” is used as a catch-all phrase. I think it’s interesting because I remember the Minister of Customs herself in the second reading criticised, I think, our party for talking about slogans. But I think system integrity is actually a relatively broad term that I think can be weaponised. So I’m curious to know as to whether the reality that the actual provisions from this bill—and this bill actually has quite a few different moving parts—whether the title actually, genuinely describes what the bill does.

Now, on the commencement, I did want to ask also on the provisions which will come into effect on the first anniversary of Royal assent in relation to electronic monitoring. Has the Minister received any advice around, for example, the procuring of the devices that would be needed to be able to adequately implement this bill and whether part of the one-year period would be to also, for example, procure those devices? Has she already started work or to receive advice in that regard; if so, what is it? Because I kind of can see that the one-year gap could be also to sort out some of these devices that would be needed. If that is the case, how many devices is the Government looking at procuring in order to be able to make sure that once we reach the first anniversary of Royal assent, should there be this mass arrival that we’ve been told that we need to prepare for—despite kind of no substantiation of evidence that it is coming—we’ll actually be ready; if so, will a year be sufficient to adequately prepare and procure the necessary devices?

Just in terms of the previous question, the electronic monitoring wouldn’t come into effect until 12 months so there wouldn’t be any interim electronic monitoring system in place.

Ingrid Leary had previously stood up to make a call, so I’ll take a call from Ingrid Leary.

Thank you. It’s just around the title as well. As I previously noted, there’s a kind of strange twinning of the “mass arrivals” part of this bill and also the “fiscal sustainability and system integrity” part. What we heard from the previous Minister in the chair was that the fiscal sustainability part actually relates, in a very narrow way, to levies that respond to visa applications, essentially, and the funding of health and education and making that a little bit fairer but also being able to extend the powers of it. The system integrity part probably relates to both, including the mass arrivals part. I just wondered if it would be clearer if the title should read “Immigration (Visa, Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill”, just to get the word “visa” in there so that, when we’re looking at those sections about the levies and all of that, we’re not going to get confused and think that that relates to mass arrivals.

In some ways, it probably should have been in a separate bill. If we could add that into the title, then it’s very clear to us that, under Part 2, which talks about fiscal sustainability, that levy section is very narrowly focused. We would expect, if we want to look at the affordability of what is being proposed—and I do think it will be value for money because, ultimately, it’s going to save money down the track, but we’re not going to be looking into this bill for that affordability. It’s been made clear to us that things like policing, the airports being stepped up to be able to cope with this kind of system, and the training that’s required would come from general taxation and not from here. That’s not very clear from the title at the moment. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 445 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 amending subclause (1) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 inserting new subclause (2AA) be agreed to.

I will report this bill with amendment.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading