I rise to contribute to this debate on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019. Labor strongly supports the current powers to cancel or refuse visas on character or criminal grounds, as set out in sections 501 and 116 of the Migration Act. I echo the comments from the member for Blair that clearly those in the government who have spoken on this bill are very unfamiliar with those sections of the act.
In 2014, Labor supported amendments to the Migration Act which strengthened the character test provisions. Those 2014 amendments introduced mandatory visa cancellation provisions for foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes. In addition to these mechanisms under the act, the act also gives the minister broad discretionary powers to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds, including in cases where a person has not been convicted of a criminal offence. So the existing legislation provides strong protections for the Australian community when it comes to cancelling the visas of people who pose a risk to the community, have engaged in serious criminal conduct or are persons the minister assesses as failing to meet the character test.
The bill now before the House does not add any new offences which would trigger automatic visa cancellation, nor does it affect the minister's existing broad discretionary powers. The government has failed to provide a clear rationale for this bill. It has not been able to explain why this bill would allow the minister to do that which cannot already be done under the existing migration legislation. However, the bill does risk creating a number of unintended and undesirable consequences. My colleagues have already canvassed a number of the unintended consequences, so I wish to focus on one area of concern: the bill's impact on Australia's international relationships in the Pacific region. The bill's measures have the potential to damage Australia's standing in the region, and I would submit that it has already done so. This would undermine the government's own Pacific step-up policies for Australia's engagement with the Pacific.
Let me take the chamber through those concerns. As I've noted, the Migration Act 1958 already contains strong powers for the minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds, as it should. These existing powers are designed to ensure the minister can remove the right of noncitizens to remain in Australia when they pose a risk to community safety or security. The existing powers in section 501 of the act give the minister the power to refuse or cancel the visas of people with a substantial criminal record: those convicted of sexual offences involving a child; those involved in people smuggling, trafficking in persons or serious international crimes; those who are members of a criminal organisation; or those who are assessed by ASIO as a security risk or not of good character, having regard to their criminal conduct or their general conduct. Labor supports these existing provisions. Let me repeat that: Labor supports these existing provisions.
In 2014, we voted in favour of amendments to the Migration Act. We strengthened the character test and the powers to cancel visas on character grounds. So we have a track record of supporting strong and effective measures to protect the safety and security of Australians. The existing provisions in the character test are extensive. They target noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community, including people with a substantial criminal record. A 'substantial criminal record' is defined to include having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
The bill now before the House seeks to amend the existing powers by creating additional elements to the character test, but the way these elements have been drafted could see the visas of people cancelled with little regard to the seriousness of activities. It could see the visas of people cancelled when they do not pose a risk to the Australian community, such as people whose conduct is trivial and could not reasonably support a suspicion that the person is not of good character.
The bill adds a new category of designated offences to the character test provisions. This new category is defined as including offences punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or more. The problem with the drafting of this element of the definition of a designated offence is that it pays no regard to the actual sentence imposed by a court. An offence may carry a maximum term of two years, but, in a specific case, a court may impose a lesser sentence, a suspended sentence or no sentence of imprisonment at all. This reflects the court's view of all the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness of the offence. So the bill detaches the character test from any consideration of whether the person poses a risk to community safety. It could mean a low-level or trivial offence results in a person's visa being cancelled, even if a court decided not to impose a prison sentence at all. These changes are not necessary to protect the Australian community, because, as I have said, the existing legislation already provides powers to cancel or refuse visas on a whole range of character grounds. These existing grounds include whether the minister forms the view that a person is not of good character, having regard to their criminal conduct or their general conduct.
The potential impact of the bill on Australia's relations with Pacific countries is highlighted by our recent experience with New Zealand. Since the character test was strengthened in 2014, the number of New Zealand nationals having Australian visas cancelled has increased significantly. Department of Home Affairs statistics show more than 1,600 New Zealand citizens have had visas cancelled in the last four years. In 2014, nearly half of the 888 people whose visas were cancelled on character grounds were New Zealand nationals. There have been cases where the individuals concerned had come to Australia as children, lived here for many years and had little remaining connection to New Zealand. These deportations are causing tensions in our relationship with New Zealand. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, described the issue as 'corrosive' to trans-Tasman relations during her recent visit to Australia. In February this year, Prime Minister Ardern said:
New Zealand has no issue with Australia taking a dim view of newly-arrived noncitizens committing crimes. But equally, the New Zealand people have a dim view of the deportation of people who move to Australia as children and have grown up there, with often little or no lasting connection to here.
One of this bill's unintended consequences may be to further increase the number of New Zealand citizens being deported. This would further strain our bilateral relationship. The New Zealand government took the unusual step of launching a submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill in the last parliament; such is their concern. That submission said:
The … Bill … would make a bad situation worse for New Zealanders and therefore for New Zealand …
Let me be clear: foreign nationals engaged in substantial criminal activity should not be allowed to remain in Australia. Foreign nationals who represent a danger to the Australian community should not be allowed to remain here, nor should foreign nationals who are assessed by our national intelligence agencies as a security concern. That's why the Migration Act was amended in 2014 to provide extensive powers for the minister to refuse or cancel visas in these circumstances. The government has failed to give a clear explanation of why these existing ministerial powers are insufficient.
The amendments in this bill are poorly drafted and risk creating unintended adverse consequences for Australia. As I've outlined, the proposed new definition of 'designated offences' fails to take into account the actual sentences imposed by courts. That will create the potential for deportations of people who have not committed significant offences and who do not pose a risk. This will create ill feeling in countries in our region. It is in Australia's interests to maintain good international relations in our region. We need to work co-operatively with partner countries on issues of mutual concern like border protection, law enforcement, security and defence.
I am concerned that this bill will see deportations of New Zealand nationals who do not pose a risk to the Australian community. As I've said previously, the New Zealand government has warned of the 'corrosive effect' on the relationship. This is one of Australia's closest international relationships. New Zealand is a significant bilateral partner in its own right. It is also a valuable partner in our engagement with the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand work closely together on Pacific issues, including in the Pacific Islands Forum and on strategic and security issues in the Pacific.
This bill could undermine Australia's wider Pacific policies, which is very significant in its own right but also given that the Prime Minister has made the Pacific step-up his so-called signature diplomatic initiative. Significant numbers of New Zealand nationals have Pacific heritage. These are people who've migrated or whose parents have migrated from Pacific island countries to New Zealand and who have gained New Zealand citizenship. Given the open border arrangements between Australia and New Zealand, a considerable number of the New Zealand nationals living in Australia are likely to have Pacific heritage. They may also be making remittance payments to family members in Pacific island nations. If this bill results in deportations of Kiwis of Pacific heritage who do not pose any risk to the Australian community, it will damage Australia's standing in the broader Pacific. This would be another example of how the government is undermining its own Pacific step-up with poorly designed, poorly administered and poorly thought-through policies.
Labor has long advocated deepening engagement with the Pacific. It's a region which faces challenges such as lack of economic opportunity; the need to improve health, education and gender equality outcomes; the risks posed by climate change and other environmental pressures; rising strategic competition; and security threats ranging from illegal fishing to drug smuggling. It is in Australia's national interests to help our Pacific neighbours meet these challenges, so we welcome the government's renewed focus on the region after years of neglect. But the problem is that the government's Pacific step-up is being undermined by its inaction on climate change, its cuts to the aid budget, poor implementation of programs and contradictory policy approaches. Leaders of Pacific island nations have declared that climate change is the most significant threat to their people. This government's inaction on climate change is seriously harming Australia's standing in the Pacific.
In migration policy, the government's new Pacific Labour Scheme has been undermined by its deregulation of backpacker visas. Only 203 workers from Pacific island countries were granted visas under the Pacific Labour Scheme in 2018-19, in its first full year of operation. The coalition has undermined Pacific labour mobility programs by deregulating working holidaymaker visas at the same time. These backpacker visas are running at more than 185,000 visas granted annually. The coalition's further deregulation of backpacker visas in 2017 has already seen the number of visa holders granted a second year's stay in Australia jump by 5,328 or 15.3 per cent in 2018. This trend is likely to continue, as the next round of deregulatory backpacker visa changes came into effect on 1 July 2019. That undermines the Pacific Labour Scheme.
So it is little wonder that the scheme delivered only 203 visas in its first year, a 10th of the 2,000 the government expected. This has practical effects. Thirty per cent of those who live in the Pacific live below the absolute poverty line of US$1.90 a day. If the government had managed this program properly and seen 2,000 visas granted, that would have resulted in an extra $8 million of remittances going back to these Pacific nations annually. This money is vitally needed for the economic sustainment of this region.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs was clearly rolled in cabinet by her National Party colleagues, who are desperate to get through an agricultural visa by any means possible, and they are using a deregulated backpacker visa as a backdoor to achieve that outcome. That is bad for Australia, and it is bad for our Pacific neighbours. If we're trying to find motivated workers to work in the agricultural sector and in our tourism and hospitality sectors, we should be looking towards our Pacific island neighbours, not attempting to exploit backpackers from First World nations coming in for a holiday. That is what the National Party have secured with their changes. This is an outcome which is causing disappointment and concern amongst governments in Australia's Pacific region.
Now we have this bill which, as currently drafted, risks putting a strain on our relationship with New Zealand and negatively impacting our standing with Pacific island countries. Labor believes these risks need to be addressed. We are seeking a detailed review of the ministerial directions, with specific regard to the impacts of visa cancellations on New Zealand nationals. Such a review has been recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. This review should consider directions used for section 116 and section 501 visa cancellations. It should consider the implementation of a 'sliding scale' in ministerial directions, similar to the approach taken by New Zealand.
Labor is strongly committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Australians. That's why Labor supported changes to the Migration Act to strengthen the character test and to introduce mandatory visa cancellation for foreign nationals who have served a sentence of a minimum of 12 months or who have committed a serious crime. If the Morrison government accepts Labor's proposals to remove the bill's unintended consequences—including the potential impacts on our relations with New Zealand—the opposition will support the passage of this legislation. But, absent this agreement, Labor will oppose this bill, as it should, because it will not achieve what it seeks to do; it is a petty political diversion from real issues that affect people; and it undermines our relationship with New Zealand and the broader Pacific. Again, it is emblematic of this government's approach of putting day-to-day petty politics first before the national interest.
You can view my speech here