Mr RUDDOCK (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs)(9.31 a.m.) —When I was speaking last night on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997 and the debate was interrupted, I was making a number of simple points on the amendments which we are debating together. I would like to recapitulate because I think the opposition are under a number of misapprehensions about the measures, particularly the amendments they are proposing and the purpose they will serve.

I will deal, firstly, with the matter of setting a time limit on the AAT reaching a decision. I did not mention this yesterday, but it is not unusual for time limits to be set in dealing with matters where, particularly, people might be held in detention—as they are in these character matters in many cases. In section 367 of the Migration Act there is provision that the Immigration Review Tribunal must make a decision and must notify the applicant within a prescribed period. Regulation 426 prescribes a period not of 42 days but of seven days. The reason for this is quite clear: when you are dealing with matters where there is some urgency—where people are detained—the 90-day period that the opposition is suggesting obviously becomes totally unreasonable.

The second matter we are dealing with, which I would like to recapitulate, is the AAT itself and the way in which these particular matters operate. The procedures which the opposition is seeking to have remain in place are outlined in the AAT legislation. We are seeking in separate provisions—I think it is in 501G—to put in place the same types of procedures dealing with notice. Obviously it is going to be quite difficult in management terms to have two sets of procedures—those that are contained in the Migration Act and those that are in the AAT Act. The opposition are seeking to have those two sets of procedures operating together. Obviously they have not read the bill and do not understand the nature of the procedures and the duplication that they are putting in place.

I want to finally deal with the matter which is of far greater moment in this legislation so honourable members will be aware of it. Over a long period, matters relating to migration and particularly character issues have been determined by the minister representing the government of the day. It is not a matter in which the parliament should abdicate responsibility from the government to unelected tribunals to develop the framework of law and community standards that ought to apply. In the very rare cases that arise—and I indicated that I have only made decisions involving important character issues as minister in something like four or five cases in the time that I have been here—where the minister gets intelligence advice from international agencies about people who are of concern it is not appropriate that the applicant be informed of the nature of the intelligence. It might put people at risk. We are talking about very serious matters involving potential terrorists. We do not think it is appropriate that these matters ought to be dealt with in a way that leaves such people, who pose a risk to the community, at large. In this situation a minister should be given the opportunity with all of the political consequences of that to be able to cancel a visa. The natural justice loop is to be available, but after the visa has been cancelled and the opportunity for a person to be detained has been availed of.

This provision, for which there is a like precedent in section 128, which relates to offshore cancellations, is what we are seeking here. It was a provision that the former government thought was necessary when they were in government to deal with matters of this sort and it is the sort of provision that ought to be available to people who have entered Australia.