Mrs MAY (1:00 PM) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled 2001 Review of migration regulation 4.31B, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mrs MAY —Migration regulation 4.31B was introduced on 1 July 1997 as part of a package of measures to combat abuse in Australia's refugee determination system. The regulation provides for a fee of $1,000 to be charged to those whose claim for refugee status has been refused and who then unsuccessfully appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal for refugee status. The regulation is intended to deter applicants who have no real claim to be considered refugees.

The committee previously reported to the parliament on this regulation in May 1999 and recommended that it be subject to a sunset clause. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs requested that the committee again review the regulation prior to its scheduled expiry on 30 June 2001. The committee received 28 submissions from 21 organisations and individuals. This was more than the committee had received for the 1999 review.

In the course of this review, the committee heard evidence from a number of people with relevant expertise. These included the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the International Commission of Jurists, the Migration Institute of Australia and the Refugee Advice and Casework Service. Many submissions argued against the continuation of the fee, some urged that it be continued and increased and others believed that the fee should not exist.

The committee returned to the basic questions it had asked in 1999: whether there was abuse of the refugee review system, whether the fee had an effect on any abuse and whether people with bona fide claims to be considered refugees were being discouraged from seeking review. In looking at abuse of the refugee review system, the committee found that one in three applicants invited by the Refugee Review Tribunal to put their case in person did not take up this invitation. The committee considered that this evidence indicated that the applicants knew that their claims could not be sustained. Most of those who had been refused refugee status since the fee was introduced were still in Australia. This indicated that their motivation was a desire to prolong their stay in Australia. In short, there is abuse of the refugee review system which requires attention.

The committee then examined whether the fee was reducing the level of abuse. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs argued that applications for review which lacked merit would be concentrated in nationalities from which there were very few successful refugee applications. The proportion of applicants from this group who were refused refugee status by the department and who then appealed to the tribunal had been increasing by 10 per cent each year prior to the introduction of the fee. Since the fee was introduced in 1997, the increase has been only one per cent each year. The committee considered that this was evidence that the fee was deterring applications which were not made in good faith.

An equally important consideration for the committee was that the fee should not discourage bona fide applicants—that is, those who genuinely believed that they would meet the refugee definition. The department provided an analysis of nationalities from which most refugee applications were successful. Applicants with a genuine belief that they would qualify as refugees could be expected to be concentrated in this group. The proportion of these unsuccessful applicants for refugee status who appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal was rising prior to the introduction of the fee in 1997 and was unaffected by the fee. The committee considered that this indicated that the fee was not discouraging bona fide applicants from seeking review.

The committee also sought comment on this important point from those directly involved with refugees. Not one of them claimed that the fee had discouraged any bona fide applicants from applying for review. The statistical and practical evidence convinced the committee that the fee was not adversely affecting bona fide applicants. This conclusion was also relevant to the argument advanced by a number of organisations that the fee was discriminatory and therefore breached Australia's international obligations. However, the evidence showed that the fee was not discouraging bona fide applicants; it was therefore not discriminatory. The committee considered that the fee did not put Australia in breach of its international obligations.

Another argument advanced for removing the fee held that it was not cost effective. However, the committee observed that a total of $1.3 million has been collected thus far, and in the last financial year receipts were five times the total expenditure on processing. The committee therefore concluded that the financial argument against continuation of the fee could not be sustained.

The committee also received submissions which proposed alternatives to the fee. A number of the proposals had been made during the 1999 review but had not been adopted by the committee. During the current review, the committee was not provided with any new information to support those proposals. The committee therefore did not pursue them during this review. In addition, some proposals for the replacement of the fee had the potential to open up new avenues for delay or litigation. The committee therefore did not endorse them. In its review of migration regulation 4.31B, the committee noted that the refugee determination process takes some time to reach a conclusion. Therefore, the full effects of the fee might not yet have become apparent. The committee concluded that the regulation should be extended for a further two years and be subject to another review.

During the review, the committee's attention was also drawn to the continuing level of concern about the activities of some migration agents. This issue had been raised in another of the committee's reviews in 2000, and the committee had commented on it in its 1999 report on this regulation. The committee has therefore recommended that the activities of migration agents be brought under closer scrutiny by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Migration Agents Registration Authority. (Extension of time granted)

Examining this regulation again highlighted to the committee how the legitimate processes involved in determining migration issues can be exploited to permit people to remain in Australia who otherwise would be unlikely to have a valid reason to stay. The committee considered that this aspect of the migration system requires continuing review. It has therefore recommended that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs systematically examine the existing migration processing and review operations with a view to streamlining them.

I thank those who provided the committee with submissions and evidence and also made available further material as needed by the committee. My thanks also go to my committee, particularly to the Deputy Chair, Senator McKiernan, for his work, and to all involved for their work on what was really the second review of the regulation in two years. Although already familiar with the main issues, the committee approached the new inquiry with open minds, seeking new insights into the crucial questions involved. I also extend my thanks to the small committee secretariat of Richard Selth, Steve Dyer and Vishal Pandey for their assistance with the inquiry arrangements and processes. I commend this report to the House.