Senator BARTLETT (Leader of the Australian Democrats) (12:52 PM) —I will not hold up the committee unnecessarily. I think it is important to have this on the record because we are still having concerns expressed to us. A fax came through just late yesterday from the Queensland Law Society expressing concern that the law would operate on a non-transparent and unreviewable basis at the complete discretion of the minister. It is my understanding that that is not the case and that it is a reviewable situation. There is a full merits review. The merits review does not happen through the Migration Agents Registration Authority but through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Whilst that might not be ideal it means that there is scope for a full merits review at that stage of the process. If it pans out that people are put into a position where, through delays in the AAT, cancellations or suspensions might come into force in a way that prevents them from practising whilst that full merits review is considered then that would be of concern.

The other potential consequence, if that turns out to be the case, is that the MARA would be far less likely to impose a `sentence', if you like, of a cancellation or a suspension. They would be more likely to go with a caution if they felt it would prevent people from being able to exercise their livelihood because of the length of time in the review process. It is not simply a matter of having the process work as fairly as possible; it is also a matter of ensuring that there are not unintended consequences. If I were in a position where I was considering whether or not to suspend someone's licence I would take into account whether they would end up not being able to practise while a review was carried out. It is important in that respect.

I note the minister's final comments. They are welcome and I am sure that in conjunction with the MARA and the Migration Institute of Australia the minister will seek to require or enable full information to get out to relevant people as quickly and clearly as possible. As I stated, there is a lot of concern about this area. It has been pending for quite a period of time. The Senate has obviously made a lot of changes in the last 24 hours in relation to what people were fearing and I think those changes will alleviate some, although not all, of their fears. So it is important that people's understanding of the final outcome is correct and I urge the government to get that material out there as quickly as possible, and in as understandable a way as possible. As I think I said yesterday, the goals of this legislation are shared by everybody and we just want to make sure that the legislation operates in practice.

In conclusion I would also like to note again the effectiveness of the Senate committee. As Senator Sherry rightly pointed out, it is not just the non-government members but also the chair, Senator Payne, who has contributed. Another government member, Senator Mason, produced a useful and occasionally fiery contribution at the committee hearings. Again, the work of others in the community has contributed not just to the committee inquiry but right through the process—as I said, right up until this morning—raising views, concerns and ideas. I think the work of those agents, particularly the Migration Institute, should be acknowledged. I do not think that in any way they should be held responsible for the final outcome—it is very much the responsibility of the Senate—but the Migration Institute and those people who work on behalf of the entire industry have certainly been responsible in part for it being a lot better than it otherwise would have been.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.