Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 - Commentary on Ministerial Responses [2024] AUSStaCSBSD 102 (15 May 2024)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills - Scrutiny Digests

Purpose	The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) to set out clear legislative expectations in relation to the behaviour of non-citizens who are on a removal pathway. As amended, the Migration Act will make clear that a non-citizen who is on a removal pathway is expected to voluntarily leave Australia, and will cooperate with steps taken under the Migration Act for the purposes of arranging the non-citizen’s lawful removal from Australia. The bill also empowers the minister to designate a country as a ‘removal concern country’ by legislative instrument, with the effect of invalidating visa applications from citizens of that country located outside of Australia.
Portfolio	Home Affairs
Introduced	House of Representatives on 26 March 2024
Bill status	Before the Senate

Significant matters in delegated legislation – Persons considered to be ‘removal pathway non-citizens’^[162]

2.138 Item 3 of Schedule 1 to the bill would insert proposed section 199B into the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act), which determines the categories of persons considered ‘removal pathway non-citizens’. Paragraph 199B(1)(d) specifies that this includes lawful non-citizens who hold visas prescribed by legislative instrument for the purposes of paragraph 199B(1)(d).

2.139 In Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024, the committee expressed its view that the ability to expand the scope of people that may be subject to removal pathway directions is a significant matter that would more appropriately be dealt with by way of primary rather than delegated legislation.^[163]

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs’ response^[164]

2.140 The minister noted that the bill does not alter or expand the duty in section 198 of the Migration Act to remove certain unlawful non-citizens from Australia or those who may hold a visa on the basis of their pending removal or departure from Australia. Nor does the bill expand the cohort of unlawful non-citizens who are liable to be removed from Australia under section 198 or those holding bridging visas on departure grounds. As section 198 only applies in relation to unlawful non-citizens, prescribing a visa under proposed paragraph 198(1)(d) would not, of itself, make the holder of that visa liable for removal from Australia.

2.141 The minister further stated that the intention of the provision is to provide flexibility to accommodate any new visa arrangements that might be in place in the future should another type of visa be determined in future to be the most appropriate visa for non-citizens to maintain lawful status in the community while making arrangements to depart or be removed from Australia, in the same way the BVR is currently used for this purpose.

Committee comment

2.142 The committee notes the minister’s advice that the intention behind proposed paragraph 198B(1)(d) is to provide flexibility to accommodate any new visa arrangements that might be in place in the future, and that new visa types are not currently being subjected to removal. However, the committee reiterates its concerns that given the significant penalties associated with the offence of failing to comply with a removal pathway direction under proposed subsection 199C(1), a robust justification balancing the need for flexibility against the impact that removal pathway non-citizens (affected persons) will experience as a result of this legislative scheme should have been provided in the explanatory memorandum, noting that, in this instance, these changes may be applicable to lawful non-citizens. It remains unclear to the committee what urgency is present that necessitates the use of delegated legislation.

2.143 Further, the committee notes there is a level of parliamentary oversight applicable, as the instruments made under proposed paragraph 199B(1)(d) will be subject to disallowance. However, given the potential impact of prescription of visa types, the committee’s preferred position is that these instruments should not commence until the disallowance period for the instrument expires. The committee considers that affected persons should not be subject to the consequences of their visas being prescribed for the purposes of removal pathway non-citizens until there has been an opportunity for proper parliamentary consideration of the relevant instrument.

2.144 The committee therefore draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of enabling the regulations to prescribe additional visas holders for the purposes of removal pathways, pursuant to proposed paragraph 199B(1)(d) of the Migration Act 1958. The committee considers that, at a minimum, it would be appropriate to provide for instruments made under this paragraph to not commence until after the disallowance period has passed.

2.145 The committee also draws this provision to the attention of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation.

Undue trespass on rights and liberties – Power to issue written directions to removal pathway non-citizens^[165]

2.146 Proposed subsection 199C(1) provides the minister with the power to issue written directions to the removal pathway non-citizen cohort, with the directions set out in the subsection as an exhaustive list. Proposed subsection 199C(2) further empowers the minister to issue directions to do or not do a thing if satisfied the measure is reasonably necessary to determine whether there is a real prospect of removal under section 198 becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, or to facilitate removal under section 198. Proposed subsection 199C(4) provides that the direction must specify the period of time in which the person either must do the directed thing, or during which they must not do the directed thing.

2.147 In Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024, the committee expressed its view that the legislation should set out an appropriate minimum time period, for example 60 days, in which to allow the persons to take steps to comply and to seek legal advice.^[166]

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs’ response^[167]

2.148 The minister highlighted that the context of the directions is that they are given to people who have already come to the end of any visa application processes, who are on a removal pathway and who have not cooperated with efforts to remove them from Australia.

2.149 The minister advised that minimum timeframes will differ case by case such that a default 60 days would not be appropriate in every scenario. Applying a minimum timeframe would also add to the time involved to bring these matters to a conclusion, and in some cases would add to periods of detention of unlawful non-citizens.

2.150 The minister stated that in practice, directions given to a removal pathway non-citizen would provide a rational and reasonable time for compliance. Examples were provided of providing a signature on a passport application, as opposed to the making of an appointment and attending an interview at a foreign country's embassy or consulate. The Minister or delegate would consider the circumstances of the non-citizen and what was proposed to be required of them and set the timing for compliance accordingly.

2.151 The minister explained that clear information on the obligation would be provided to the non-citizen, including the potential consequences of non-compliance. The timeframes will always be reasonable as the intention is to gain cooperation of the person to effect their removal from Australia, not to seek their punishment.

Committee comment

2.152 The committee notes the minister’s advice that the policy intention is to prevent individuals on removal pathways from being able to frustrate the process through time delays, and that this can be achieved through ensuring directions are complied with within a reasonable timeframe.

2.153 The committee retains its position that the significance of these measures on individual rights and liberties necessitates legislative protections to ensure that individuals are provided with an appropriate minimum period in which to allow the person to take steps to comply and to seek legal advice. The committee’s preferred position is that such a timeframe be included on the face of the bill and for a specified minimum limit to apply.

2.154 As it currently stands, the advice provided by the minister that a reasonable timeframe will be provided and will differ on a case-by-case basis is not set out in the legislation and therefore is not a guaranteed safeguard for affected individuals.

2.155 In relation to the concern expressed in the response that a specified minimum period may add to the detention for non-citizens, the committee notes that the period would be a minimum period, and a non-citizen could comply with the direction at an earlier time if they wished to. With this in mind, as well as the context in which a direction would be made, the committee is of the view that a minimum period would act as a legislative minimum safeguard for the rights of those subject to a direction.

2.156 The committee considers that, at a minimum, this outcome could be achieved through amendments to the bill to provide that the period for compliance specified in a removal pathway direction must be reasonable having regard to the circumstances. The committee notes that provisions of this nature are not uncommon, particularly where an offence applies for non-compliance with a direction. This would afford the minister the flexibility required while ensuring that there is a legislative safeguard to ensure that individuals are given adequate time to comply with the directions, including by seeking any relevant assistance and legal advice.

2.157 The committee considers that it would be appropriate for the bill to provide that individuals are ensured a reasonable amount of time to comply with directions, in recognition of the potentially significant trespass on rights and liberties involved. The committee otherwise draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the consideration of this matter.

Undue trespass on rights and liberties – Penalty for offence relating to non‑compliance with removal pathway directions^[168]

2.158 Item 3 of Schedule 1 to the bill would also insert proposed subsection 199E(1), which creates an offence where a person who is a removal pathway non-citizen and has been given a removal pathway direction refuses or fails to comply with that direction. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment or 300 penalty units. Subsection 199E(2) also requires that the court impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months imprisonment on an individual who is convicted of an offence under subsection 199E(1).

2.159 In Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024, the committee questioned the appropriateness of the penalty for the offence, including in relation to the inclusion of a mandatory minimum sentence.^[169]

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs’ response^[170]

2.160 The minister advised that the objective of a mandatory minimum sentence is to provide a strong deterrent to non-cooperation by noncitizens with a direction given by the minister under proposed section 199C. The maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment is intended to provide an effective deterrent and reflects the seriousness of the offence in the context of the integrity of the migration system.

2.162 The minister explained that the Government considers that the offence set out in the bill is of similar gravity.

Committee comment

2.164 The committee reiterates its concerns in relation to the significant penalties that relate to the offence in proposed subsection 199E(1), which were noted in Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024.^[171] This includes that the penalty provision is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year imprisonment. The committee reiterates its long-standing scrutiny view that mandatory minimum sentences impede judicial discretion to impose an appropriate penalty based on the unique circumstances of each offence and offender, and may result in highly disproportionate sentencing outcomes.^[172] The committee concerns are consistent with Commonwealth law policy, as specified in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences.^[173]

2.165 Further, it is unclear to the committee whether the penalties provided in the bill are consistent with other principles set out in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. For instance, the high maximum penalty in this case is not justified by reference to the consequences of the commission of the offence being particularly dangerous or damaging.^[174] The committee also notes the view of the Law Council of Australia that ancillary offences, which protect the integrity of a legislative scheme, are rarely subject to mandatory minimum sentences offences (including post-sentence orders in respect of convicted high-risk terrorism offences).^[175]

2.166 Finally, the committee reiterates its long-standing scrutiny view that where significant penalties are imposed, they should be justified by reference to similar offences in Commonwealth legislation. Although the response makes reference to the penalty provision being equivalent to the offences under the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023 and the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) Act 2023, the committee notes that it raised scrutiny concerns in relation to the penalties in both of the bills proposing these Acts, noting the disproportionate nature of the penalties and the use of mandatory minimum sentences in both instances.^[176] The committee has yet to receive a response to these concerns which were raised in November and February respectively, which prevents the committee from sufficiently assessing the justifications for these comparable penalties.

2.167 The committee further notes that other offences in the Criminal Code which carry the same maximum penalty do not appear to be analogous to the offence provided by proposed subsection 199E(1).^[177]

2.168 The committee therefore draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the consideration of the appropriateness of the penalties under proposed section 199E of the Migration Act 1958.

Undue trespass on rights and liberties – Reasonable excuse defence^[178]

2.169 Proposed subsection 199E(3) provides that the offence in subsection 199E(1) does not apply where a person has a reasonable excuse for refusing or failing to comply with the removal pathway direction. Proposed subsection 199E(4) provides examples of what may not constitute reasonable excuses, which included a genuine fear of suffering persecution or significant harm if a person is removed to a particular country^[179] and being or claiming to be a person in respect of whom Australia has non‑refoulement obligations.^[180]

2.170 In Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024, the committee questioned the appropriateness of the use of a reasonable excuse defence, and expressed a view that many of the matters that could be taken to be reasonable excuses would have been more appropriately dealt with by better delimitation of the directions which can be lawfully given by the minister.^[181]

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs’ response^[182]

2.171 The minister advised that the availability of the reasonable excuse defence reflects the Government’s intention that there should be no criminal liability where the removal pathway non-citizen has a reasonable excuse for not complying with the direction. Where it is not possible for a person to comply with a removal pathway direction, there would be no purpose in charging the person with the offence set out in section 199E, as the elements of the offence could not successfully be proven. In circumstances where it is possible for a person to comply with the direction, but they do not comply because they have a reasonable excuse, they will be entitled to raise that defence.

2.172 The minister advised that the Government does not accept that the lawfulness of the direction should be determined by whether, in the particular factual circumstances, the person turns out to be unable to comply with the direction or has a reasonable excuse for not doing so.

Committee comment

2.173 While the committee notes the Government’s intention that there should be no criminal liability where the affected person has a reasonable excuse for not complying with a direction, the committee retains its position that the use of a ‘reasonable excuse’ defence could have a chilling effect on individuals. With no guidance as to how the term ‘reasonable excuse’ is intended to apply, there is a risk that affected persons may lack clarity as to what actions would be considered reasonable in a particular circumstance and may comply with a direction even when it is lawful for them to not do so.

2.174 The committee understands that defences outside of the general defences at common law are intended to be specific to the elements of an offence. In this instance, the committee reiterates its view that the reasonable excuse defence is unclear in scope, lacks guidance and may indicate that the elements of the offence are framed too broadly. The committee considers that it would have been appropriate for examples to be provided in the explanatory memorandum or other guidance as to what may be a ‘reasonable excuse’.

2.175 The committee also notes that Commonwealth law policy, reflected in the Attorney-General’s Department’s Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, is that, generally a reasonable excuse defence should not be applied unless it is not possible to rely on general defences or to design more specific defences. This is on the grounds that a defence of reasonable excuse is too open-ended and difficult to rely on because it is unclear what needs to be established.^[183]

2.176 Further, the committee notes that in an instance where an affected person has a reasonable excuse to not comply with a direction, that person is entitled to rely on this defence. However, this requires the affected person to be charged with the offence and subjected to the criminal justice system in order to be able to raise the defence. The committee’s preferred position on this matter is that affected persons should not be subjected to the criminal justice system where possible.

2.177 The committee reiterates its scrutiny view that it may be appropriate to constrain the directions that may be lawfully given by the minister so as to appropriately constrain the circumstances in which a person will be subject to a criminal offence.

2.178 The committee draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of the reasonable excuse defence provided in proposed subsection 199E(3) of the bill.

Undue trespass on rights and liberties – Power to revisit protection findings^[184]

2.179 Item 5 of Schedule 1 to the bill provides that paragraphs 199B(1)(b) and (c) apply in relation to a non-citizen who holds a visa, whether the visa was granted before, on or after the commencement of these measures.

2.180 In addition, item 4 of Schedule 2 to the bill would repeal and replace subsection 197D(1) of the Migration Act. Section 197D of the Migration Act provides that a protection finding can be revisited in certain circumstances, when the circumstances of the country of origin or the affected person have changed. Item 3 also amends existing section 197C to make consequential and machinery changes to give effect to the expansion of the minister’s power to revisit protection visa decisions.

2.181 The effect of these amendments is to empower the minister to revisit the circumstances of an existing protection decision for removal pathway non-citizens and determine whether that person is no longer a person owed protection.

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs’ response^[186]

2.183 The minister advised that current section 197D of the Migration Act already provides the minister with power to revisit protection findings of certain unlawful non‑citizens, and the proposed amendments will extend this to non-citizens who hold a specified bridging visa, or a visa prescribed by the minister, as removal pathway non‑citizens.

2.184 The minister further advised that in cases where a person has already been refused a substantive visa or their substantive visa has been cancelled on other grounds, such as on character grounds, it may be necessary to revisit a person's protection finding. This would be where the circumstances of the person or the country in relation to which a protection finding has been made have changed and it is unlikely they do not hold a substantive visa.

2.185 The minister advised that the Government’s view is that there should be no difference in approach to non-citizens unlawfully in Australia in immigration detention, and those who may hold a visa on the basis of their pending removal from Australia.

2.186 The minister advised that the bill does not change current procedural fairness requirements and that the minister has an obligation under common law to afford persons procedural fairness. Further, any decision made under the provision by the minister will be subject to merits review and a non-citizen the subject of a decision under section 197D is not subject to removal until the decision is complete within the meaning of subsection 197D(6).

Committee comment

2.187 The committee notes the minister’s advice that the purpose of item 4 of Schedule 2 to the bill, which replaces subsection 197D(1) of the Migration Act, is to facilitate the reconsideration of protection findings (and not protection visas), in relation to removal pathway-non citizens.

2.188 The committee notes that this power already existed in section 179D of the Migration Act and acknowledges that the primary scrutiny concerns are in relation to the existing power. However, the committee considers any expansion of a power which trespasses on individual rights and liberties should be closely examined to ensure the appropriateness and necessity of the measures.

2.189 The committee welcomes the advice from the minister in relation to the common law procedural fairness safeguards that will be applicable to protection finding re-considerations such as the opportunity to comment on any adverse information and the availability of merits review. This information would have been useful for the committee’s scrutiny if it had been included in the explanatory memorandum.

2.190 While these safeguards are welcomed the committee retains significant scrutiny concerns about any legislative provisions which allow the Government to re‑open an affected persons’ protection finding for the purposes of attempting to remove them to a country from which they have sought protection.

2.191 The committee notes that the Australian Human Rights Commission (the AHRC), in its Review of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Act 2021, recommended that section 197D of the Migration Act should be repealed.^[187] In raising concerns about this provision, the AHRC noted that the provision effectively empowers a departmental officer to overturn the decision of a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.^[188] The AHRC also advised that, in the event the section is not repealed, it would support amendments to the provision to narrow its scope to identify specific grounds which give rise to review.^[189]

2.192 The committee therefore draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of the expansion of section 179D of the Migration Act 1958 to facilitate the re-opening of protection decisions.

Significant matters in delegated legislation
Exemption from disallowance
Broad discretionary powers^[190]

2.193 Item 3 of Schedule 1 to the bill would insert proposed section 199F into the Migration Act, to empower the minister to designate a country as a ‘removal concern country’ by legislative instrument. Proposed subsection 199F(1) provides that the minister can make such a determination if they consider it in the national interest to do so. Proposed subsection 199F(2) provides that the minister must first consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

2.194 Proposed subsection 199G(1) would provide that an application for a visa by a non‑citizen is not a valid application if the applicant is a citizen of a designated removal concern country and is outside Australia at the time of application. Proposed subsection 199G(3) provide that the minister can designate a class of persons or visa applicants for the purposes of proposed paragraphs 199G(2)(e) and (f), which means that the minister can declare further exceptions to the visa ban by legislative instrument, and with no criteria for consideration set out in the primary legislation.

2.195 In Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024, the committee questioned the appropriateness of designating a country as a removal concern country by means of delegated rather than primary legislation and the broad and unfettered discretion of the minister in doing so. The committee further queried whether the minister may designate multiple countries as removal concern countries within a single instrument.^[191]

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs’ response^[192]

2.196 The minister advised that instruments made under proposed section 199F would set out matters related to the national interest and that determination of the national interest is properly a matter for the Executive, not the Legislature. The minister pointed out that the aim of the proposed section is to ensure that countries are aware that the Government thinks they should be facilitating the removal of their own citizens, and that the provision is a lever to do so.

2.197 Further, the minister noted that taking into account all the considerations that may be in play such as consultations with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and whether the national interest is at stake, making a determination is not amenable to parliamentary debate. The minister further stated that the power is consistent with other ‘national interest’ powers in the Migration Act and other Commonwealth legislation.

2.198 The minister also referred to the significant diplomatic and foreign engagement that would be undertaken prior to making such a determination as a supporting factor, and noted that the power has been framed in this way to allow the minister the flexibility to impose the designation in the most impactful way while minimising impact on Australian citizens and residents. This would also allow for exemptions in the interests of Australian citizens such as family members, and also for diplomatic purposes and to meet international obligations. The minister advised this flexibility would also allow a tailored response when designating a country as a removal concern taken into account advice from government agencies.

2.199 Finally, the minister advised that, should the power be exercised, the intention of the Government is that countries would be individually designated in single instruments.

Committee comment

2.200 The committee notes the advice that determinations made under proposed section 199F are in the national interest and are therefore a matter for the Executive. The committee also notes that the policy intention is for relevant countries to be aware that Australia’s position is that they should facilitate removal of affected persons and is willing to take steps in response to a failure to do so.

2.201 However, the committee’s position is that the designation of countries as removal concern countries is a significant matter which should be subject to full parliamentary approval and would be most appropriate for primary legislation. In this light, the committee notes that the Parliament is capable of appropriately assessing whether a legislative proposal is in the national interest, noting that the Government would have the opportunity to put its position during parliamentary debate.

2.202 Further, the committee notes the advice that the decision to designate a country as a removal concern country follows on from ‘significant diplomatic efforts and government-to-government engagement’. However, including these matters in primary law would not prevent the Government from undertaking these diplomatic efforts. Including these matters in primary legislation would indicate to the relevant countries Australia’s serious commitment to the measures in a way that inclusion in delegated legislation, which is liable to frequent change, may not.

2.203 The committee understands that instruments made under proposed section 199F of the Migration Act would be exempt from disallowance as a result of item 20 in the table in section 10 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Measures) Regulation 2015.^[193] However, this information was not provided with sufficient clarity in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, nor was it identified or justified in the minister’s response to this committee.

2.204 The committee’s position is that any bills which empower the making of non‑disallowable instruments should clearly set out the legislative authority for the exemption from disallowance in the explanatory memorandum so that this information may be properly scrutinised and considered by the Parliament. This is particularly salient in situations such as the current bill where the measures to be included in non-disallowable instruments are matters of high policy impact and which trespass on individual rights and liberties.

2.205 Further, in this instance the committee has not been furnished with any justification as to why it is necessary and appropriate for instruments made under proposed section 199F to be exempt from disallowance. The committee’s expectation in all instances is for explanatory memoranda to indicate not only the legislative authority for the exemption but to also justify why the exemption is necessary and appropriate in the context of each individual instrument. Noting the significant consequences of the designation of a country as a removal concern country, which would inevitably affect a significant number of people, the committee is of the view that any such designation should be subject to parliamentary control through the disallowance process. However, the committee is of the view that, at a minimum, a full justification for this exemption should have been set out in the explanatory memorandum to the bill.

2.206 The committee also notes the advice that it is the intention of the Government that should the power to designate a country as a removal concern country be exercised, countries would be individually designated. While welcoming this statement of the Government’s intentions, the committee notes that this is not required by the provision as drafted. Noting the committee’s view that designations should be disallowable legislative instruments, it appears to the committee that consideration should be given to whether the efficacy of the disallowance process would be best advanced by the bill requiring each designation to be included in a separate legislative instrument.

2.207 The committee draws these matters to the attention of senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of proposed section 199F of the Migration Act 1958 providing for the designation of removal concern countries in non-disallowable legislative instruments.

2.208 The committee also draws this provision to the attention of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation.

^[162] Schedule 1, item 3, proposed paragraph 199B(1)(d). The committee draws senators’ attention to this provisions pursuant to Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(iv).

^[164] The minister responded to the committee’s comments in a letter dated 6 May 2024. A copy of the letter is available on the committee’s webpage (see correspondence relating to Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024).

^[165] Schedule 1, item 3, proposed section 199C. The committee draws senators’ attention to this provisions pursuant to Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(i).

^[167] The minister responded to the committee’s comments in a letter dated 6 May 2024. A copy of the letter is available on the committee’s webpage (see correspondence relating to Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024).

^[168] Schedule 1, item 3, proposed subsections 199E(1) and (2). The committee draws senators’ attention to these provisions pursuant to Senate standing orders 24(1)(a)(i).

^[170] The minister responded to the committee’s comments in a letter dated 6 May 2024. A copy of the letter is available on the committee’s webpage (see correspondence relating to Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024).

^[175] Law Council of Australia, Submission 71, pp. 16–17, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill.

^[177] Law Council of Australia, Submission 71, p. 15, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill.

^[178] Schedule 1, item 3, proposed subsection 199E(3). The committee draws senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(i).

^[182] The minister responded to the committee’s comments in a letter dated 6 May 2024. A copy of the letter is available on the committee’s webpage (see correspondence relating to Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024).

^[184] Schedule 2, item 4, proposed subsection 197D(1). The committee draws senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to Senate standing orders 24(1)(a)(i).

^[186] The minister responded to the committee’s comments in a letter dated 6 May 2024. A copy of the letter is available on the committee’s webpage (see correspondence relating to Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024).

^[190] Schedule 1, item 3, proposed sections 199F and 199G. The committee draws senators’ attention to these provisions pursuant to Senate standing orders 24(1)(a)(ii) and (iv).

^[192] The minister responded to the committee’s comments in a letter dated 6 May 2024. A copy of the letter is available on the committee’s webpage (see correspondence relating to Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024).

^[193] This item provides that legislative instrument, except for regulations, which are made under Part 2 of the Migration Act are exempt from disallowance.

Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills - Scrutiny Digests