Login / Join
Immigration Daily News The Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 2688
- 8 Comments
The Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018
The Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018 (the Bill) amends the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) to provide grounds for non-citizens who commit serious offences, and who pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community, to be appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation.
Specifically, the provisions of the Bill:
amend the character test in section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 to provide grounds to consider visa cancellation or refusal where the non-citizen has been convicted of a serious crime.
make consequential amendments to the definition of character concern in section 5C of the Migration Act 1958.
Source: Migration-Amendment-Strengthening-the-Character-Test-Bill-2018---The-Bill.pdf
Migration-Amendment-Strengthening-the-Character-Test-Bill-2018 Explanatory Memorandum.pdf
Comments
-
Thursday, 25 October 2018With respect Shan, it appears you've missed the sting in the tail. The test is whether you have been convicted of a crime "WHICH CARRIES A 2 YEAR JAIL SENTENCE". Even the most trivial of offences have this (eg Common assault - I say boo! you get scared. I've committed common assault - 2 years sentence; or property damage over $1,000 - sponsor and 820 holder have a disagreement over fidelty - he grabs her iphone 12 and it smashes on the ground - property damage - sentence up to 10 years (yep)) carry instant cancellation. Most convictions result in a good behaviour order because the charge covers a large area of offences. but technically the Govt will be able to cancel your visa. Is that fair? Who knows. Not my decision to make - but it is certainly a radical move.
-
Thursday, 25 October 2018
Many "false positive" domestic skirmishes end up with the husband pleading guilty to the offence even though they know they are innocent just to get it over with. The sentence is relatively light but under the new regime they would be sent packing.
of course there are ten times as many FV offences which are genuine and go unreported or unpunished - in this case we are assuming a position of "it doesnt matter if a few innocent people get caught up in this as long as the guilty are sent home". That logic has NEVER stood scrutiny over time but nevertheless if its the law it is our job as officers of the court to see that justice is done according to the law (if you dont like the law change it). -
Thursday, 25 October 2018
Most Policies from the Dutton Government have been radical.
-
Friday, 26 October 2018
it is good to have these upgraded laws overall they needed to be strengthened some people who should have been deported in the past now can of course there are always exceptions some grey areas do exist but if you continue to break the law you may find yourself on a very shot leash to deportation do not break the countries laws thus no potential problem will exist in this area
-
Monday, 29 October 2018
Hello Kevin,
You say 'continues to break the law' but Owen's point above is that a single act of, dare I say a minor nature now brings you into the purview of the expanded act.
For example, breach of protection order. A single, non-threatening phone call or text to an ex-partner can be a breach of such an order. That act alone would be 'character concern' and put the person through a lengthy assessment process for visa eligibility. -
Monday, 29 October 2018
Thanks Nick. My point exactly. After I wrote my comments I decided to read the bill a little closer. It seems my "damage property" charge isn't one of the specified offences but breach DVO (5 yrs in the ACT) is. Just between common assault and breach DVO we will see the cancellation opportunities increase tenfold. and by default the AAT appeals will balloon and AAT timeframes will escalate making it a more attractive option for vexatious applicants.
-
Tuesday, 30 October 2018
There should be the option to deport many cases would not end this way & thus judged on a case by case basis the convicted would think twice if a possible deportation is hanging over their heads Nick i can see some merit in what you say but the option should be there we have many active criminals with long histories who would have been deported previously if this upgraded law was in place over many years are here tormenting the public there was a case of a international student taxi driver who used a passengers phone left on the seat to call india he was convicted of stealing fined $300 with no conviction recorded he later got permanent residency or do you want somebody convicted of drug possession working along side you but not deported under current laws. yes this does happen regularly just two examples
Immigration blog
Great move. All countries need strict laws to deal with non citizens who take law of the land less seriously.