Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

New Bill will leave refugees unrepresented

By Marianne Dickie - posted Monday, 3 October 2005

Advocates, who assist or encourage refugees and asylum seekers to seek judicial review of migration decisions, may be liable for the costs incurred under proposed changes to legislation.

The impact of the proposed legislation is already being felt, with community lawyers and legal advisers announcing they will be unable to take on pro bono work for asylum seekers once this Bill has been passed.

The Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005 is one of a series of Bills which is aimed at restricting - some would say preventing - judicial review of migration decisions. Like all migration Bills, it is complex. But the fact that it should pass the government-controlled Senate easily means very little attention has been paid to its possible ramifications.


There is no doubt that the outcome of this legislation will be far reaching and potentially retrograde, especially for those already disadvantaged under the current system.

It directly affects litigants, their advisers, legal representatives and migration agents.

The origins of the Bill are contentious and opaque. Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock has stated that the measures in this Bill are drawn from recommendations of the Migration Litigation Review Committee 2003.

The review - known as the Penfold Report (pdf file 114KB) - was established to examine the costs imposed by delays in resolving migration cases in court, particularly those for refugee status.

The committee was instructed to inquire into, and report on, any area that may impose on the efficiency of the court system, including measures for more efficient management of migration cases and the adequacy of existing frameworks for ensuring that members of the legal profession do not encourage unmeritorious cases.

It is impossible to know, however, if the Bill does reflect the review committee’s recommendations as they have never been made public and are unlikely to be revealed. We can only speculate whether the content of the Bill reflects the committee’s concerns.


What we do know, though, is that the Bill reflects claims by the government that the majority of migration matters brought to court are unmeritorious, that is, they have little chance of passing judicial muster.

Philip Ruddock, in his role as attorney-general and previous immigration minister, has made no secret of his displeasure with those who seek judicial review of migration decisions, claiming that 90 per cent of migration matters brought to court are essentially without merit.

Representations to the review committee of 2003 questioned these claims and stressed that that it was flawed to limit access to justice only to those cases pre-determined to have merit.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

22 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Marianne van Galen Dickie began working with refugees in 1994 when she was employed as a Project Officer and Management Committee member of The Rehabilitation Unit for Survivors of Torture and Trauma (TRUSTT) in Queensland. Marianne worked as the immigration advisor for the Australian Democrats from 1997 and until 2004. During her time as an advisor Marianne worked through some of the most politically contentious periods and changes to Migration law. She has authored amendments to Commonwealth legislation, prepared Senate Submissions, and contributed to the Qld & Victorian Lawyers Practice Manuals. Since moving to the ACT in 2007 Marianne has worked for the ANU as the Assistant Convenor and Program Co-ordinator of the Graduate Certificate in Migration Law. Marianne continues to give pro bono migration advice through her work with the Migrant Resource Centre of Canberra and Queanbeyan.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Marianne Dickie

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Marianne Dickie
Article Tools
Comment 22 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy