I think you're right in your assessment. Our assessment is exactly the same, as the proposed changes certainly make us worried that the humanitarian provisions the minister currently has in her authority will be very much diminished under these proposed amendments. That's worrying, because I think that both as a government and a policy initiative, you need to have those elements there. Indeed, we write to the government quite frequently for it to look at an applicant who has been refused, so that the person can be considered under humanitarian considerations to stay in the country.
And more problematic is the wording whether the minister “may” or “shall”...which I think raises serious questions whether or not it was deliberate on their part to use that particular wording, so they can essentially get rid of that, because I do understand that when humanitarian applications go to the minister, this certainly puts some pressure on the minister to exercise his or her authority. If you remove it in the legislation, it certainly shifts the burden; a minister doesn't have that responsibility and can no longer intervene. So the government doesn't have to respond to the lobbying and the political pressures that are there.
So we're seriously concerned. I think many of the people who have been granted the opportunity to remain in the country under humanitarian considerations have become good citizens and have proved the worthiness of that section of the law. So I think there are serious grounds for us to be worried about what the implications might be at the end of the day.