As the honourable member indicated, there is something of a shift intended behind the change in the statutory provision. The provision was always intended to confer a very limited discretion on a removals officer to defer enforcement of the removal order, for example, in emergency situations. The difficulty we've encountered is that the Federal Court, in interpreting that provision, has significantly expanded the ambit of that jurisdiction. The intent of the amendment is to indicate that in fact the jurisdiction is rather limited, as the Federal Court of Appeal has repeatedly upheld. Basically, it's to send that signal. Where there are logistical impediments to removing someone, for example a medical emergency, the removals officer will retain the discretion to defer enforcement of the removal order. But it is intended to signal that the provision confers a very limited jurisdiction on the removals officer, as was always the intent of that provision.
On May 10th, 2012. See this statement in context.