A/HRC/35/25/Add.3 41. It is stated in section 501 of the Migration Act that the Minister may refuse or cancel a visa when government immigration officials “reasonably suspect” that the person has been or is a member of a group or organization, or has had or has an association with a group, organization or person involved in criminal conduct. These broad powers to refuse and cancel visas on the basis of people’s previous participation in or link to associations or groups, regardless of whether they have been individually involved in any form of criminal activity, risks compromising the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 42. Such provisions are in contradiction of the principle of presumption of innocence. The lack of clarity of the provisions could also risk a politicized and biased use of controls, and be in violation of the principle of legality. Furthermore, the powers awarded to the Minister and the lack of access to merits reviews and legal challenges in respect of relevant ministerial decisions does not give the appropriate level of oversight to the country’s judiciary. 43. The Special Rapporteur met with detainees who had had their visa cancelled, revoked or not renewed because of minor offences, committed sometimes many years previously, such as traffic violations or misdemeanours. This legislation has resulted in detainees being treated as if they had committed serious crimes. The Special Rapporteur is also deeply concerned about those who find themselves in detention because they are alleged to have committed an offence, despite the fact they have been granted bail or parole by an Australian court, or have been acquitted, or have seen the charges dropped. 44. In addition, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the lack of clarity regarding how the information gathered from asylum seekers to assess risk and the criteria used to make decisions in relation to visa refusals and cancellations is used, and what safeguards are put in place to protect vulnerable people in situations of undocumented migration. Privacy and confidentiality are of particular importance to people who have left their home country because of persecution and abuses of their human rights, due to the risk of reprisals against family members and because of sensitivities related to prior trauma. D. Guardianship system for unaccompanied children 45. Child protection is more important than border protection: it should not be tainted by immigration concerns. Unaccompanied migrant children should be provided with guardians who are specialists in child protection. The Minister and employees of Department of Immigration and Border Protection or persons under contract to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection are in a situation of conflict of interest, as their duty to deport unauthorized migrants would conflict with their duty to protect children. 46. Guardians should be either independent and competent personalities or social workers employed in the country’s general child protection system. They should be quickly appointed and have all powers necessary to act in loco parentis, according to the best interest of the child. In particular, they should have the power to resist any deportation, detention or transfer to an offshore processing centre, and to appoint a lawyer — publicly funded if needed — to represent the child in all the proceedings affecting the child’s rights. E. Family reunification 47. The right to live with one’s family is a fundamental right for all — Australians and foreigners. It is in the best interest of the child to live with both parents; separation for long periods has a huge impact on the development of children left behind. Barriers to family reunification should thus be lifted at all levels and family unity should be systematically fostered and actively facilitated. 48. Reportedly, families living in Nauru or on Manus Island are often separated for several months or years. This happens, for example, when one or several members of the family are flown to mainland Australia for medical purposes, or for what is perceived as intentional separation of families who arrived together and yet are given different visas with different migration pathways, resulting in their physical separation. 10