Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Today I take the unusual step of raising in parliament an immigration matter because I have exhausted all other avenues. Mr Hassan Ali is a resident of the electorate of Gorton. Hassan is a sincere and hardworking man who is struggling to meet his family obligations under very difficult circumstances. He works night shifts, as his wife is no longer able to care for their daughter or for herself when he is not at home. Mr Ali urgently needs to obtain a visa for his niece Sharmeen Simi to act as a full-time carer for his wife and daughter, as their physical conditions are worsening. Mr Ali’s wife, Yasmeen, and their daughter, Sabrina, both suffer from disabilities so severe that they require constant care.

Yasmeen has Whipples disease and Alzheimer’s disease, and her condition is worsening. She is cared for by her brother, Yousuff Qureshi, who arrived originally on a carer’s visa sponsored by Mr Ali. Given the physical condition of his wife and daughter, he is no longer able to care for these two severely disabled women on his own. Sabrina has Down syndrome with a major intellectual disability, a severe heart condition and epilepsy. She will also undergo a hip replacement within the next 12 months. I understand the health centre services agreed that Sharmeen Simi would be an adequate carer for her.

The most recent carer visa application was refused in September 2006. This application was sponsored by Sabrina, the applicant’s first cousin. It was rejected due to the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor failing to meet the definitive reference of ‘relative’ or ‘close relative’ in the legislation. I am concerned about the ambiguity between, on the one hand, advice on the website by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and that given by immigration officers to Mr Ali in person and, on the other hand, the definition of the term ‘relative’ given in the act.

Specifically, the act considers that people as distantly related as step-grandchildren and step-uncles meet the definition but not first cousins, which is the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor. Arguably, a first cousin is a closer relative than a step-aunt or a step-uncle. Indeed, Hassan Ali was specifically advised by departmental officers that ‘first cousin’ met the requirements for the visa—an understanding further supported by information on the department’s website.

This bad advice cost him more than $800 on a wasted application. Several other applications were refused previously. Without addressing the reasons given for each decision, I believe immigration officers have taken an unnecessarily narrow view of the regulations they are required to apply, with the result that further hardship and distress have been caused to a family already in great difficulty. Hassan was successful in sponsoring a visa application on behalf of his brother-in-law, who still cares for his sister on a full-time basis. But, as the situation in the household has worsened and more care is needed for Sabrina, Hassan has been compelled to apply for another family member in order to care for her adequately.

The legislation is obviously too narrow in its definition of ‘relative’ and ‘close relative’. This should be amended to recognise the reality of many extended families and provide the capacity for discretion in specific circumstances. The phrase ‘The applicant satisfies the Minister that the expressed intention of the applicant only to visit Australia is genuine’ is being used in a heavy-handed manner and is completely at odds with the intention of the legislation. (Time expired)

See this speech in context