Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak to the advisory report on the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 and the Migration Visa Evidence Charge (Consequential Amendments) 2012. When the bills were referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on 10 May, the principal concern, as the chair has noted already, was the inadequate explanation of the scope, rationale and costing methodologies for the charge in the explanatory memoranda associated with the legislation. I wish to note that the report is joint in nature and supported by coalition members. The coalition is broadly supportive of a shift in favour of electronic visa handling and is pleased that the government has indicated that this is the direction in which the administration of visas is heading. Given the current political climate, the Australian community would be interested to know of the bipartisan approach that both I and the chair of the committee, the member for Calwell, took to this legislation. I thank the member and the other members of the committee for their level of cooperation. I would also like to thank the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for its assistance in responding to the committee's questions.

The visa evidence charge bills amend the Migration Act 1958 to introduce a charge for requests for evidence of the issuance of a visa as validation of a noncitizen's immigration status and entitlements in Australia. The new charge is intended to encourage visa holders to use the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's online visa entitlement verification system, known as VEVO, for visa validation. Currently, visa evidence is provided without a fee, which imposes an administrative and cost burden on the department. As mentioned previously, the committee required a clear indication of the number and type of visa subclasses to be affected by the measure and further explanation of the maximum charge limit of $250 and the $90 million, three-year revenue projection cited in the financial impact statements for the bills.

According to government figures, a total of 1.365 million visa labels were issued over the calendar year 2011. By any measure this represents an incredibly high volume of service undertaken at immigration counters both in Australia and overseas. I note that, based on the estimated revenue of $90 million over three years, the government is estimating that the number of evidences would decline by more than 90 per cent to around 120,000 per year. While I note that this is a bit of an ambitious estimate, the coalition and the committee support a move towards more efficient and cost-effective procedures for the visa process.

As the chair has already mentioned, it is the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship amend the explanatory memoranda for both bills to more clearly explain the policy rationale and costing methodology underpinning measures contained in the bills. With the passing of these bills, the committee urges the department to remain responsive, particularly to the needs of client groups, such as refugees, students and visa holders in countries that require visa evidence for exit and transit, who will be vulnerable under the transition. As the chair has noted, it is the finding of the committee that the bill would not act as a barrier to participation should visa evidence be required.

If the government is serious about generating efficiencies in the immigration budget, it would be a good idea to adopt good policy such as these migration visa evidence charge bills. The report is supported jointly in a bipartisan fashion, and I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context