Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. Deputy Speaker Vasta, with your Italian background you would well know that our migration framework underpins our economic and social growth. Since World War 2 we have had over seven million people arrive in Australia. In fact, you could say that we have had a migration scheme running for about 226 years, apart from Indigenous Australians.

For most of those 226 years—I think in fact for 224 years—the number one source of migrants to Australia was Great Britain. We see that on our flag, the Union Jack having predominance on our flag, with the Cross of St Andrew, from Scotland, the Cross of St Patrick, from Ireland, the Cross of St George, from England—unfortunately the Welsh do not get a look in, but that is something for the United Kingdom to sort out. For 224 years of our migration program, Great Britain has been the number one source. In the last two years we have seen something interesting. The number one source country has changed. Two years ago China was the number one source and then one year ago India was the number one source, reflecting the changing face of Australia.

Migration is an emotive topic. People are arriving here as skilled migrants, or through family reunification or through love or as people seeking asylum. We see people try to exploit it. We even see ignorant people in this chamber try to make mileage out of the fact that people, when their family is in dire straits, will do anything. They will try to rake up $10,000 or go into hock to criminals to try to put their children into a safe place. I know that I would do anything to give my children a safe haven if my environment had changed such that they were being persecuted. This is not to mention that you cannot seek asylum when you are starving to death. That is not legitimate grounds under any treaty for coming to Australia. You cannot seek asylum in Australia when your country is going underwater because of climate change and rising sea levels. That is not a legitimate ground at the moment. Obviously it will become more of a factor, but the reality is that the treaties we have signed that give us obligations will let you flee persecution and come to Australia, but we will not let you come here if you are starving to death or drowning.

Migration is an important thing to get right. There is a little bit of interplay between the legislation that comes out of the Commonwealth parliament, and the judiciary. I think the very first piece of legislation to go through the Commonwealth parliament was the 'white Australia act', which reflected the views of the men of the time. Since then we have signed other treaties with the world. We have been a proud leader when it comes to actually guiding the world in terms of doing the right thing. Despite the legislation we signed off in the first parliament we have become a much more multicultural nation and we have been able to hold our head up high.

The bill before the chamber is highly technical and complex. It seeks to address inconsistencies in the application of parts of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), obviously reflecting some of that interplay that comes with judicial interpretation, especially in the High Court.

In my six of seven years in this parliament I have been involved with lots of pieces of legislation. The biggest inquiry I was involved with was the Christmas Island tragedy inquiry back in December 2010, when my views, which have changed over the last decade, came into sharp focus while interviewing the people who tried to rescue the people who died in that tragedy and when we looked at the extended horrible footage showing young girls drowning and people doing their best to get to Australia. But obviously that was not to be the case. The Labor Party's response to that tragedy was in fact to look at a solution whereby we would do a deal with the Malaysian government and try to break the people smugglers' business model so that they did not have anything to sell. Obviously it would have been something that would have changed lives. In fact, arguably, if the Liberal and National parties had voted with the Labor Party on this piece of legislation we would have had a piece of legislation that perhaps would have saved the lives of 689 people who have lost their lives at sea. They lost their lives as a result of the LNP and the Greens getting together to put the kibosh on the Malaysian agreement.

But that was not to be. That was political opportunism at its most rank, as far as I am concerned. That is why I was amazed the other day to see the Treasurer come in here and make the following statement in parliament:

But most of all, as a result of the actions of this government, there are no children floating in the ocean between Australia and East Timor, as occurred under Labor.

The rank hypocrisy of that statement, after the Treasurer voted with the Greens to block the Malaysian agreement, still riles me. And I ask him to come back in and apologise for making that statement. I follow closely what the immigration minister says. He would never have said that. Maybe it was in the heat of the moment, and the Treasurer still has the opportunity to come back in and apologise to the parliament for making that statement. Obviously it will not bring back the 689 people who lost their lives at sea after the Malaysian deal was blocked by the Liberal and National parties and the Greens. Nevertheless, that the Treasurer came into this parliament and made that statement still offends me.

The legislation before the parliament is, as I said, mainly technical. It seeks to clarify the restriction and scope on applying for further visas by amending sections 48, 48A and 501E of the Migration Act. Obviously this is based on the current interpretation of section 48. It is suggested that anyone who has had a visa cancellation or application cancellation at any time is prohibited from applying for a further visa. This is contrary to the policy intention—and there is agreement between Labor and the LNP on this policy—to prevent people who have done something wrong from playing the system so that they can stay in the country. The amendment will ensure that each application is considered on its merits. So, if a person has a violation dating from a previous visit to Australia and is now back in the country, prior history will not bar their further applications.

Schedule 2 of the act proposes that the department must remove a detainee who was entitled to apply for a substantive visa or revocation of the cancellation of a substantive visa but did not do so. This obligation to remove in such circumstances will apply irrespective of whether the detainee has made a valid application for a bridging visa. The amendment expressly clarifies that despite the power of removal in subsection 198(5) of the act the department must not remove a noncitizen who has made a valid application for a protection visa that has not been refused or finally determined, even if the application was made outside the time limit.

The current subsection is creating a situation in which detainees are held in indefinite detention due to their ongoing pending applications for bridging visas as the department does not have the power to remove a person if they have applied for a bridging visa. There is no limit to the number of bridging visas a person can apply for. A bridging visa application also takes away the removal powers of the department. This can result in detainees applying continuously for bridging visas after all avenues have been exhausted. So, basically this amendment removes bridging visas if there is a bridge to nowhere, effectively, so they cannot just keep creating a bridging visa. Bridging visas still have an important role while people are in flux or when their situations are changing. They are used sparingly, but they are an important part of our immigration repertoire. But obviously we need a bridge to somewhere for it to be an appropriate mechanism.

Schedule 3 of the act proposes amendments to section 262 to put in place debt recovery provisions for people who have been detained for people-smuggling and illegal foreign fishing. I am not sure how successful that will be. But, if people have built up assets, that is something that always should be encouraged under Australian law. Under the current provisions of the act a person is not liable for costs arising from their detention and removal when they are no longer detained because of section 250 or because they were granted a visa or because they were not in immigration detention at the time of their conviction. The amendments empower the Australian government to recover detention debts from people smugglers and illegal foreign fishers—obviously not asylum seekers, but the people who are doing the illegal activity. We would never suggest that it is illegal to seek asylum. These amendments are consistent with Labor's policy to combat the scourge of people-smuggling and illegal foreign fishing by providing a further financial disincentive to engage in such activities.

Schedule 4 amends section 379G of the act to clarify that the role of an authorised recipient is to receive documents on behalf of an applicant and not to actually do things on their behalf. That is mainly technical.

Schedule 5 inserts a new section 51A of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that will provide administrative access to and use of material and information obtained under a search warrant issued under the Crimes Act 1914 for certain purposes of the act and the Citizenship Act.

Schedule 6: this amendment will bring all visa applications under the code of procedure, which is section 57 of the act. This only applies to visa applications made onshore, and common law procedural fairness applies to applications made offshore. It is appropriate that the definition of 'procedural fairness' is consistent across all visa applications, regardless of whether it is made onshore or offshore. It is not appropriate that offshore applications are afforded a higher standard of procedural fairness than those made onshore. The amendment will significantly reduce the risk of jurisdictional error arising from the failure to apply the common law test appropriately.

Obviously, migration debates are always seen through the prism of our borders. We know that, and we know that the signs and symbols are important. The sign and symbolism of the Liberal and National parties in renaming the department 'border protection' belies that long history going back to 1788, I guess, of people arriving here by boats in Australia, whether it was from the fear of the French, who arrived three days after the First Fleet, or the fear of the Russians, or the fear of the Japanese—they built cannons out in Brisbane harbour and they built cannons on the Sydney heads; I think they even built them down in Melbourne, but I am not as familiar with that—or the fear of the Chinese or the Indonesians. I am not sure whether they have ever had a fear of the New Zealanders apart from at Bledisloe Cup time! But for Australia, as a nation that is based on the fact that people have arrived in boats and made a claim on the land, we seem to have a greater fear of people arriving and seeking asylum. It is almost irrational.

I have heard other speakers in this chamber, despite having made quite incoherent statements, talk about this reality and comparing it with Europe, where there are significant arrivals of asylum seekers. As the armed conflicts in places like Syria and Iraq deteriorate, people will always seek a safe haven. People will always do what they can to give their children or their grandchildren a chance in life. That is the human brief; that is the human condition. We will always do what we can to look after our children. So that reality, and these figures are a little bit out of date, means that because of war, famine and climate change there are about 42 million displaced people in the world.

Now, we are generous nation. We have done more than our fair share of heavy lifting when it comes to settling people in Australia on permanent visas and through other visas. I think it is basically the United States first, Canada second, Australia third and pretty much daylight fourth. But the reality is that even if we doubled, tripled or quadrupled our intake we could never accommodate that 42 million people. If you then cut it down to the number of people registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—I think, from memory, it is about 15 million people registered as refugees, having a reason to flee persecution or the like—we could never settle that number of people. We could never grant asylum and have a harmonious community.

We do multiculturalism well because we do it appropriately and in a well-resourced way. We offer support, guidance and comfort to people who arrive in Australia, however they get here—whether they come on a skills visa, a marriage visa, an asylum seeker visa or on a plane organised by the Australian government. The reality is that our harmonious community is a result of us looking after people appropriately when they arrive in Australia.

This legislation cleans up some of the problems associated with it. There is much that the Labor, Liberal and National parties agree with when it comes to dealing with migration. Obviously, there is political pointscoring that is a little bit obscene on occasions, but the reality is that much of this legislation is agreed on by both sides of the chamber. I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context