Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I support this disallowance motion on the Migration Amendment (Repeal of Certain Visa Classes) Regulation 2014 and I congratulate the member for Corio for bringing it to the attention of the House. This disallowance motion has strong community support. I will take just a cursory look at one of the petitions in our community and quote from it. This is from Change.org. It says:

I have been waiting to finish my studies and get a job so that I can bring my parents to look after them. Just as soon as I was completing my studies, they announce that the visa options are abolished! This is a disaster for me as my whole life plan depended on it. I had much faith in Australia and gave up everything I had to follow this dream. This situation has left me helpless.

This mean and tricky decision by the Abbott government to axe the non-contributory parent visa and other family visa categories—including the aged dependent relative, remaining relative and carer visa categories—is an absolute disgrace. It is now incumbent on those opposite to show where they stand on this. They cannot hide on it now. The minister tried to sneak this through by legislative instrument, but now members opposite have to show their hand. It was a sneaky move.

I quote from Senate estimates on Tuesday, 27 May. The question was asked by Senator Singh of the departmental representative: 'When will these changes take effect?' The answer was, 'I am not sure. That is a matter being sorted out.' These regulations to repeal certain visa classes are dated 29 May, so two days later they had been determined.

Those members of the government who represent culturally and linguistically diverse electorates, including the member for Reid, the member for Banks and the Member for Barton, just to name a few, now have the opportunity to stand up for their communities and support this disallowance motion. Anything less will be a complete and utter betrayal of their communities. These are new members opposite who directly appealed to migrant communities in the lead-up to the 2013 election. I cannot recall them or any other Liberal candidate ever telling their prospective constituents that they would be shutting the door on the non-contributory visa scheme.

The non-contributory parent visa allows a sponsor to apply for their parent to come to Australia. The sponsor is required to have lived in Australia lawfully for two years and must be able to supply a small bond to be refunded after the parent has lived in Australia for two years. This visa category allowed some 2,150 people to be reunited with their immediate family in 2012-13. At very low cost, it gives hardworking migrants the hope and opportunity for their parents to one day join them in Australia.

There can be up to a 13-year wait for this visa to be granted. However, for many low- and middle-income families it is the only way to have their parents join them in Australia. It opens a pathway for these people. Without this visa category the only other option for migrants' parents to come to Australia is through the contributory visa category. The contributory parent visa category can reportedly cost up to $120,000. I can guarantee that the vast majority of people who would be applying for the non-contributory category would not have a spare $120,000 lying around. The government is completely out of touch if they expect these people to pay for this alternative. These sponsors are hardworking people who are already paying their bills and taxes. I know for a fact that many of my constituents whose parents who could have benefited from this visa category will no longer be able to apply for visas for their parents because of this absurd cost. It reflects the unfair nature of this budget.

The benefits of the non-contributory category cannot be discounted by this government. It has already been so beneficial to working and middle-class migrants, including those in my own community. But it is quite clear that this minister and this government do not understand how important these visa categories are for many newly arrived Australians. Indeed, the minister's own performance during question time, as demonstrated by the member for Corio, shows that even he does not appear to understand this decision. In response to a question from the shadow immigration minister on this issue on 24 June, the minister said:

… we have reduced the number of places for the non-contributing scheme. … It has not gone to zero, at all …

This is completely wrong. The minister is either deliberately attempting to hoodwink the public or he is not across his own portfolio.

You even see the minister release an explanatory note that clearly outlines the visa categories that have been savaged:

The effect of these amendments is that persons are no longer able to apply for these visa classes from 2 June 2014.

That certainly sounds like zero to me. This government is betraying ethnic communities through this move, and it is another betrayal to add to their long list since September last year.

It is my strong concern that these measures by the government could be in breach of certain human rights, including the right to protection of the family. This is guaranteed by articles 17 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Under these articles, the family is recognised as the natural and fundamental group unit of society and, as such, is entitled to protection.

And I ask the minister this. How is this compatible with our human rights obligations, specifically regarding the right to protection of the family? The opposition, the community and I are appalled at the process that went into producing this amendment. There was very limited community consultation. In fact, most people did not know at all. Those most affected have met this with shock and anger. This government should have made it a primary concern to understand why this category is so important to communities throughout Australia.

One of my constituents, Mandeep Bhatti contacted me regarding this decision. He is one of many impacted in my community. He said:

This all started when the coalition government announced on 13 May 2014 in its budget that new applications for Other Family and Parent (non-contributory) visa categories will be ceased. This announcement was followed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) announcing that the cessation date would be announced shortly.

However suddenly and to most people's complete and utter disbelief, without any further announcement, the Minister for Immigration made the migration amendment on 29 May 2014 which repealed the visa subclasses from June 2nd, 2014, The last day to make a valid application was 30th of May, which effectively gave applicants less than 10 hours to lodge a valid application.

He went on to say:

I think this constitutes as clear abuse of power. When the decision was made on 29 May, why was this not made public by the Department of Immigration on the same day or a day in advance, which would have given a fair go to everyone who had their applications ready and could send applications on time. Making decisions and hiding it from public until the day when the regulation was effective dearly shows the government abused their power.

I personally feel cheated and don't understand the logic of this cancellation in the first place; parents who come on the non-contributory categories are people who have families to care for and provide for them, they don't get or even expect to live on benefits, they are harmless people who just want to join their families.

This is an utter disgrace from a government so out of touch. For the backbenchers opposite there is no flying under the radar now. Your minister cannot save you from voting on this issue. There is no sneaky and underhanded way to get around this any more. All those opposite will get a chance to vote on this issue today and they should know that they will be held accountable in their local communities on how they vote on this disallowance. Their communities will not forget.

I close by quoting from Mary Crock and Kate Bones, who wrote, very validly, in The Sydney Morning Herald under the heading 'Coalition's new visa laws make family reunion a preserve of the rich'. Among other things, they note:

The Immigration Department’s policy manual stated that these visas reflected 'immigration principles relating to reunion of relatives in recognition of kinship ties and the bonds of mutual dependency and support within families'.

This disallowance is about this principle. Is parliament now going to vote against this principle, which we have held so dear for so long in Australia?

I will point out again the very valid issue I mentioned: the immense economic and social benefits in family reunion. Again I quote from the preceding article in The Sydney Morning Herald:

Parents and grandparents can provide childcare, allowing sponsors to go from being one-income to two-income households. They give physical and emotional support. Remittances that would otherwise be sent overseas stay and are spent in Australia. Carers bring huge savings, taking pressure off the welfare and healthcare systems.

I know for a fact that just in my own community, in Blacktown, where the most popular surname is Singh, older migrants shop locally, buy services, contribute to child care, and pick up the kids from school. It is a false economy to suggest that these people are not producing savings and are not contributing to Australian society. This is exactly the kind of Australia we want—one where everyone is contributing. That is why this disallowance is so important here today.

See this speech in context