Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm glad to continue my speech in support of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the related bill. The bill implements an important commitment of the government and does some important work in relation to a group of nations that are among our most important friends. Indeed, we consider ourselves a member of the Pacific family, which is a perfect way of encapsulating the kind of relationship we have and which we hope to continue to have and strengthen with those island nations. I include in that Timor-Leste, which is covered by this bill.

Australia has a strong and deep connection to the Pacific and to Pacific island nations. It's a precious part of our identity to be able to consider ourselves a member of the Pacific family. We don't—and we shouldn't—take for granted the connections, the affinity, the shared wellbeing and shared challenges that bind Pacific nations, including Australia, and of course, as I said before, that same affinity and some of those same challenges exist between Australia and Timor-Leste. That position of respect, affection and, to some considerable degree, shared identity is fundamentally multipartisan. I know that, notwithstanding the views that various people have about these particular bills, that commitment is something that everyone in this parliament takes very seriously.

These bills are about strengthening the people-to-people links between Australia, Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste, and they're consistent with the approach that the Albanese Labor government has taken over the first short nine months of its administration to date. This is a government that delivers on its election commitments. This is something we took to the election last May. It indicates again how ministers across the full range of government responsibility—in this case the Minister for International Development and the Pacific—are wasting no time in making positive change and delivering on things that we said we would do to improve the circumstances that Australia finds itself in and to pursue Australia's national interest. It's a perfect example of the way in which we understand our engagement with the world needs to occur—that is, in a thoughtful, concerted, coordinated fashion through all the avenues of external affairs: diplomacy, development assistance, defence, trade and our migration arrangements.

When it comes to permanent migration, which has been such a key feature of our multicultural diversity and strength here in Australia, it's true that the Pacific has been significantly under-represented. To some degree, through the creation of the Pacific engagement visa, these bills respond to something that hasn't been in its right proportion for a considerable period of time. The statistic from 2021-22 tells you everything you need to know. In that year, when 143,500-odd people became permanent migrants to this country, only 999—fewer than a thousand—were from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. That's 0.7 per cent. That's just not right when you consider the proximity of those countries and when you consider the significance of our relationship with them and the things that we share as regional neighbours and members of the Pacific family.

These bills are partly aimed at addressing that shortcoming, and I'll come back to this again later, but it should be noted at the very outset that what we are proposing to do with these bills is exactly what was recommended by a committee during the 46th Parliament which had a majority of coalition members and which was chaired by a coalition member of the former government. So the idea that Australia should put something new in place that facilitates greater permanent migration from Pacific island nations is, I think, a matter of common sense and it clearly was a parliamentary recommendation in the previous parliament, made by a committee chaired by a coalition member and with a majority of coalition members.

I'll start by saying that, under this government, without question, there has been a surge in activity in practical and person-to-person engagement and funding support and in all of the ways in which we seek to partner with Pacific island nations to a new and reinvigorated degree. The fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific have visited Pacific island nations in what seems like literally every week of the last nine months is one indication of that.

I'm someone who comes from the far other side of this island continent, and I can't say that I have had a really extensive experience of the Pacific. I was fortunate enough to be in Fiji late last year with you, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, as part of a parliamentary delegation that went as election observers to help with the good conduct and integrity of that election. I was briefly the chair of the delegation, a role that you ably undertook when circumstances meant that I had to come back here. Australia has, over a number of elections, served as effectively one of three co-chairs of the Multinational Observer Group, a 90-member group that helps with the conduct of elections. Deputy Speaker, you filled that position very ably, through what was a significant election because it was a change of government through proper democratic process in Fiji. Prior to that, I was in Dili, in Timor-Leste, in 2015 as part of the second Asian Electoral Stakeholder Forum, and I was very privileged to be in Honiara in 2013 for the 10th anniversary of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. So, while I haven't been into the Pacific or to Timor-Leste very often, I've really enjoyed the times that I've been able to visit, and I hope I can do that more in the time ahead.

What these bills do is lay the groundwork for the creation of a Pacific engagement visa. At the same time we are expanding the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme visa program. They are both very important, and they both do different things. But this visa program, the Pacific engagement visa, will facilitate up to 3,000 permanent migrants from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste each year. It will occur through a ballot process that is modelled on the Pacific access category resident visa that New Zealand operates on.

It's become apparent in recent days that the coalition doesn't support these bills. There was a period of time in which that wasn't clear. You would have thought, as I said earlier, that, when a parliamentary committee in the 46th Parliament, which they chaired and had the majority of, made this recommendation, they would have every reason for seeing the merit in this proposal. I think there are all of the other reasons for it, like the fact that people from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste make up such a disproportionately low number of permanent migrants within our program. But I will look very briefly at a couple of the other issues that the shadow minister has advanced as reasons why the coalition won't support it.

One of them is that that there's a potential through this program for there to be some kind of brain drain. That is a legitimate concern. That phenomenon would be a legitimate concern. We don't want to have programs that, effectively, focus on people who have particular expertise and skills in Pacific island nations and result in them coming to Australia in a way that means they don't get to apply those skills and that expertise in their own countries. That's why this program doesn't have that kind of points system or skills basis. It's not targeted at some sort of talent scouting outcome. It's done by a ballot, and it's non-discriminatory in that sense. There will be people who might be old or young and there will be people who might have skills or might be relatively unskilled who will be able to apply under this program. To the extent that that's one of the reasons the shadow minister for immigration has identified as to why these bills are insupportable, that just doesn't hold any water.

Another reason that has been advanced has been that people who come here from Pacific island nations or from Timor-Leste and are therefore permanent in Australia might not make remittances to their home countries and to their families. Those remittances are a significant form of income support that occurs when people from the Pacific are in Australia. There's just no evidence from all of the organisations—NGOs and other monitoring bodies that look at this kind of program where it happens elsewhere; New Zealand has one, and the United States has a similar program. There is no evidence whatsoever that it leads to a decrease in remittances to the extent that that is something the coalition would be concerned about.

So it's very hard to actually put your finger on the reason why the coalition doesn't support these measures. It doesn't conflict with the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility visa program. That's an important program; we're expanding it. It doesn't and can't create a brain drain in the way that the shadow minister has advanced. It won't affect remittances in the way the shadow minister has advanced. There's no evidence to support that. It would be hard for anyone hearing those arguments and knowing the facts not to conclude that these are just things being plucked out of the air. I don't think that that's a responsible way to conduct consideration and form a position on a policy like this that, as I've said before, was taken to the election and is a commitment by the government that was made clear in advance of the election.

It's hard not to see the position that the shadow minister has announced in relation to these bills as anything other than, essentially, being consistent with a broad based policy of just saying no—of negativity for negativity's sake. We have seen 'no' to responsible climate action. We have seen 'no' to energy price relief. We've seen 'no' to secure jobs and better pay. And now we see 'no' to a program that simply tries to ensure that people from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste are able to become permanent migrants in Australia—in the same way that people from lots of other countries do—and, in fact, to that program existing in what would be a fair, proper and appropriate proportion, considering the significance of the region and its proximity to this country.

It's hard to accept that there can be a good argument for not supporting the bills and not going forward with the program. Today has been a day when the shadow minister—though it's not directly related to this topic—expressed some concern about the flag that flies from the building, and that's fair enough; that flag should be good condition. We've heard explanations as to why it hasn't been changed—because of danger and high wind conditions. But it again begs the question about the basis and foundation of the positions that the shadow minister and other members of the coalition frontbench are reaching. I'd be surprised, knowing people in this room and their interest in the Pacific, if the view that the shadow minister has put is really a widely held one, because it really doesn't make any sense.

I think that what this will inevitably deliver is stronger person-to-person ties between Australia and Pacific island nations, and between Australia and Timor-Leste. We absolutely need that. It's right because of our membership of the Pacific family. It's right as a matter of our identity and values. It's right as a feature of our concern for the broader wellbeing of all the communities in the Pacific, and it goes hand in hand with the additional $900 million of development assistance that this government will provide over the next four years. After you are motivated by all of those things, which, frankly, should be at the top of your motivational list, it is also significant in advancing our national interest in building ties to a stable, prosperous and peaceful Pacific region.

When you neglect diplomacy, development assistance and people-to-people links through a program like this, you weaken Australia's position to be the kind of supportive, consultative partner of Pacific island nations that we should be. Our capacity to do that did fall away in the last several years. In the last year or so of the previous government, we saw some of the geostrategic consequences of that, and I think those opposite should reflect on those outcomes when they jump out of the box and say no to something like this, which is a policy that they themselves were in favour of only 10 months ago. I'm very supportive of this. I thank the minister for all his work, and I look forward to welcoming more permanent migrants from the Pacific to Australia.

See this speech in context