Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on these bills, the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, that purport to introduce a permanent Pacific engagement visa through changes to the Migration Act that will allow the minister to issue visas through changes to the migration regulation. I oppose these bills, which propose changes to introduce a ballot system to conduct what is being called a visa pre-application process. It is in fact nothing more than a ballot through which certain registered people may be randomly selected to then apply for a visa. This marks a dramatic overhaul of the process of visa applications in Australia.

This new framework is against the Labor government's own policy platform on engaging with the Pacific because at the same time it's setting up a lottery system for around 3,000 of our Pacific island neighbours. It is also grossly insulting to Pacific island people. It says nothing more than: 'You can enter a lottery to leave your own country.' And an unintended consequence of these bills will be, potentially, a draining of our Pacific island nations' skilled workers.

The idea of a visa ballot system is used in some other countries. The proposal has been compared to the United States's green card lottery which allows certain nationalities to enter a ballot for a diversity immigrant program, then leading to permanent residency. However, the model proposed by the Labor government is more closely modelled on New Zealand's Pacific access category visa ballot.

Having looked at the explanatory memorandum for these bills, I see that it states that a ballot system will be a fair method of selecting eligible applicants for visas where demand exceeds available places. It is therefore well intended to manage efficiency in visa processing and avoid long processing wait times for applicants. While the stated primary policy objective of the Pacific engagement visa is to support Australia's engagement with Pacific island countries, this is not the way to do it.

It is stated that the visa would build the number of Pacific islanders resident in Australia, which is intended to strengthen people-to-people and country-to-country links; provide more options for mobility in the region, including, potentially, to respond to climate change pressures; and boost economic, cultural and social exchange. However, it is not primarily intended, therefore, to respond to skills gaps in the Australian labour market or as a driver of economic benefit. This has always been the underlying intent of the granting of visa applications in Australia.

The Pacific engagement visa initiative is in addition to existing, dedicated temporary visa programs for Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. The current visa program is known as the Pacific Island Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme. The procedure that is now proposed by Labor is that, in addition to the visa ballot, there are other features that would be new to the Australian system. I mention these merely for context, because, as noted above, the visa would be introduced into the migration regulations rather than the Migration Act and is therefore separate from the provisions of these bills.

Few visas, particularly permanent visas, are targeted at specific nationalities—the New Zealand and Hong Kong streams of the skilled independent visa being obvious exceptions. The Pacific engagement visa will be open to only certain Pacific island countries and to Timor-Leste. It's stated that there will be 3,000 places set annually for the visa. And, while the migration program sets annual planning levels for permanent visas, the minister's second reading speech states that these places will be in addition to the places allocated already under the Migration Program. It is therefore, from the minister's explanatory memorandum, intended that a certain number of places each year will be allocated to each country and a ballot run for each. Currently, only certain countries in the working holiday-maker program, a temporary visa program, have specific country caps. When the cap is reached for a given year, no further applications are accepted. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has actually been quoted as stating that the government would prioritise countries with limited permanent migration opportunities for Australia, and that the number of visas available for each Pacific island was still being determined. So, while the government has stated that it is envisaged that the eligibility criteria for the visa will include age, English language, health and character requirements—and, for the primary applicant, a job offer—it appears that the visa will not in fact have skill-level or occupational requirements. This is a glaring error and the visa would therefore not help to address the current skills shortage we have within our country, because it is not aligned with the skilled stream of the Migration Program.

Initial details of the Pacific engagement visa initiatives were outlined in the Labor Party's election policy on PALM. The policy was confirmed by the new government following the election, including by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. However, further details were then provided in last year's budget, and there was a notable difference from the initial commitment, in that the 3,000 places would now be in addition to the permanent migration program, not from within it. The budget, therefore, has had to allocate extra costs, $175 million over four years, to support this proposed policy.

It needs to be emphasised as well that, after the required passage of the bills, subsequent amendment to the Migration Regulations to introduce the visa itself can be made by disallowable legislative instrument. In other words, the minister will be able to, at any stage, simply change the requirements for the visa. We do not know at this stage, therefore, what exactly the eligibility criteria will be for people to enter the ballot system. The government has indicated that participants will need to be aged somewhere between 18 and 45, have a formal offer for a full-time job in Australia and meet basic English, health and other character requirements. However, once the primary applicant is successful in gaining a Pacific engagement visa, the recipient and their family will enter Australia as permanent residents and be eligible for Medicare, all the various social security benefits and, ultimately, citizenship.

While these bills purport to be addressing Pacific island engagement, which is something that those on our side obviously support, the bills have unintended consequences, and that is the reason that my side cannot support these bills. One of the unintended consequences could be to drain the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste of some of their skilled workers, which is not the intention of good engagement with our Pacific neighbours. For all of the reasons mentioned, I oppose these bills.

See this speech in context