Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

This is an incredibly important debate. This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023, is something that we absolutely must get right. It's incredibly important that we get it right because if we do we will get very good economic and social outcomes, which we all want for our neighbours in the Pacific. We will be able to help them grow their economies, grow their countries, grow their societies and become independent masters of their own destiny, which we all want.

It also can lead to very important economic outcomes for our nation because we can use the PALM scheme to address skill shortages, to help develop and grow industries in our country. In particular—and this is where the PALM scheme is so important—it can help develop and grow industries in rural and regional Australia. One of the things that we always need to be cognisant of is that we have no issues attracting immigrants into Sydney and Melbourne—and, to a lesser extent, Brisbane and our other major capital cities—but we have great difficulty getting people into our regions and ensuring that they stay in the regions.

The PALM scheme was introduced by the coalition as a way of providing economic and social benefits to the Pacific nations and also as a way of providing economic and social outcomes for rural and regional Australia. We shouldn't lose focus on the primacy of those objectives, because if we get that right we can build on the PALM scheme in a very effective way. The Pacific and Australia not only face economic and societal challenges but also face a very different world to the one that we lived in 10 years ago. It's one where geostrategic competition is playing out right across the globe and, in particular, in our region. Every decision we take that binds us closer to the Pacific is an incredibly important one.

The PALM scheme has been working effectively. Like any scheme, changes can be made to improve it even further. I demonstrated this a couple of weeks ago when I was in the electorate of Grey with the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey. We went to see one of the big oyster producers and met with PALM workers there. We met with three Fijians who had just come back from harvesting oysters. They had big smiles on their faces and were very friendly. We were able to have a lovely chat with them and ask them about the PALM scheme. It was quite interesting to hear what they had to say. They were going to work hard for three years and send remittance back. They were going to save and provide housing for themselves and their families through the hard work that they were undertaking. Then they were going to take the skills that they'd learnt and put them to use in their own seafood industry—a win-win. They were providing much needed skills for the company that we were visiting, and then they were going to go back and use those skills to help further develop the Fijian seafood industry. To me, that epitomises how we should be viewing the PALM scheme, a scheme whereby we can bring workers from the Pacific, skill them—by providing them with work—and enable them to provide those skills to the countries they've come from, improving economic outcomes for their families and, ultimately over time, their societies, making their country stronger so that it can meaningfully engage in the Pacific with us to deal with the economic and geostrategic challenges that we currently face.

It is for this reason that the opposition supports this trial of allowing a small number of family members to accompany PALM workers to see whether this would enhance the PALM. If it does, and if it works efficiently and effectively and enables those family members to be able to contribute here and be with their partners as they contribute to our country, and then be able to use the remittances and the incomes earnt to build on the lives that they have back in their Pacific countries, then the trial will have worked.

That is why it is an incredibly important trial, but it should be a proper trial. We need to make sure we evaluate it properly and that we know it is working as it is laid out, because we want to make sure that it enhances the PALM and enhances those outcomes that I've talked about—those mutually beneficial outcomes that we can get from a scheme that works like the PALM scheme does.

We have to remember there is concern amongst our Pacific friends about the potential brain drain that can come from immigration schemes that take the very best of those workers in the Pacific and see their skills growing and enhancing our country but not being mutually beneficial in how the return goes to the countries that they are coming from. That is why the PALM scheme was designed as it is. That's why the PALM scheme, I think, has support both in Australia and also in the Pacific, but we do have to continue to watch and monitor to make sure that it is getting the outcomes that we need.

When it comes to the PEV, the Pacific engagement visa, the opposition is reserving our right on this part of this bill, because we do have concerns as to how the PEV will work and whether it does bring with it that mutually beneficial outcome the Pacific islands and Australia are looking for. As was mentioned by my friend the member for Riverina, the shadow minister for the pacific, he and I have been working with Ministers Conroy and Giles to see whether we could shape the Pacific engagement visa in a bipartisan way, so that we can all rest assured that it would be mutually beneficial. We've had a round of negotiations on that—we had those yesterday—and Minister Conroy has provided some feedback on that to both me and to the member for Riverina on what, potentially, we could look at to shape the PEV so that we get bipartisan agreement on it.

Can I thank Ministers Giles and Conroy for the very constructive way they have engaged with us. We will, in good faith, look at what has been provided to us and go back to both ministers on those proposals. If we can find a bipartisan way forward on the PEV, we will seek to do that. But the fact we have been able to sit down and have proper negotiations in good faith on that aspect of this bill is a very good first step. Even if, ultimately, we cannot reach agreement, I think it is very, very positive that we have been able to have proper discussions to see whether we can work through things. As I've said, my hope is that we might be able to resolve those differences, and the best way you can do that is to sit down and talk about it in good faith. Both sides have engaged in that way, which is a very good first step.

We've detailed some of the concerns that we have with the PEV, and I won't go into those details again now. I'd rather emphasise the fact we've been able to sit down and have meaningful discussions on, hopefully, being able to provide a way forward.

I'll conclude by saying—and I'll support the previous speaker, in this regard—this might sound like it's a bill that doesn't have a sexy name: the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023.

An honourable member: It's not that bad. We've heard worse.

We have heard worse; we have heard better. That title shouldn't lead us to underestimate how important our engagement is with the Pacific and, especially, how important it is at this time. I know I also speak for the opposition in saying that, when it comes to our engagement with the Pacific, we want to keep it as bipartisan as we possibly can, because I think it's very clear that both sides of the parliament understand the importance of that engagement.

There will, of course—as always—be times when we think there's a different approach which should be taken. This is a parliament. This is democracy. We do have to make sure that we can have the debates and discussions when we do disagree. There might be times when we have to agree to disagree. But I think, the majority of times, when it comes to engagement with the Pacific, we all want to see the outcomes that will lead to a strengthening of our nation and a strengthening of all the nations of the Pacific. We all know and understand how important it is that we engage, with humility and respect, with the nations of the Pacific, whether it be economically, strategically or on the sporting field. In all those ways and many more, we need to make sure that, as a nation and as a parliament, on the whole, we are providing a united front when it comes to that engagement, given how important it is to us today.

We've always seen engagement with the Pacific as something that we need to lead on. Other countries, whether it be the Europeans or the Americans, look to other continents or other parts of the world where they're deemed to need to lead. When it comes to the Pacific, it is our responsibility to make sure that we lead, and lead side by side with the nations of the Pacific, step by step, making sure that we're doing it as equal partners. I know that both sides of the parliament want to do that.

That's why, when it comes to PALM and the PALM aspects of this bill, we will be supporting what the government proposes. When it comes to the PEV, the Pacific engagement visa, we will continue our good faith negotiations to see whether we can reach a compromise which might lead us to be able to support that part of the bill.

See this speech in context