Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee's advisory report on the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 and the Migration Visa Evidence Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—It gives me pleasure today to present the advisory report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 and the Migration Visa Evidence Charge (Consequential Amendments) 2012. These bills were referred to the migration committee by the Selection Committee on 10 May 2012.

The bills will introduce a charge for the issuing of hard-copy evidence that a visa is held by a non-citizen visa holder. Evidence in hard-copy form that such a person holds a visa is usually provided as a visa label or as an imprint placed in the visa holder's passport. Currently Australia does not charge a fee for issuing these visa labels and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship provided over one million labels or imprints during 2011. Despite the issue of these labels, the government actually relies on an electronic visa entitlement verification system, called VEVO, to validate a person's visa status and entitlements online. VEVO is also accessible to registered organisations which may need to verify a person's visa status as well as to visa holders themselves. According to the department, two-thirds of its current visa case load is processed electronically. Yet 90 per cent of clients at migration counters still request hard-copy evidence of their visa even though it is not necessary.

Currently, visa holders are entitled under the Migration Act to hard-copy evidence of their visa status. These bills will amend the Migration Act to introduce a charge for the issue of hard-copy evidence, on the basis that the electronic visa evidence accessible through VEVO makes the need for hard-copy evidence redundant. The charge is to discourage people requesting the hard-copy evidence. The maximum charge limit will be $250, although the department has indicated that the actual amount charged will be much less. There will be different scales of charges, exemptions to the charges and nil fees for certain visa classes. The department estimates that the charge will recover some $90 million over the three years following implementation.

The Selection Committee and members of the migration committee questioned the scale of the charges, the projected revenue to be raised and whether the electronic VEVO system really does replace the need for hard-copy evidence of visas. The committee conducted its inquiry by issuing questions on notice to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The list of questions asked is contained in the appendix to the committee's report. The committee was satisfied overall with the department's responses. The committee accepts that the main justification for introducing the fees is to encourage visa holders and registered organisations to accept electronic verification alone. This is part of a global transition towards visa-label-free travel and electronic confirmation of visas.

The committee has recommended that the legislation be passed. However, the committee does believe that the associated explanatory memoranda should be more comprehensive. Accordingly, we have recommended that the explanatory memoranda be expanded and retabled. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their work on this inquiry, especially the deputy chair, the member for Macquarie. I commend the report to the House.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak to the advisory report on the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 and the Migration Visa Evidence Charge (Consequential Amendments) 2012. When the bills were referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on 10 May, the principal concern, as the chair has noted already, was the inadequate explanation of the scope, rationale and costing methodologies for the charge in the explanatory memoranda associated with the legislation. I wish to note that the report is joint in nature and supported by coalition members. The coalition is broadly supportive of a shift in favour of electronic visa handling and is pleased that the government has indicated that this is the direction in which the administration of visas is heading. Given the current political climate, the Australian community would be interested to know of the bipartisan approach that both I and the chair of the committee, the member for Calwell, took to this legislation. I thank the member and the other members of the committee for their level of cooperation. I would also like to thank the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for its assistance in responding to the committee's questions.

The visa evidence charge bills amend the Migration Act 1958 to introduce a charge for requests for evidence of the issuance of a visa as validation of a noncitizen's immigration status and entitlements in Australia. The new charge is intended to encourage visa holders to use the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's online visa entitlement verification system, known as VEVO, for visa validation. Currently, visa evidence is provided without a fee, which imposes an administrative and cost burden on the department. As mentioned previously, the committee required a clear indication of the number and type of visa subclasses to be affected by the measure and further explanation of the maximum charge limit of $250 and the $90 million, three-year revenue projection cited in the financial impact statements for the bills.

According to government figures, a total of 1.365 million visa labels were issued over the calendar year 2011. By any measure this represents an incredibly high volume of service undertaken at immigration counters both in Australia and overseas. I note that, based on the estimated revenue of $90 million over three years, the government is estimating that the number of evidences would decline by more than 90 per cent to around 120,000 per year. While I note that this is a bit of an ambitious estimate, the coalition and the committee support a move towards more efficient and cost-effective procedures for the visa process.

As the chair has already mentioned, it is the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship amend the explanatory memoranda for both bills to more clearly explain the policy rationale and costing methodology underpinning measures contained in the bills. With the passing of these bills, the committee urges the department to remain responsive, particularly to the needs of client groups, such as refugees, students and visa holders in countries that require visa evidence for exit and transit, who will be vulnerable under the transition. As the chair has noted, it is the finding of the committee that the bill would not act as a barrier to participation should visa evidence be required.

If the government is serious about generating efficiencies in the immigration budget, it would be a good idea to adopt good policy such as these migration visa evidence charge bills. The report is supported jointly in a bipartisan fashion, and I commend the report to the House.