Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few remarks on this motion of Senator Bartlett’s in relation to schedule 7 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 8)—Remaining relative visas. I note the remarks of both Senator Bartlett and Senator Ludwig and perhaps, in some small way, can add to the discussion, particularly to expand on the observation Senator Ludwig made in relation to this step being based primarily on cost. It is important to place on the record that there are broader reasons in relation to this matter than just cost, and the department has explored those. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss them this afternoon.

The changes that have been made to this remaining relative visa subclass, which has previously had the intention of enabling Australian citizens and permanent residents to bring to Australia a remaining relative who would otherwise be left in an isolated situation overseas, are addressing some broad concerns around the use of that visa class. The origins of the remaining relative category go back to those times when the ease of international travel and communication facilities, such as telephone and internet, were not as readily available as they are today, so communications and contact were far less easily facilitated than they are in many instances today. Also, as Senator Ludwig acknowledged, this is in fact a concessionary category of visa subclass. It has no skills or age criteria either.

Before 1 November 2005, the then extant regulations allowed an applicant and their spouse, if they had one, together to bring to Australia up to three overseas near relatives who did not reside in the same country as the applicant and spouse, provided there had been no contact with those overseas near relatives within a reasonable period prior to the application. One of the problems with the visa subclass was that the provisions which allowed an applicant to bring up to three overseas near relatives were in fact, as far as the department was concerned and as far as their examination of several key cases showed, resulting in fraudulent claims. I know that, notwithstanding the observations of Senator Ludwig and Senator Bartlett in relation to the importance of the family migration category, no-one in this chamber supports the existence of a regulatory environment which gives some succour, if you like, to the making of fraudulent claims. This would be one example of that.

As I understand it, the three principal areas of fraudulent claims were the concealment of the existence of overseas near relatives, the misrepresentation of the usual country of residence of the overseas near relatives, and the concealment or misrepresentation of the nature of contact with overseas near relatives. These areas of fraud were borne out by a refusal rate on this subclass which averaged approximately 50 per cent, so not an insubstantial amount. In addressing these integrity issues, the category was reviewed and, in the contemporary environment to which I alluded earlier—particularly in relation to communications and travel—it was decided that having up to three overseas near relatives in the subclass category was no longer appropriate. The new regulations now require an applicant and their spouse, if they have one, together to have no near relatives other than those near relatives who are both usually resident in Australia and are Australian citizens, permanent residents or eligible New Zealander citizens. I understand that no other country has a category of ‘remaining relative’ within their migration system, but Australia retains this category. We did wish to retain this category for those relatives who are genuinely left in an isolated situation overseas. It has been suggested that the regulations should allow one overseas near relative in a third country—and that would take up some of the points made by Senator Bartlett in his earlier remarks—but there is a concern that this would still give rise to the integrity issues that I have outlined in my comments.

I want to stress to the chamber this afternoon that these changes are really about addressing integrity issues and not about reducing the family stream of the migration program. While I think the department probably expects a reduction in applications that have fraudulent claims, there is not any expectation of a significant reduction in the actual number of persons qualifying. Importantly—and I think it is important to note this, because there was an emphasis from Senator Bartlett on the importance of the family migration stream—if there is a general reduction in the family stream, additional places will be provided for other uncapped categories within that stream. I hope that that will go some distance towards addressing those concerns.

As far as the numbers are concerned, in 2004-05 the department received 2,461 applications for remaining relative visas. The major source countries for those visa applications in that calendar period were the PRC, the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Cambodia and Pakistan. In that same period, 1,154 of those visas were granted and 1,122 applications were refused. That gives rise to the refusal rate I indicated earlier of close to an average of 50 per cent. It is worth noting that, in the two months prior to the changes, there was an increase in the number of applications for remaining relative visas, followed by a comparable reduction in applications during the next two months. With regard to the numbers—and this is a matter that Senator Ludwig raised—the long-term effect on application numbers and refusal rates will not be evident for some time. I think the changes to the remaining relative visa subclass in this regulation go to issues of greater significance than perhaps Senator Ludwig gave the government credit for. I think it is important to have placed those on the record this afternoon.

Question negatived.