Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw the reference to the individuals and maintain that the position put forward by the government and the opposition that this amendment is not related to this piece of legislation is absolutely false. The explanatory memorandum deals with this issue as one of the six options put forward about how we deal with the very issue of people working illegally in the community. One of the six options that the government proposed extended the work rights to people in the community who do not currently have work rights. I can point any of the people present to the pages—about four of them—in the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill which deal with this issue. I can also point anyone present to the pages in the report of the inquiry into this piece of legislation that deal with this very issue. That is why this amendment is here. It is one of the options that the government looked at and dismissed. Also, it is an option into which there has been not one inquiry but two inquiries—six months of inquiry last year in which we looked at this issue, an inquiry that was chaired by a member of the opposition and for which a recommendation came out. That recommendation—and I shall read it for the Senate—was: ‘The committee recommends that all holders of bridging visa class E should be given work rights.’

So, when Senator Ludwig indicates that the opposition would support an inquiry into this bill, I am well aware of that, because there have been two inquiries already. One of those inquiries, chaired by the opposition, recommended precisely what this amendment does. The organisations in the community, as I indicated previously—like the Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania—which have spent over $1 million in providing financial assistance and in-kind support for people who do not have work rights, do not actually want another inquiry; they want some change on this issue. They want to ensure that people who currently rely on these organisations for charity are able to have the dignity and the respect that they deserve and be able to look after themselves and their families.

The minister spoke about people in this situation. As we have all indicated, there are a number of reasons why people may be on a bridging visa E. I am happy for the minister to correct me if I am wrong but, in the evidence given by her department to the inquiry into this legislation on this issue, they talked about the number of people who had protection visa applications on hand with the department or who were going through merits review. It is my understanding that there are people who are given a bridging visa E so that they can live in the community while their claim is being assessed. They will be at a variety of stages, I would imagine, in going through that procedure but there are people who are still having their claims assessed that are on bridging visa Es. If I am wrong about that I am more than happy to be corrected, but it is my understanding that there are people who are living in the community having their asylum claims assessed.

As I indicated previously when I spoke to the chamber, some of these people have been on bridging visa Es for eight years. The example the Catholic Church provided to the Migration Act inquiry indicated the circumstances of an individual who had been on this kind of visa for eight years without the ability to work. These are the people we are trying deal with in this amendment, and that is why we have framed it in this way: we are talking about the people who have been on this visa for a long time and whether or not they should have an entitlement. I acknowledge the minister says that it is an issue we need to deal with and that is why I asked, prior to her being here, about where the review was up to, knowing that the department is doing a review into this issue.

It is an ongoing concern, and I acknowledge the minister’s comments that it is an ongoing concern that needs to be dealt with. Given that we have had two inquiries looking into this issue, one of which has recommended that people on bridging visa Es be given access to work rights, I am moving this amendment on behalf of the Australian Greens to ensure that those people do get access to those work rights. I can see from the refusal of the government and the opposition to support this that it may not pass, but what I and all of those people who support people in our community who are on bridging visa Es without work rights are hoping is that, out of the government review into this issue, this issue will be addressed so that those people who live in the community for years and rely on charity and church groups to support them are able to hold their heads high, access employment and look after their families.

Perhaps while the minister is here she could indicate, if possible, how many people in the community are in this situation. We have had some indications—and I note comments already about the number of people on bridging visa Es, what proportion have work rights and what proportion do not and the contribution to this inquiry by the department—but if the minister were able to give a figure about the number of people in the community on bridging visa Es without work rights to the Senate, it would help us to be clear in this debate and would be much appreciated.