Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. It has been helpful for Minister Vanstone to answer many of the issues that have been raised by Senator Nettle. But in answering those and looking at bridging visa E, it might be helpful to understand the visas more broadly. In other words, it might be helpful to look at the type of visa a person was on prior to bridging visa E and then the outcome of that—that is, how many visas, like tourist visas, have been cancelled and bridging visas E then issued—because this is not only a humanitarian issue; it is more broad than that. But the minister can take that on notice. I will not pursue that during this committee stage. I will follow it up during estimates hearings.

In answer to Senator Nettle, I do not want you to think that our objection was grounded only in that issue. It was a subsidiary issue. The main objection is that it is a broad application that you have sought to amend, and you have used section 73 to do that. The specifics of much of the work in the committee stage usually go to amending or adding to the bill that we have before us. In fact, you could have perhaps used section 245 as a way in, with a type of amendment, which could have given you the ability to use the provisions of this bill. Certainly, when I look at it—I am not trying to give you advice—I see that as a way of providing the outcome you were seeking, rather than the method you have chosen. So I am not cavilling with the fact that it is an issue. I am saying, more specifically, that it is not Labor’s view—it might be your position—that we should use a type of tagging mechanism which amends section 73 of the Migration Act. My preference would have been to amend the existing bill to provide for the issue that you have outlined.

As I have said, the better way—because it is not an issue that arose directly—would be to have this matter subject to a review. Certainly the offer is still open to have a review into this area, to examine it more closely and put it up. The government, I know, is conducting its own review but, as I have said, I am not confident about the outcome of that. I would put more weight in a legal and constitutional legislation committee. The government might be able to indicate, even today, whether it would support a motion which would allow a reference of that issue to be brought forward, if the Greens and Democrats were minded to agree to it.

The other issues that I raised still remain valid. Senator Nettle, I should not direct my comments to you. More broadly, to be slightly pedantic, if you examine the EM, option 6—which you go to—comes under the RIS, the regulatory impact statement. It is not part of the explanatory memorandum which deals with the bill. You referred to option 6 but that was rejected by the government. I wonder why they are conducting a review into it if it was rejected as part of that process but, be that as it may, it is a broad government examination of the problem dealt with during a regulatory impact statement; it is not directly related to the provisions in the bill.

That is the only point I make. It is a fine point. It does not prevent you from using the committee stage to amend the legislation. You are certainly free to do that, as you have done, and we will form a view on that and vote accordingly. All I am saying is that our position—not your position—is that it is not a usual thing for us to do. We do not necessarily agree with it, but that is not why we do not support your amendment. The broad view is as I outlined earlier. I will not go to those areas again. This is just a part of the reasoning we bring to bear in making a decision not to support the amendment.

As I said, the principle you enunciated is supported by Labor. This is an area of great concern and a problem that needs to be addressed very seriously and urgently. I am not confident—as you are not, I suspect, Senator Nettle—that the government is taking it sufficiently seriously with a review. I am not confident as to when the review will be finalised and that any recommendations of the review will go to fixing all the issues you have raised. They are serious and they impact upon people negatively. There are people who suffer in the community as a consequence of actions by this government in this area of migration—as in other areas as well, might I say.