Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand to speak to Senator Bartlett’s Migration Legislation Amendment (Complementary Protection Visas) Bill 2006 [2008]. Before addressing specifically different provisions of the bill and the comments made by Senator Bartlett, I want to say at the outset that I am very proud of the good record of the previous coalition government when it comes to having a sound immigration policy and a sound immigration system that is relevant to Australia—not just to the economic development of our great country, but to the expression of compassion and care, specifically to those who are refugees. Over the 11 years of the coalition government, we welcomed more than 100,000 refugees and humanitarian entrants. I notice that in the past 12 months or so we increased the size of our offshore humanitarian program from 12,000 to 13,000 places, and that included an increase in the refugee component from 4,000 to 6,000. You can compare the record in different ways, but Australia’s record of welcoming refugees to this country is certainly very good. It has been said that Australia has the second-best record in the world, second only to Canada, for refugee intake.

In any event, the commitment by the previous coalition government of around $500 million a year was made. It was made to support resettlement services, including the Adult Migrant English Program, which included 510 hours of English language training plus a special preparatory program providing an additional 400 hours of English training for eligible people with high needs. I want to commend those involved in the various ethnic groups and other groups around Australia, particularly in Tasmania. Barbara Blomberg, for example, who is based in Hobart, has showed leadership and advocacy for those who need it and has supported those in need—those coming in with refugee status or on some sort of humanitarian program.

The previous government provided 13,000 places for 2007-08 in that humanitarian program and an additional $209 million spent over four years on a series of programs designed to assist humanitarian migrants to thoroughly integrate into Australia’s broader society. That included $128 million additional support for newly arrived humanitarian entrants to learn English. The point I wanted to make at the outset is that the record is strong, it is good, and that it is not just for the purposes of economic growth to this country, but in terms of showing compassion and care and some humanitarian objectives—not just for our country but across the globe.

In turning specifically to Senator Bartlett’s bill, it is not something the coalition can support, for a number of reasons. It is because, at the moment, we do have a system in place. The system says that the refugees are assessed in accordance with the refugee convention, as specified under the Migration Act. It is a convention which our government and our country is a signatory to. That visa can be obtained, as Senator Bartlett has noted in his comments, through ministerial discretion. The concern is that if you set up a separate system—a complementary protection visa system is referred to in the bill by Senator Bartlett—then you are affecting the lives of those people who would otherwise have obtained refugee status and entered our country through the current arrangements. By handing out the visas to people who do not meet the criteria assessed against the refugee convention as specified under the Migration Act, then you are creating what I would term a queue-jumping arrangement. That is not something we would want to support on this side of the Senate chamber. And if that arrangement did come into place, somebody out there is going to miss out. The queue will be jumped under the system that would be established under the Democrats’ regime. That is something we would not wish to support.

Senator Bartlett and the Democrats have said that the current system does not cater sufficiently for those in an arrangement where there is torture or civil war, but I am not sure that is entirely true or accurate. Under the current arrangements, certainly those situations can be addressed and those applications can be successfully made through the discretion of the minister. Under the system, it sets up a fast track approach, a fast track legislative regime which provides complementary protection mechanism for refugees. But as I said, it is unnecessary and the concern is: would it open up the floodgates? What sort of arrangements are in place in terms of the numbers and the quantity of potential refugees coming into this country? As I said, we have a very good record and I hope that we can maintain that. And I call on the government to maintain the very good and strong record that we do have. In short, it would certainly allow for some refugees to be fast-tracked and get that fast-tracked visa at the expense of others. That is what we do not want and that is why we cannot support this particular bill.

I want to empathise with Senator Bartlett and his objectives. He has had a longstanding interest and concern in this area and has expressed care in different ways through different committees. He has referred to the legal and constitutional affairs committee and a report dating back to 2001 or thereabouts, which did make reference to the need for streamlining the processes of bringing the various refugees that we have into this country. I know that Senator Payne has chaired that committee and it is a committee that I am currently deputy chair of. I thank all of the members of that committee for their very valuable contributions over many years. But my understanding of that report is that it was recommending an examination of the processes. As I said, the recommendation that has been put forward and the objectives put forward by the Democrats in this bill are not something that we could support.

I noticed that the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, Senator Chris Ellison, has demonstrated and expressed the views of the coalition, particularly over the last week, with respect to section 457 visas, and he certainly has demonstrated great leadership and advocacy for continuing the very strong record of a sound immigration system in Australia. What we need is an orderly entry system into this country. It is true that, since 1996 when the Howard government first came to power, something like 30 per cent of the migration intake was from skilled migration and that percentage has now shifted to 70-odd per cent. Last year, something like 102,500 of the total came from skilled migration. Of course, that is important because that is a key ingredient to building a strong economy. On the other hand, we have had a very good record with respect to our humanitarian regime and our efforts to care for and look after refugees—as I said, second only to Canada. I just hope that under the Rudd Labor government that strong record can continue.

In conclusion, I want to address the comments that Senator Bartlett made with respect to the Refugee Review Tribunal and some of the litigation that occurs with respect to the immigration system. It is true that some of these matters were addressed at Senate budget estimates, not only in the February hearings but also last year and, I am sure, in previous years. It is true that there is much litigation with respect to some of the processes, and perhaps there could be some reviewing and streamlining of the processes with respect to the applications that are made and considered. Certainly the Refugee Review Tribunal has a role and, of course, other courts, whether they are other federal courts or indeed the High Court. I think the senator does have a point in terms of the importance of streamlining the processes and making it clear to not only the refugees, potential refugees or potential applicants to those particular tribunals but to the community in general that we do not want months and years of litigation in front of us, with, of course, the community footing the bill in each case. We want a streamlined, clearer and more orderly approach wherever possible. In conclusion, I commend Senator Bartlett on his objectives and efforts. I empathise with his approach, but say that on this occasion it is not possible to support the proposed legislation.