Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Enabling Australia: Inquiry into the migration treatment of disability, together with the Hansard record of proceedings, minutes of proceedings and submissions received by the committee and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I am very pleased to be able to table this report on behalf of the Joint Committee on Migration today. The committee was asked to inquire into the assessment of the health and community costs associated with a disability as part of the health test undertaken for Australian visa processing.  The inquiry was launched in August last year with the aim of examining whether the balance between the economic and social benefits of the entry and stay of potential immigrants with a disability should be a factor in a visa decision. Similarly, the committee explored whether the potential costs and use of services by the potential immigrant should also be a factor in the visa decision.

For people wishing to immigrate to Australia the current health requirement is assessed along two dimensions. The first is that the applicant satisfies the significant cost threshold, which is set at $21,000. Assessment of healthcare and community service costs higher than this will result in the rejection of a visa application unless the application is made under a visa category where the health requirement may be waived. Secondly, the healthcare and community services that are accessed by the applicant while in Australia cannot prejudice the access to those same services by an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

Approximately some 45 per cent of Australians were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas. Historically our migration program has focused on shortfalls in the labour market, typically targeting areas of skill shortages. More recently it can also be said that Australia has one of the best resettlement programs for humanitarian resettlement and we are viewed internationally as a multicultural society.

As a nation built on migration, we cannot underestimate the contribution and value that immigrants bring to us. It is for this reason that this inquiry went ahead, to ensure that as a nation we take a holistic view of what somebody—a potential immigrant—can offer us. Currently, if a family tries to immigrate to Australia with one family member with a disability the whole family can be denied entry due to an estimated financial burden that it is assumed the person with a disability will have on Australia’s economy. This presumption has proven to be inequitable and unfair to families and indeed specifically for the person with a disability. Regardless of someone’s abilities Australia should be viewing potential immigrants for what they can contribute to society, not just on the basis of financial costs it is assumed that they may incur.

After receiving 113 submissions to the inquiry, the committee held public hearings and roundtables in Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The majority of submissions to the inquiry came from Australian citizens or people residing within Australia, but the committee was also contacted by a number of people outside Australia whose visas had been refused or people who were awaiting the outcome of their visa application. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all those who took the time to lodge a submission to the inquiry and who shared with us their sometimes harrowing stories of attempts to get a visa.

In this inquiry it was not the committee’s aim to make recommendations relating to specific visa classes or criteria; rather, the committee placed emphasis on setting out the principles that should inform migration policy as it relates to the treatment of people with a disability. The report which I am tabling today considered Australia’s health requirement in a number of ways. Firstly, it was considered in relation to the key decision makers in the visa application process: the medical officers of the Commonwealth and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which makes the decision on whether to accept or reject a visa application based on the opinion of the medical officers of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the health requirement was analysed using the perception and experiences of those from the key visa streams—family, humanitarian and skilled. The committee heard accounts from a range of applicants in those visa streams who had been adversely affected by the health requirement. The committee took evidence from many families who had been rejected for visas on the basis that one family member was a person with a disability and that the individual’s assessed costs would exceed the significant cost threshold. The committee also took some evidence which alleged Australia was in breach of its international obligations.

The committee has made 18 recommendations to the government. Those recommendations broadly propose that the assessment of potential immigrants across the visa streams should be fairer and should not treat disability as a factor fatal to the success of an application for a visa. The first recommendation in the report is that the Australian government raise the significant cost threshold which forms part of the health requirements to a more appropriate level. Presently, when a medical officer of the Commonwealth assesses a potential immigrant, the potential cost of their disablement or disease to the Australian community is taken into consideration. If it is estimated that the cost will be over the threshold of $21,000, the individual is most likely to be declined a visa. However, the committee found that the costing that is currently used to determine the significant cost threshold was applied way back in the year 2000 and has not been escalated or reviewed since.

Recommendation 4 of the report seeks to define and draw a distinction between the assessment of costs and potential dangers of infectious diseases, which are a threat to public health, and the assessment of costs and contribution for those with disabilities. In particular, the recommendation suggests that the government amend the Migration Regulations 1994 so that diseases and medical conditions are addressed separately from the assessment of conditions that are part of a disability. The committee firmly believes there must be a distinction between disease and disability.

Similarly, in recommendation 8 the committee suggests that the Australian government remove from the Migration Regulations 1994 the criterion under the public interest test which states that costs will be assessed regardless of whether the healthcare or community services will actually be used in connection with the applicant. The committee has concerns that in determining whether or not applicants have the right to reside or live permanently in Australia there is no consideration given to whether they will access each and every service or payment to which they are eligible. Therefore, it is unfair that people are declined permanent residency on the basis that they may use Australia’s healthcare system. Rather, they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account individual circumstances. The current approach to visa assessments does not consider aspects such as whether an applicant or the family of the applicant has the resources to cover the costs associated with the care of the applicant. Nor does it take into account the skills and expertise that the applicants may have to offer Australia, which would in turn allow them to undertake some of their own care or make their own economic contribution to reduce any future care costs.

Recommendations 3, 11, 12 and 17 all revolve around including social and economic contributions in visa assessments. Recommendation 3 is that the government allow for consideration of the social and economic contribution to Australia of a prospective migrant. Recommendation 12 suggests that the government recognise the contribution made by carers within the family as an offset to healthcare or community services costs. Finally, recommendation 17 proposes an investigation into a voluntary bond or some other scheme such as that for applicants to indemnify against.

I very much look forward to the government’s response to this very important and timely report. I would like to conclude by thanking the committee secretariat and all the members and senators who contributed to this inquiry but, in particular, the families of those who have a disability who took the time to share their stories with us. Their stories were very formative in determining the recommendations in this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.