Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion to disallow the Migration Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 5) and to indicate that the coalition will not be supporting the disallowance motion.

Whilst the coalition remains critical of the government in contracting out its responsibilities in this important portfolio area to the Houston panel, we do recognise, as we have said on numerous occasions in both this place and the other place, that the government is clearly severely limited in relation to the development of policy in this important area, and as such it has been rendered completely incapable of discharging its fundamental duties. As we know, it contracted out its policy duties to the Houston panel, which eventually involved the tabling of the Houston report.

The coalition acknowledges the findings of the Houston report and we acknowledge that they effectively endorse the former Howard government's strong border protection policies. The current government, whilst performing what is now known as the greatest political backflip of all time when it comes to a policy in this place, is now going some way towards accepting the recommendations of the Houston report. In fact, this regulation that we are debating that is the subject of the disallowance motion is part of the government's effort to follow through on one of the recommendations of the Houston report. As such, given that the Houston report generally follows the substance of the Howard government's policies when it comes to protecting Australia's borders, as I stated, the coalition will not be supporting the disallowance motion.

The regulation itself, although not perfect by any means, does take a small step towards protecting some of the places available in the offshore humanitarian program from onshore asylum seekers and their family members. Ensuring that the family members of onshore asylum seekers are required to apply for family reunion through the general migration program and that they do not take places in the humanitarian program through the split family provisions is a small step, but it is a small step that is in the right direction and is moving effectively towards what were the former Howard government policies. On that basis we support this very small step.

It does have to be noted, however, in debating the disallowance motion, that this regulation in no way restores temporary protection visas. The coalition is on the record saying time and time again that we believe that temporary protection visas are the appropriate mechanism, the most effective form of policy, that a government puts in place if it truly wishes to deny people access to family reunion. We have stated time and time again to the Australian public that if and when we are again given the privilege of governing Australia, one of the first things that we will do in restoring integrity to Australia's borders is that we will reintroduce temporary protection visas.

The government's policy is reflected in this regulation. In her comments in the chamber, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young was actually wrong. It is not surprising that Senator Hanson-Young was wrong. Senator Hanson-Young stated that people coming here by boat will no longer get access to family reunions. That is just blatantly wrong, and shows a complete misunderstanding of the immigration system. People still will be able to get access to the family reunification program; they will just have to apply for it under a different scheme. This regulation does not stop people, despite the words of Senator Hanson-Young, from obtaining access to family reunification.

That is why the coalition is critical of this regulation, because we say that it does not go far enough. Whilst the government takes with one hand to make it look to the Australian people that it is actually making a strong decision, on the other hand it has quietly increased the number of places available in the general family reunion program over the next four years to the tune of 16,000 places. So I am not quite sure how Senator Hanson-Young stands in this place and makes what is a totally incorrect statement in relation to this particular regulation. By this regulation, all the government is doing is shifting the ability to obtain family reunification from one stream of the migration program to another stream of the migration program.

Further proof of that is found in MYEFO, which included an extra $55 million of taxpayers' hard earned money to provide more family reunion places for people who enter Australia illegally on boats. This means that those who arrive in Australia by boat and who are granted a permanent visa will still be able to access the family reunification program. The only change that has been made by the Labor government is that they will now have to pay a fee and they will have to fill out a different form. Again, for Senator Hanson-Young to stand here and say that by this regulation there is no longer any access to the family reunification program either is wrong or shows a complete misunderstanding of the way immigration works in Australia.

All the regulation does, despite the rhetoric of the Labor Party in saying to the people of Australia, 'We are tough and we are stopping people from having access to the family reunification program,' is to create a process which actually enables quite ready access to the family reunification program. But, as I said, all the Labor Party has done here is to take with one hand but offer the exact same thing on the other hand. The proof there is the additional 16,000 places over four years in the family reunion program, and the fact that in MYEFO the government dedicated $55 million to these additional places.

What you have here is, yet again, another very clear example of the Labor Party's spin over substance. They say they are getting tough on illegal immigrants in one breath, whereas with the other breath they just create the exact same problem.

As I have stated, the Houston report recommended this step; the Houston report has effectively endorsed coalition policy. The Labor Party have adopted the Houston report themselves, which means they are well and truly moving towards the former Howard government's policies on border protection. The coalition certainly welcomes the fact that members of the Labor Party have stood with the coalition to vote for what effectively are the former Howard government's policies on border protection. And whilst this regulation is only a small step along the way, it is certainly a step in the right direction. On that basis the coalition will not support the disallowance motion.