Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

TPVs, as the minister would know, were first introduced by the Howard government in 1999. They limited the type of protection available to genuine refugees by providing only temporary protection. Under the circumstances, these remained temporary so long as a refugee claim was unresolved. There were no rights of family reunification; if a TPV holder left Australia, then there was no right of return. The Rudd Labor government abolished TPVs in 2008 and, as we have just heard, the Abbott government has reintroduced TPVs through the Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas Regulation) 2013, which came into effect on 18 October this year.

The new regulations do not allow TPV holders to apply for or be granted permanent protection at any point in the future. Under the Howard government, upon the expiry of a TPV, its holder was entitled to apply for permanent protection. TPVs will also apply to asylum seekers who have already lodged protection visa applications under the previous scheme but who have not had those applications finalised prior to October 2013. In this sense, this regulation carries with it an element of retrospectivity.

The explanatory memorandum to the regulation states that the purpose of TPVs is to deter people from taking the dangerous boat journey to Australia. On 19 July 2013 the Labor government introduced the PNG regional resettlement arrangement. Under this arrangement, every person who arrives by boat is transferred from Australia. If such a person is found to be a genuine refugee, then that person will be resettled in PNG. This arrangement has effectively taken Australia off the table; this arrangement is working. And contrary to what the minister has actually said tonight, this arrangement is the principal reason why there has been such a significant reduction in the flow of boats from Indonesia and Sri Lanka. This is the reason there has been such a significant change in the movement of boats—this reason, announced on 19 July 2013, and not the farce that the minister has been speaking of—her secret arrangement. But what, in fact, has she done, other than to hide the boats? She has done very little. This arrangement, as I said, is the principal reason why there has been such a significant reduction in the flow of boats from Indonesia and Sri Lanka.

With the PNG regional settlement arrangement in place, the Abbott government's stated rationale for TPVs is of course redundant. I think this is an important principle. The TPVs will not apply to any new arrivals in Australia because these arrivals are being resettled in PNG. The TPVs cannot act as a disincentive; they will only apply to a cohort of people who are already in Australia.

However, the policy of the coalition does contemplate resettlement in Australia using TPVs as a measure of last resort. This intent of the regulation will undermine—I repeat, it will undermine—the PNG arrangement which is currently working so effectively. The government needs to be honest. Minister, you need to be honest about the intention and about how the PNG arrangement and TPVs are going to work together. TPVs do not allow for any method of family reunion. Additionally, TPV holders who leave Australia are not permitted to return. For this reason, TPVs act as a magnet to women and children seeking reunification with their loved ones.

This was exemplified under the Howard government and it was reflected in the number of boat arrivals—in particular, the number of women and children who were on those boats. Look at this in terms of the two years following the introduction of TPVs: in the two years immediately prior to the introduction of TPVs—that is, from November 1997 to October 1999—a total of 1,953 persons arrived by boat, of which seven per cent were minors and seven per cent were women. In the two years immediately after the introduction of TPVs—that is, from November 1999 through to October 2001—a total of 10,217 persons arrived by boat, of which 24 per cent were children and 20 per cent were women. Given these figures, it was always only a matter of time until a tragedy of the proportions of SIEVX occurred. I remind the Senate that was the occasion when 353 people, mostly women and children, were drowned trying to reach their families. TPVs only encourage this type of tragedy to occur, such is the desperation of people to be reunited with their loved ones and left no other option but to seek reunification by seeking such a dangerous boat journey.

I am sure it would not take much to remind all of us here in the Senate of the numerous reports and studies on the impact of TPVs on the mental and physical health and wellbeing of asylum seekers. Forced separations of families cause significant mental health and medical problems for refugees. The three-year period of a TPV prolongs the uncertainty of an asylum seeker's situation. This causes stress and anxiety and often compounds pre-existing conditions due to experiences of persecution in home countries. TPVs also prevent inclusiveness in the Australian community and promote a disinclination to participate in education and build up relations in this country. The retrospective nature of the current regulation does not afford procedural fairness to asylum seekers, who will be waiting for their claims to be processed and will now find they are only able to apply for temporary protection.

The regime introduced by the Abbott government, in the form of the Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas) Regulation 2013, is even harsher than the policy introduced under the Howard government. Under the Howard government, TPV holders were entitled to apply for a permanent protection visa upon the expiry of their TPV. Under the current regulations no such right exists. This means anyone on a TPV will never have any prospect of obtaining a permanent protection visa. On the expiry of the TPV, holders will have to reapply for another TPV. They cannot apply for permanent protection at any stage. It is at present unclear what services TPV holders will have access to under the current regulations. This could mean TPV holders are not entitled to access basic health services, Medicare, Centrelink, housing, resettlement services or counselling. For all these reasons Labor will support this disallowance.