Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Migration Amendment (Visa Maximum Numbers Determinations) Bill 2013 and I indicate on behalf of the Labor members of this place that Labor is not supporting this bill, for very sound reasons—principally, those outlined by Minister Cash, actually.

The bill amends section 85 of the Migration Act 1958 to allow legislative instruments designed under section 85—that is, the limit on visas—to be disallowed. Senator Hanson-Young's second reading speech on the bill states that the bill seeks 'to ensure that decisions made by the minister on visa limits are accountable to the parliament, rather than at the discretion of the minister'. Section 85 of the act allows the minister to determine the maximum number of visas that can be granted in any particular subclass in any specified program year.

So these limit determinations—referred to under this part of the act as 'capping'—are not subject to disallowance, due to the operation of section 44(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 that states that legislative instruments made under part 1, 2 or 9 of the Migration Act cannot be disallowed. But we know—and Senator Hanson-Young said it this morning—that this bill responds to the government's decision to cap the number of onshore permanent protection visas at 1,650 for the 2013-14 year, which means that no further onshore permanent protection visas will be granted until the new financial year.

This decision is in place until 30 June 2014, for a very obvious reason. We all know what that reason is. It is because in the new Senate the government will attempt again to bring back temporary protection visas. We know that that is what the game is all about.

But there are 30,000 people waiting to be processed. I think the Refugee Council of Australia, in response to that decision, made a very significant point in their media release. They described that visa freeze as:

… a new low in Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers.

They suggested that the decision to suspend the granting of new permanent protection visas for asylum seekers, for the treatment of some of the world's most vulnerable people, was in direct response, as a petty political ploy, to the fact that the Senate disallowed the temporary protection visas. Petty politics at its worst is how the Refugee Council of Australia's President Phil Glendenning described that decision. He also makes the very important point that suspending the granting of new permanent refugee protection visas also exacerbates the deteriorating protection environment for the world's refugees and asylum seekers. He says in this media release:

All indications are that global asylum applications in 2013 are at their highest level in more than a decade. At a time when the number of people displaced by persecution and conflict is increasing, Australia is turning its back on those in urgent need.

Mr Glendenning makes the point about the government's position on special protection visas that the reality is that:

… many refugees found to be in need of protection from persecution and currently living in limbo in Australian communities, will become long-term residents one way or another.

And, he says:

Past experience from the Howard Government years clearly showed that the great majority of people granted TPVs were never able to return home safely and ultimately were given permanent protection in Australia.

As he says, Australian governments—of whatever persuasion—have to find a form of protection for those refugees who cannot safely return to their country of origin in the foreseeable future that will allow them to settle and make a long-term commitment to Australia.

So what we saw in the decision by Minister Morrison—which was a very churlish knee-jerk reaction to the decision of the Senate to disallow temporary protection visas—was that he placed a bar on any further applications being made for permanent protection visas by people who arrive by boat—only by boat. Labor, of course, as we know, supported the Greens' motion in the Senate that disallowed the government's reintroduction of temporary protection visas because we believe that they are an anathema. It was actually the Hawke Labor government that introduced capping programs in 1988, and, as the minister said, the capping process is critical. It is the way in which we can balance and plan Australia's migration program each year, and it has been used in the past to manage the size and composition of the migration program rather than humanitarian programs. But—again, as the minister rightly pointed out—as the bill currently stands, this would apply to all instruments made under section 85, not just the humanitarian programs. And there is the rub. It actually becomes a very problematic proposition.

So Labor will not be supporting the bill. We believe that the Migration Act 1958 in its current form is appropriate to the circumstances because it does give ministerial discretion. It does give the minister the opportunity to make decisions about special circumstances. It does give the minister the opportunity to consider specific applications that warrant special consideration.

I know that you, Mr Acting Deputy President Furner, would have had the same experience as I have: that there are certain cases in our communities that come to light where we go in to bat on behalf of people in very difficult circumstances who might otherwise not have anyone to advocate for them. We have all been in the situation where we have been able to advocate on behalf of people seeking special consideration. The minister needs that discretion to be able to do it.

So our interest is in the Australian Greens' proposals for reform. If a broader proposition was going to be put to the opposition, we would certainly be interested in considering such a proposal on its merits. But the decision that the minister made, in that spiteful media conference after the decision by the Senate, about exercising his discretion, to keep those waiting to have their applications processed waiting, was, as I say, a very churlish response. If you read the transcript of his comments, you hear something quite specific—a very veiled threat in those comments that says: 'We'll do whatever it takes.' The minister said this morning: 'We'll continue to do whatever it takes, and we'll take whatever action we want, and there are other things under consideration.'

We all should be very mindful of the fact that this is another case of this government making policy on the run. Having lost control of Operation Sovereign Borders, they are now desperately scrambling to try to look like they are in control when in fact the whole border protection policy is in complete disarray, and the way in which they are trying to manage it is under this nonsensical veil of secrecy.

We hear from the good citizens of Christmas Island through Twitter and other social media how many boats have arrived there, because the government has decided that they are not going to tell us how many they have turned back. We have discovered, haven't we, how many boats they have bought in Indonesian fishing villages? Zero. So freezing refugee claims from being processed is actually just another distraction. It is a ploy that we have had to deal with in the disarray, the confusion and the shemozzle which is all that we can describe the government's failed border protection policy as.

I just want to go back to the very passionate plea that Senator Hanson-Young made about refugees. We are all stuck in this really hard place. Global refugee policy and Australia's response, and how we deal with people-smuggling and how we deal with the desperation is a policy conundrum—one of those wicked policy problems that governments around the world are trying to deal with. We are actually in the situation where our refugee flow is mostly by boat, so we have a particular challenge in our jurisdictional area that other countries, for example in Europe, do not. If they have porous borders, they are dealing with challenges in a very different way.

But even the Refugee Council of Australia says, and I quote their principal policy position from their website:

The Refugee component of the Australian Humanitarian Program is motivated by the recognition that a balanced response to the world's refugee problems requires that provision of resettlement places for Convention refugees be part of that response.

UNHCR estimates the number of refugees in need of resettlement in 2013 at more than 850,000 people, while the total number of resettlement places offered annually around the world is around 85,000. Australia has allocated 12,000 places—

of course, the Labor government was going to increase the humanitarian visas to 20,000 but the government has clawed those back—

in UNHCR's resettlement program for the 2012-13 financial year—

so we have 12,000 places now—

plus additional places through the SHP. Continuing to offer resettlement places – particularly through a multi-year planned program – represents Australia’s contribution to providing solutions to what is a global problem and contributes to Australia’s international standing as a country committed to upholding human rights and humanitarian values.

Furthermore, as one of the few countries of the world with an active immigration program, there is an expectation that Australia allocate places for refugees as well as migrants. In other words, the refugee program enables Australia to play its part as a responsible member of the international community and to derive recognition for this contribution from other states.

The SHP is driven not so much by an international imperative but by the desire of community groups and individuals in Australia to make a tangible contribution towards assisting members of their communities in difficult circumstances overseas, particularly those who may not have access to UNHCR's resettlement processes.

That is really the argument for an orderly way of dealing with the visa applications.

That is certainly the story that we heard yesterday in the first speeches by our new senators Dastyari and Tillem. Those stories were both of circumstances of desperation and seeking hope and opportunity in Australia, and they were very moving and compelling stories. Senator Dastyari made the point that it is not government policy that affects whether or not people seek opportunity and refuge here in Australia, or seek citizenship in Australia; it is actually the fact that we live in the best country in the world. It is so true: it is not government policy that attracts or detracts.

But I must take issue with Minister Cash's fierce determination to promote the temporary protection visa regime, knowing that it is a central part of the government's asylum seeker policy. The return of temporary protection visas no doubt will be one of the first things that the government seeks to introduce in the new Senate, post July, because it is determined to promote the so-called benefits of the TPV regime and at the same time completely ignore what everyone found to be the complete failings of the temporary protection visa regime. This is why Labor, when it came to government in 2007, decided to remove that regime. So, for very good reasons, we abolished the scheme introduced by the Howard government.

The coalition keeps arguing that the temporary protection visa will be the only visa which asylum seekers who have arrived by boat will be eligible for if they are found to be in need of refugee protection. The duration of the TPV will be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, but no individual visa will exceed three years in duration. This is a revisionist policy; we are going back to the Howard government's regime about TPVs.

Refugees will be able to apply again for temporary protection when a TPV expires but, again, each case will be assessed, with a decision based on the merits of the case at the time. If it is deemed that the situation has improved and that continuing protection is not required, the applicant will be required to return to their country of origin. Where it is deemed that the risk of persecution continues, a new TPV would be issued, again for a period of up to three years. Permanent protection visas will not be provided to a TPV holder within the first five years of the first TPV being issued, and any decision to grant permanent protection could be done only through the non-compellable intervention power of the minister.

The minister argues the strengths of the TPV regime include work rights and access to Medicare and other benefits. But what she did not say is that the work rights might be restricted to specific geographic regions; therefore, we may see refugees seeking temporary protection visas being sent off to northern Australia or the outback to work and live. Benefits paid to TPV holders unable to find work will be set at the discretion of the government but will not exceed equivalent Centrelink payments and will be subject to mandatory mutual obligation schemes like Work for the Dole. We can imagine where this is going, Mr Acting Deputy President, can't we? TPV holders will not be entitled automatically to access settlement services or support, so what does this say about language, literacy and support services in the community? The minister is given discretion by exception to grant access to this support.

While on a TPV, refugees will be denied permanent residency, the right to apply for citizenship or access to family reunion under any program. And, if a temporary TPV holder chooses to leave Australia, he or she will be barred from returning. So there you go—that is the nub of what this government is trying to introduce, without any recognition or any acknowledgement of what we know was so bad about the last regime of TPVs. Not allowing access to services that are necessary for successful settlement creates a level of dependency and a lack of personal agency to do anything, and the idea of temporary status continuing on a rolling three-year cycle exacerbates the feelings of uncertainty and creates huge insecurities and tensions within communities. We know that is the case.

What do we say about denying people the opportunity of family reunion or travel rights? That is quite extraordinary and it leads to massive negative psychological effects that have been well documented, compounding psychological trauma. How do we deal with people who are going to be put on TPVs who have been through torture and trauma? How do they access the kinds of services that they are going to need to make the adjustment to living in Australia? And how do we deal with the fact that it is the ethnic communities of Australia that will be burdened with looking after those on TPVs? We know what happened last time: the big shift of costs was to charities, not-for-profit organisations and local governments, who stepped up to try to fill the gaps in supporting these people who need quite specific and extensive support. And, of course, what that does is just feed the narrative in Australia about asylum seekers and refugees being illegal or queue jumping. This is demonising refugees and asylum seekers. That is really not what this country is all about.