Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for this opportunity today to speak on the Migration Amendment (Visa Maximum Numbers Determinations) Bill 2013, and I acknowledge the work of Senator Hanson-Young to bring this bill before the parliament.

The bill before this place proposes to amend the Migration Act 1958 so that instruments made under section 85 would be subject to disallowance. As it has already been expressed, section 85 of the act allows the minister to determine the maximum number of visas that can be granted in a particular subclass in a specified program year. Visa limit determinations made under this part of the act are not subject to disallowance. This is because 44(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 specifically states that legislative instruments made under the part of the Migration Act 1958 cannot be disallowed.

As Senator Hanson-Young has explained, the purpose of this bill is to override the determination made by the government on 2 December via legislative instrument which caps the number of protection visas that can be granted for the 2014 financial year and to ensure that changes to visa limits are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

In outlining our position on the bill, the Hawke Labor government introduced capping the visa program numbers back in 1988 as part of a suite of significant reforms in response to a major report from the committee to advise on Australia's immigration policies titled Immigration: a commitment to Australia. The reforms also included the division of the immigration program into three main streams—families, skilled and humanitarian—and the establishment of the Bureau of Immigration Research. Since its introduction, capping has been critical in the balancing and planning of Australia's migration program. It works by limiting the number of visas issued in some categories while increasing the proportion of visas issued in others. The point is the government has control.

As explained clearly by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship back in 2010, the Migration Act 1958 allows the minister to cap or limit the number of visas which can be granted each year in a particular visa subclass. This limit or cap applies only for the migration program year in the year in which it is introduced. When a cap is reached, applicants then wait in a queue for visa grant consideration in a following year, subject to places becoming available. This means that when the number of visas set by the minister for a visa class before the migration program year has been reached no further visas can be granted in that program year.

The capping power comes under section 85 of the Migration Act, and instruments made under section 85 of this act are not subject to disallowance, as I said. As mentioned, the bill before this place proposes to amend the act so that instruments are subject to disallowance, with the effect of this bill being that any decision by the minister to cap a certain visa class could be disallowed by the parliament. This would apply to all instruments made under section 85, including those relating to family and skill streams, not just the capping of protection and humanitarian visas.

Labor has been supportive of the mechanisms available to manage the migration intake, in particular visa subclasses, and it is for this reason that Labor will not be supporting the bill as it currently stands. As my colleague Senator Stephens expressed, if the Greens wish to put forward a proposal on reform, the opposition would consider such a proposal on its merits—if and when such a proposal were to be put forward.

I do acknowledge that this bill comes in response to the coalition government's decision to cap the number of onshore permanent protection visas for this financial year. This means that no further onshore permanent protection visas will be granted until the new financial year, leaving some 30,000 waiting to be processed. Let me be clear about this: Labor not supporting the bill we have before us today by no means condones the irrational decisions or misuse of the intent of the discretionary powers under section 85 of the Migration Act by the relevant minister. The decision of the government minister on 2 December means that there are going to be nearly 30,000 people being supported by the government without their status being resolved. This is policy on the run from a government that has lost control, and it is possible now to observe a government that can only be described as faking it when it comes to having a managed immigration process.

The government's border security policy is in disarray, and the government circus of secrecy on border protection and asylum seekers continues. The government will not tell us how many boats it has turned back, it will not tell us how many boats it has bought in Indonesian fishing villages, and the government continues to refuse to answer questions regarding the status of tow-backs, turnarounds and the use of community wardens. Freezing refugee claims from being processed is yet another distraction from this disarray of the Abbott government's failed attempts to manage the humanitarian and asylum seeker issue. I believe the Australian public deserves better, and the Labor opposition has continually tried to hold the government to account for its appalling attempt at secrecy around these issues. I will give you an example: the government's figures demonstrating the so-called success of Operation Sovereign Borders failed to take into account the impact of the PNG arrangement implemented under the former Labor government. Having been in office for more than 12 weeks now and having just visited Papua New Guinea, Minister Morrison has confirmed that he has not changed a single clause of the agreement put in place under the Labor government. There is no denying it is a very tough policy designed to break the people smugglers' model, but in the fortnight prior to the election, on 7 September 2013, there was an average of two boat arrivals per week. This is precisely the same average rate of boat arrivals, according to Minister Morrison.

Labor's PNG solution appears to be having an impact, and yet we still have a coalition government so intent on using this as a divisive issue within the Australian community that it cannot acknowledge a positive impact. As we said when we were in government, the Labor Party were focussed on the need for a durable regional solution—a partnership with our South-East Asian neighbours to destroy the people smugglers' model and support the UNHCR in managing a strong and compassionate offshore humanitarian program.

We sought to do this acting on the advice of an independent expert working group in an effort to extract this issue from the torturous grip of the pejorative politics the coalition were so intent on playing. Alas, this was to no avail. The Abbott government, then in opposition, ramped up their divisive approach with the evidence of this manifesting itself in their opposition to the proposed Malaysia arrangement. With a great deal of gall the then opposition spokespeople, Mr Morrison and Senator Cash, mounted their case on the fact that Malaysia was not a signatory to the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. It is important to remember this, in the current debates and as we see the scenario unfold, in the context of the Abbott government's actions and their language and decisions in relation to asylum seekers.

I would like to take Senator Seselja to task on his claims, amongst many, that the coalition are intent on optimising pathways for refugees coming through a managed offshore program. This can be completely unpicked when you look at the coalition's policy of reducing the refugee intake from 20,000 to 13,750. The coalition had the opportunity to demonstrate goodwill in this regard by maintaining the higher number of refugees through our humanitarian program, but in a contradictory way they reduced it. Claims of supporting so-called legitimate pathways to Australia—those through managed offshore processing centres with the support of the UNHCR and other NGOs—are completely undermined by the government's actions.

It is worthwhile taking the time, as we are presented with opportunities such as Senator Hanson-Young's bill, to hold the government to account for their hypocrisy and their counterclaim that somehow Labor's efforts in government were ill-motivated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having been involved in the portfolio, as Minister for Multicultural Affairs at the time, I know the effort we put in and the lengths we went to, in the first instance, to extract the divisive politics from a vexing issue. This is an emotional issue for many Australians—be they refugees, supporters of refugees or at the other end of the spectrum. It is this emotion and fear that the coalition choose to exploit in their continuing approach to asylum seekers. In contrast, Labor's approach was to manage soundly and effectively by looking at the long-term durable and sustainable arrangements needed in our region.

Our approach involved working with near neighbours, including Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Malaysia, Thailand and many others, where we know there is an increasing flow of asylum seekers and people seeking a better home to give their kids a better chance. We also know that the coalition made blatantly untrue claims that when the Howard government left office there were no children in detention and therefore the increasing numbers during Labor's period of government are evidence of monumental failure. We know circumstances changed during that time and that Labor, in working with our regional partners and taking advice from an independent working group, did its utmost to extract the divisive party politics that have come to characterise this issue.

This is probably most evident in the discussion around temporary protection visas. Labor's stance on temporary protection visas is longstanding and very well known. When we were elected to government in 2007, we abolished the TPV scheme introduced by the Howard government. We knew that the issuing of temporary protection visas would remove what was seen as a very unfair system when people's status was unresolved. We know from looking at the numbers that temporary protection visas did not provide the disincentive the then Howard government and the now Abbott government claim. When we put the PNG arrangement in place no-one was to be resettled in Australia. The use of temporary protection visas would undermine that disincentive through the PNG Regional Resettlement Arrangement put in place under the Labor government. As I said, these are extremely tough policies, but they show that the use of TPVs undermines this approach—an approach which, on the evidence, appears to be working, without acknowledgement from the Abbott government of course. The PNG arrangement took Australia as an option off the table. That is what has made a difference. We need to smash the people-smuggling model, and Labor's policies were intent on doing that. We need to put in place a very real disincentive for people to get on dangerous vessels.

I would like to conclude, as my colleague Senator Stephens did, by reflecting on the great virtues of having a strong migration system. We heard last night the personal migration stories of two new Labor senators and their parents. As a former Minister for Multicultural Affairs, I have heard so many moving stories of first, second and third generation migrants who were able to tell the story of their parents' journeys in very moving and substantive terms. These stories are part of Australia's story. Our history will continue to be informed and enriched by the life experiences of people who find their way to our country by whatever means. Our attitude towards migrants, be they humanitarian entrants, skilled migrants or entrepreneurs who find their way here because they think that Australia offers the best platform for them to contribute to civil society one way or another, is something we can be extremely proud of. We know now as an opposition, as we did when we were in government, that it is our utmost responsibility to have an orderly migration system, certainly; but it must be a migration system that serves the needs of Australia first and foremost.

When you look at all of the evidence of the civic and economic contributions of humanitarian entrants to our country, that contribution is immense. One of the things we were able to do in government was to conduct a series of research exercises to quantify the kinds of contributions that have come from our different cohorts of migrants over the more recent generations. One of the most heartening pieces of research that I read was the documentation of the contribution of humanitarian entrants to civil and economic life in this country. It is profound. They have a higher propensity to invest in their own education and their children's education and to volunteer in the community.

The other issue, of course, is the importance of finding work. As Senator Dastyari and Senator Tillem both reflected in their respective stories of their parents coming to Australia—fleeing very difficult circumstances elsewhere—the right to employment was first and foremost a key determinant in their ability to settle their families successfully and to raise their children with such astounding results.

I would like to close on a very positive note. All of us in this parliament, and certainly in this place, have a responsibility to make sure that, when we do reflect on our humanitarian program and the vexing issue of stopping people smuggling and supporting a strong and sustainable humanitarian program, we do so in the best possible spirit that underscores who we are as Australians. Humanitarian entrants, asylum seekers and refugees all have a story to tell. They are all very human stories and they should sit at the forefront of our minds when we consider such matters.