Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

If Senator Whish-Wilson thinks that sending children by boat is a compassionate way to deal with children and that there are remotely has any human rights aspects to it, he is welcome to address that in the chamber later.

These visas will be credited for a period of up to three years. On expiration, a person's individual circumstances will quite reasonably be reassessed. Those who are found to still be owed protection will only be granted a further TPV or a SHEV, a safe haven enterprise visa. If they are found not to engage Australia's protection obligations, they will be required to leave.

Consistent with this government's principles of rewarding enterprise and its belief in a strong regional Australia, a new visa, the safe haven enterprise visa, will also be created by this bill. Again, it absolutely astounds me that people in this chamber, people who represent rural and regional communities in this country, would not be supportive of this new visa. The safe haven enterprise visa will be open to applications by those who have been processed under this legacy case load and who are found to engage Australia's protection obligations. They will be an alternative to the TPV and will also encourage enterprise through learning and earning, which I think is wonderful.

Those granted a SHEV will work in designated regions, identified through a national self-nomination process. These visas will be valid for five years and, like the TPV, will not include family reunion or a right to re-enter Australia because, again, that is another product for people smugglers to sell. Holders of these visas will be targeted to designated regions and encouraged to fill regional job vacancies, and will have access to the same support arrangements as a TPV holder, including Medicare, social security benefits and work rights.

In the last few months as a senator in this place and from my travels around regional Western Australia, I have had many conversations with growers and farmers who simply cannot find local people to do these jobs that keep their businesses, their farms and their horticultural industries going. Any opportunity like this to help growers and farmers across Australia find hardworking employees is something to be commended. Again, I cannot understand how anybody in this place would not think that is a good thing.

What happens to them after they have worked in regional Australia? If they have worked in regional Australia without requiring access to income support for 3½ years, they will be able to apply, if they meet eligibility requirements, to be granted other onshore visas—for example, family and skilled visas as well as temporary and skilled student visas. If a SHEV holder was to access government assistance to study for a degree, a diploma or a trade certificate in a designated regional area, this would not be classified as accessing social security benefits. However, holders of this visa will not be able to apply for a permanent protection visa. If a holder of a SHEV has relied on income support for more than 18 months during a five-year period, they will only be eligible to apply for another SHEV or a TPV, and this will only be granted if they are found to be engaging Australia's protection obligations. If they are not found to have engaged Australia's protection obligations, they will be required to leave the country.

Amendments in this bill to the Maritime Powers Act strengthen Australia's maritime enforcement framework and the ongoing conduct of border security and maritime enforcement activities. These amendments also reinforce the government's powers and support for Australian border protection officers conducting maritime operations to stop people-smuggling ventures at sea. Enforced turn-backs are a critical component of the government's suite of border protection measures and have been successful in stopping the boats, stopping people dying and putting people smugglers out of business.

These measures affirm and strengthen our government's ability to continue with the successful cessation of boat arrivals in Australia. As someone with firsthand experience with border protection policies, I know the effectiveness of stopping the boats. They are not easy decisions. They are probably some of the hardest decisions that any government has to take, but they have to be made in the national interest and, I must say, in the interest of those who are thinking of putting their lives at risk by paying people smugglers, and now in the interest of the 30,000 illegal maritime arrivals whose lives will be held in limbo under the policies of this government for nearly seven years if this legislation does not go through.

The migration system as it stands promotes a one-size-fits-all approach to responding to other claims. The framework is inconsistent with the robust protection system that promotes efficiency and integrity. While efficiency and integrity are buzzwords used in government and in business, what that actually means for those 30,000 people is that they will have to wait for up to seven years in limbo, and that is not acceptable. Under this bill, a new process, the fast-track assessment process, will efficiently and effectively respond to unmeritorious claims for asylum and, it has to be pointed out, there are many unmeritorious claims for asylum just as there are many that are meritorious. This new fast-track assessment process will replace access to the Refugee Review Tribunal with access to a new model of review—the Immigration Assessment Authority, known as the IAA. These measures are specifically aimed at addressing the current backlog of illegal maritime arrivals.

As we heard during our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hearings on this, 30,000 people are affected. Those who have meritorious claims will be afforded far better treatment under the provisions of this bill. However, it is the government's policy that, if fast-tracked applicants present unmeritorious claims or have protection elsewhere, their cases will be channelled towards a direct immigration outcome, rather than having them access the merits review process in order to prolong their stay in Australia. The measures in this bill will support a robust and timely process, which is, as I said, the humanitarian and the right process. It will better prioritise and assess claims, and afford a differentiated approach depending on the characteristics of the claims. Prompt removal of failed asylum seekers from Australia also supports the integrity of our protection program and reduces the likelihood of applicants deliberately frustrating and playing the system, and delaying removal plans.

The cost of the former Labor government's failures on our border over the last six years of government have been substantial in both humanitarian and financial terms. When looking at this bill and these measures, it is, I think, very important to go back and have a look at what they are designed to address. Labor and the Greens' failed border protection policies resulted in an environment where 50,000 people put their lives and their families' lives at risk by paying people smugglers, working through a pipeline of countries, to make this illegal journey. And why did they do it? Because those opposite deliberately, knowingly and with foresight implemented policies that drew them back to our country. Again, as I have said, I see no compassion in any government that would deliberately do that—not only deliberately bring them here in large numbers but put them into detention centres that were not ready and were not capable of looking after that many people. That is not compassion. That is not humane. Trying now to obstruct legislation that would deal with these 30,000 people in less than the seven years that their system would have taken—that is not the humane or right way to treat these 30,000 human beings.

As a consequence of the policies of those opposite, more than 14,800 have been waiting offshore in very desperate circumstances. Because of the policies of those opposite, they have been denied Australia's protection through humanitarian visas, as places were taken in our program by those illegal maritime arrivals who had paid to come here—many of whom had paid and sent their children on that journey so that the whole family could come in behind them. That is in no way a humanitarian or a responsible government approach.

To me, the most compassionate and humanitarian approach is to pass this legislation to give these 30,000 human beings a decision. If they are not going to stay, it is the right thing to do to tell them so they can get on with their lives elsewhere. If they are able to stay, we should provide them with visas so that they can work, study and raise their families here. That is the humanitarian way. Do not leave them in detention for up to seven years. That would be the consequence of not passing this bill, which I commend to the Senate.