Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

It is a good opportunity to make a few short contributions about these important pieces of legislation, the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. I have to say that in my capacity as the Assistant Minister for Trade, with a responsibility to engage with Pacific states and particularly economic and trade ministers in the Pacific, I know how important these pieces of legislation and the web of other bits of legislation and government action are to Pacific island states in terms of migration—temporary and permanent. This is very important work.

When you talk to the Pacific states, whether it's through formal PACER Plus meetings, formal meetings of the Pacific Islands Forum, bilateral engagements or a much less formal level, it is very clear to me that, whether it's the PALM scheme or this scheme—which has been called for for some time—these issues are very important to both Australia and the rest of the Pacific. It's important that this chamber appreciate the importance of these issues and that, given the kind of histrionics and politicisation of these issues that we saw from Mr Tehan and laterally in the debate from Senator Scarr, the chamber actually take its responsibility seriously here. It needs to: listen to what is being asked for and seriously consider the economic, social and strategic issues that are engaged; listen carefully to the experience of Pacific island countries and understand what the challenges are here and what the experience of temporary workers who come here is and the issues that they confront and that challenge them and their families; and listen to Australian businesses who want to engage these workers and these communities, who need the skills and labour that is offered by these schemes and who have identified the shortcomings that need to be rectified.

We need to make sure that we listen carefully to what the economic and skills requirements of Pacific island countries themselves are—countries who want to ensure, amongst many other things, that these arrangements deliver benefits to them. The demand is very high for these kinds of arrangements. The demand is very high both from Australian employers and Australian communities, particularly from country communities, workers themselves—citizens of Pacific island states who are looking for these opportunities—and the states themselves.

These are complex issues which this government has been attending to in a careful and deliberate way, and these pieces of legislation reflect that and have broad support. I understand that, in the recent Senate inquiry, broadly half of the submissions were in favour of it and half the submissions raised some issues with it.

I can tell you that, if you listen to Pacific leaders, they are demanding to know why this is taking so long to make its way through the Australian parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji Professor Prasad raised concerns about the legislation getting stuck in the Australian parliament. He said that economic ministers in the Pacific Islands Forum want this and that they believe that it will improve and deepen Pacific ties and investment. Professor Stephen Howes at the Australian National University, one of our leading experts on these issues, said:

People have been calling for this kind of initiative for a long time … there will be a massive … demand for it.

He went on to say that it is broadly seen as fair.

No piece of legislation is immune from criticism. This is the place for it. This is the place for amendments. I heard Senator Steele-John's contribution before. This is the place for amendments to be considered. But what on earth is what passes for an opposition doing if the contribution that we just heard from Senator Scarr is going to be the character of their response? He said it was a red-letter day, in a sort of orgy of Trumpian opposition to anything that is put forward by this government. It is a wall of negativity, whether it goes to this issue or any other issue. It is opposition at all costs, without thinking through, of course, their responsibilities in the national interest. To aspire to national leadership, you actually have to act in the national interest. Saying things like, 'This is an awful scheme,' is a disgrace. It's complete histrionics. It's not the kind of behaviour that this side engaged in when confronted with these kinds of issues, where we saw that bipartisanship in foreign policy is an important national asset. What you see from what passes for an opposition these days is complete hyperpartisanship on any question. They try to drag down these kinds of important initiatives, which should not be controversial. These initiatives should be advocated for by the whole parliament, but the opposition try to drag them down.

What that does is damage the Australian national interest. The opposition have got no interest in their responsibilities. They've got no interest in the importance of taking a considered approach, particularly when it comes to the interests of the region in which we live. It is an utterly cavalier approach to these issues. Of course, that is consistent with the approach that they took in government, where it was all slogans and no substance. The slogan was 'the Pacific Step-up' and the rhetoric was 'the Pacific Step-up', but, in fact, there was no follow-through. We have seen what that has delivered in the Australian national interest.

The truth about this scheme is that it will support the introduction of a new Pacific engagement visa. It will allow up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste to migrate to Australia as permanent residents each year. It sits alongside a series of other initiatives that the government has implemented to make sure, for example, that people have the opportunity to bring family members with them and that there is proper oversight. It will build and strengthen Pacific diaspora communities, which already make important contributions to communities around Australia. It will provide benefits to Australian employers. You wouldn't guess that any of that was the case from the character of the contributions of those opposite. It will provide workers with the opportunity to work in Australia, to learn new skills and to send remittances home to their families and communities. They are shared benefits that are in the interests of each of the Pacific states and in the interests of a shared approach to economic development, skills development and industrial capability development right across the region—a region that faces longstanding challenges, economic underdevelopment, geographic isolation, environmental pressures—