James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to discuss the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Regrettably the coalition is not in a position to support this bill as it is currently drafted. I want to start by saying, and really emphasising, the coalition of course supports efforts to engage more with our Pacific neighbours. We understand how important it is that we engage constructively in our region in a way that lifts up the people of the Pacific. It's why we put in place successive strategies to make sure we are engaging in the right way with our Pacific neighbours, and it's why the coalition invested record amounts in the Pacific when we were in government. We support the concept of a Pacific engagement visa. However, we do not support the awarding of visas being done by a lottery or ballot. The coalition supports a well-structured, well-planned immigration policy, and we are willing to work with the government on a model for a fairer Pacific engagement visa that delivers better outcomes for Australia and our Pacific neighbours.

Permanent residency that ultimately leads to Australian citizenship is too important, in our view, to be decided by chance. These two bills will, for the first time, create a ballot process for the issuing of Australian visas. This is not something that we have done as a country before. The first bill establishes the lottery scheme, while the second bill establishes how you enter the lottery scheme—namely, by paying a dollar amount to enable you to go into the lottery. The process to obtain a visa, to obtain permanent residency and ultimately to embark on the pathway to citizenship should not, in our view, depend on luck or chance. This is a significant departure from the way in which Australia has conducted its immigration process over many decades. While I'm sure this is not intended by the proponents, we believe it has the effect of devaluing the worth of each applicant by not taking into account their personal merits or circumstances. The bill will create a precedent that can be used not just for the Pacific engagement visa but for any future visa that the government of the day may decide to introduce. This has the potential to turn Australia's immigration system on its head. Instead of our current immigration policy, which is based on attracting skilled migrants who contribute to the economy, the government proposes to introduce a lottery to decide who can become a permanent resident, and that is not a system that the coalition can support.

There are a number of unanswered questions about how the scheme would work in practice. While the government has stated that the eligibility criteria for the visa will include age, English language, health and character requirements, as well as requiring a job offer for the primary applicant, it appears the visa will not have skill level or occupation requirements. The visa would therefore not be aligned with the skilled stream of Australia's migration program, which targets young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country as well as temporary migrants who make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages. We are concerned that there is no requirement for prior work experience in Australia, under the government's proposed approach, which will increase the risks of visa recipients and their families experiencing difficulties in their settlement in Australia.

I understand that some of our Pacific neighbours are strongly supportive of this Pacific engagement visa and that they will be disappointed by our decision not to support the government's proposed approach today, but I want to reassure them that the coalition are strongly committed to providing employment opportunities in Australia for citizens of Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. It was the previous coalition government which delivered on this commitment through the PALM scheme, which has been enormously successful. We remain very strongly supportive of mechanisms which provide employment opportunities and pathways to permanent residency for citizens of Pacific islands and Timor-Leste. Importantly, we are supportive of the principle of the Pacific engagement visa; we just don't think that a lottery is the right approach. We have consistently expressed our willingness to work with the government and Pacific nations to develop a sustainable Pacific engagement visa which provides a pathway to permanent residency, particularly for those who've demonstrated a work capacity in Australia. We believe that the PALM scheme could provide a suitable vehicle through which to develop a Pacific engagement visa. Through the PALM, we have a Pacific employment scheme that is working incredibly well.

PALM has provided many of the benefits sought by all parties, including Australia and Pacific islands nations as well as employers, individual workers and their families and communities, who benefit greatly from the remittances which are sent home. PALM already has a strong support system in place to assist new workers to settle into life and work in Australia, and we consider this aspect fundamental to the long-term sustainability of any new policy approach. We believe that a period of proven successful work participation in Australia under PALM should create a qualification for a potential Pacific engagement visa. This would avoid the need for a lottery and ensure that the visa recipient was better placed to successfully take up permanent residency in Australia. We would of course be prepared to sit down with the government and discuss options for how the PALM scheme could provide a pathway for Pacific islanders to access the Pacific engagement visa, but we will not entertain the idea of introducing a lottery which you pay a fee to enter. This approach will only serve to diminish the integrity of our visa system.

Australia has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support for our nearest neighbours in the Pacific and Timor-Leste, and we want to see that continue. I very sincerely reiterate that we'd be able to support a Pacific engagement visa and we're willing to work with the government to find a workable model. I hope that the government is able to support the second reading amendment that I will be circulating in the chamber shortly, which rejects the lottery and proposes the coalition's alternative approach. I hope the government will see fit to sit down with the coalition and work through this issue. If they don't then sadly we'll be unable to support the legislation, because we think that they're putting in place a principle which fundamentally undermines the immigration system of this country and are missing an opportunity to develop a fairer Pacific engagement visa that delivers better outcomes for Australia and our Pacific neighbours.

I should say we, of course, understand the broader context of this proposed legislation. We understand that the government is trying to bring all tools of statecraft to bear on the challenges that we face in the Pacific, and we stand with the government in being willing to facilitate all of those. But we have an in-principle difference with the government when it comes to the process of allocating these visas which we have clearly articulated throughout this process: through the debate in the House of Representatives many months ago and through our negotiations and meetings with the government consistently. Without any changes to that fundamental stumbling block, we are not going to be able to support the bill in its current form.