Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I acknowledge the efforts the chair made in terms of the conduct of the inquiry into this legislation. However, I was the author of a dissenting report in relation to the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, and I think it is a great shame that the Labor government is not prepared to consult more widely in relation to this legislation.

I am someone who lived and worked in Papua New Guinea in 1999, 2000 and 2001. I'm deeply passionate about our Pacific family. In the last six weeks, I attended the Independence Day celebrations of Fiji, held by our wonderful Fijian diaspora in my home state of Queensland, and the PNG Independence Day celebrations, hosted by our PNG diaspora. I also attended a wonderful Queensland Samoan Rugby League event attended by thousands of members of our wonderful Samoan community in Queensland. I am passionate about Australia's engagement with our Pacific diaspora and our Pacific family—absolutely passionate about it. I spoke about it in my first speech in this place; I'll speak about it in my last speech in this place.

That is why I find it incredibly disappointing that the Labor government has failed to reach out across the chamber to come up with a scheme that could be agreed to on a bipartisan basis. It is a great, great shame.

The first point I want to address is this concept of a lottery. Now, there are members of the public sitting in the gallery here today. I wonder what they think about the concept that, for the first time in Australia's history, we are about to introduce a lottery process to determine who can or can't come to this country—a lottery process, whereby people pay an application fee to enter into the lottery, and whether or not their lot, their application, is chosen out of the process determines whether or not they can make a home in this country. Their individual characteristics; their individual skills; the contribution they could make to this country; whether or not they have any connections with this country; whether or not, at great personal disadvantage, they've worked in a remote Queensland community during the COVID crisis, being isolated from their families in, say, Vanuatu or Fiji for a number of years—even those things cannot be taken into account. Even if they've lived and worked in this country under the PALM scheme, they'll be treated exactly the same as someone with no connection with this country. How is that a fair process?

Shame on you for introducing this lottery scheme for the first time in Australia's immigration history. Shame on you, Albanese government.

Let me tell you what the people in these diasporas in my home state are saying about this scheme. This is what the Fijian Community Association of Queensland says about this scheme:

We also find the basic tenant of the lottery to be one that shows a disrespect to our people. Our community will always thrive when we are given the chance to meet a standard set. A lottery removes that concept and leaves it to pure luck.

They go on to say:

This lack of criteria reduces the value of our community inside the migration system. We thrive and delight on merit-based visas.

The Fijian community in Queensland do not want to participate in a lottery. They came here based on merit, and that's how they believe the system should proceed.

This is what my friends in the Cook Islands community in Queensland said: 'The Cook Islands Council of Queensland opposes the fundamental concept of the lottery system being proposed by the bill. The lottery concept ends merit as the basis of entry into Australia on the basis of anything other than the place of residence of an individual. Fundamentally, this disregards,'—and I will speak about this—'the migration patterns of Polynesian peoples around the Pacific.' That is what the Cook Islander community said in my home state of Queensland. What did our wonderful Niuan community say in Queensland? They said, '… our people are being excluded and,'—I will talk about that in a moment—'our migration patterns are being disrespected and this committee is considering a bill to charge people for a lottery that treats people's futures as if it were a game.' Shame on you. 'We oppose this bill and the underlying visa structure constructed by the government.'

What have these communities told me? They believe that application should be decided on merit. And the fact that somebody from our Pacific island diasporas who has lived and worked here under the PALM scheme, who has proven themselves as someone who can contribute to a local agricultural business, to a meatworks—to whatever it is—who has deep bonds in the community and who has undergone isolation from their family during COVID is put in the same lottery as someone else who has never lived or worked here is a disgrace. This is an awful scheme. I am surprised that members in the Greens party would support the introduction of a lottery scheme, because the other thing this bill does is allow this concept of a lottery to be applied to any visa class. So the concept of a lottery introduced in this bill does not just apply to the Pacific Engagement Visa scheme; it can be applied through regulation to any immigration scheme. If I'm sitting in this place and the Greens complain when this lottery scheme is introduced in other visa classes, I will remind them of their position on this piece of legislation. Immigration schemes are no place for lotteries.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on which I sit has looked at the fundamental processes—flaws—in relation to lottery schemes being introduced through this bill, not just to the Pacific Engagement Visa scheme but through regulation to other visa schemes and has raised fundamental scrutiny concerns. Scrutiny concern No. 1 is this: If you are going to introduce a lottery scheme to, say, humanitarian visas, family reunion visas or any other class of visa then that should be debated in a bill. It should not be introduced through regulation. It is absolutely shameful that the government is introducing a power to potentially introduce lotteries through regulations to other visa classes. Any expansion of lotteries to other visa classes should be the subject of very close attention and detail in this chamber as a house of review. But regardless, the government has taken advice—Maybe it is their own idea; I don't know—to introduce this concept whereby they can introduce lottery schemes. Put your number in the hat and see how you go in all visa classes in our immigration system—absolutely shameful. This is what the Scrutiny Digest said, It is further noted that while the bill has been introduced in anticipation of the creation of the Pacific Engagement Visa, the bill provides for the power to undertake visa pre-application processes in relation to any visa. The committee considers that the rationale for allowing the visa pre-application process to apply to any visa has not been sufficiently explained within the bill's explanatory materials,' and it hasn't. 'The committee's concerns in relation to the inclusion of significant matters in delegated legislation are heightened given the potentially broad application of the regulation making powers introduced by the bill.' Shame on you. In response to these concerns, and this is referred to in paragraph 1.9 of my dissenting report, the Minister for Home Affairs advised: 'The migration system needs to be adaptable and responsive to economic changes.' What a piece of fluff. I wonder who wrote that.

The fact of the matter is, if you want to introduce a lottery scheme in relation to any other class of visa, that should be debated in the piece of legislation in this chamber and not done through the backdoor way of regulation. It shows absolute contempt for the legislative process. It's shameful. The fact of the matter is regulations do not get the same scrutiny as legislation, and the minister should be well aware of that.

In paragraph 1.10, with due respect to the minister, neither of these arguments deal with the scrutiny issues identified and prosecuted by the scrutiny committee—flexibility and responsiveness—and there's no answer to the legitimate expectation that parliament will have the opportunity to consider the implementation of a policy of substantial import. If you use flexibility and responsiveness as a measure by which we didn't have to have bills of parliament, you wouldn't have the parliament in the first place. It's a gossamer-thin argument against the response of the scrutiny committee, that these matters of substance be dealt with in legislation and not in regulations.

As the scrutiny committee stated, and I'll quote again from the scrutiny committee's report:

the committee does not consider the need for flexibility and the need for responsiveness to be an appropriate reason to include significant matters in delegated legislation in this context. On the contrary, the committee considers it is particularly important for new legislative schemes to be included within primary legislation to ensure adequate oversight and scrutiny over the proposed scheme. While the Parliament retains the ability to disallow instruments, a legislative instrument, made by the executive, is not subject to the full range of parliamentary scrutiny inherent in bringing proposed changes in the form of an amending bill and may considerably limit the ability of the Parliament to exercise appropriate oversight over the new visa pre-application process.

And that is exactly what this bill seeks to do. In this backdoor way, you've opened up an avenue to expand the use of lotteries in other visa classes, and we, as a chamber, as a house of review, will simply not have the same capacity to scrutinise the application of a lottery in those other contexts. Shame on the government for doing that.

The last point I would note is: we are treating all of our Pacific family equally. The Cook Islanders, the Niueans and others who have rights to enter into New Zealand are not treated the same way as others under this scheme. They recognise that. They've raised it with me. They know it's unfair. And you can expect they will continue to raise it with government members because they consider they should be treated exactly the same as other members of the family Pacific. The point that they have rights to enter into New Zealand is irrelevant, because this bill is meant to deal with engagement between Australia and our Pacific neighbours—not New Zealand, but Australia. So that's the third point that's a real, fundamental issue with this piece of legislation.

Australians listening to this debate should realise that for the first time in Australia's history the government is introducing a bill under which a lottery will determine who has the right to come to this country—a lottery, chance! That's what this government is doing for the first time in Australia's history. So, instead of what a particular individual and their family can contribute being assessed, including what contribution they potentially made through the PALM scheme during that terrible time of COVID, all of that is put to one side and it just becomes a lottery. It becomes bare chance.

The second point is: this piece of legislation is introducing a backdoor method by which a lottery scheme could be expanded beyond the Pacific engagement visa to things like humanitarian visas, family reunion uses and other visas by regulation and not through appropriate debate in this place, as we're conducting now. This is a red-letter day for Australia's migration policy. For the first time in Australia's history, the government is introducing a bill, introducing a lottery, in relation to our immigration system. It is shameful. I'm absolutely passionate about our engagement with our Pacific family. I'm absolutely passionate. I have dear friends from all of our Pacific diasporas. What they've told me is that they don't want a lottery. They want to be treated equally on the basis of their merits, and that sounds like a pretty good system and principle to me.