David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2050, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 14), after subsection 46(4A), insert:

(4B) However, the regulations cannot prescribe criteria mentioned in subsection (4A) for any of the following visas:

(a) protection visas;

(b) temporary safe haven visas;

(c) visas classified by the regulations as:

(i) Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) visas; or

(ii) Temporary (Humanitarian Concern) (Class UO) visas; or

(iii) Resolution of Status (Class CD) visas.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 21), after subsection 46C(1), insert:

Note: Criteria mentioned in subsection 46(4A) cannot be prescribed for visas mentioned in subsection 46(4B).

Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste are part of our Pacific family. Whilst we've heard governments from both sides refer to them as the Pacific family, I think there is a long way to go to make good on that use of the word 'family'. I've been fortunate enough to, over many years, count Pasifika Australians as some of my closest friends. It's only when you start to see into Pacific island families that you see what family really means. It means truly standing up for your family and serving them and being there for them when they need your support.

In many ways, Australia has failed the Pacific when it comes to things like climate change, which is an existential threat. We will continue to fail them if we continue to expand the fossil fuel industry. They deserve more leadership on climate action. We have the new Fijian Prime Minister here today. This is an existential threat for the Pacific. In Fiji, the families of friends of mine have had to move higher, further up from the sea, due to salinity and king tides inundating the land. It is urgent that the government step up when it comes to climate change.

I would like to thank both major parties for the progress they have made on this bill, particularly Minister Wong, who is really stepping up Australia's engagement with the Pacific. Most Australians would agree it has been genuine. She has put in a huge amount of work and travel to start to build those bonds and to truly be there for the Pacific. This is an important step forward when it comes to pathways to permanent residency for people moving to Australia to contribute, but we need to be doing it in a way where we are not creating a brain drain for our Pacific island neighbours. We must ensure that when people arrive here they are supported and able to flourish. Pacific island nations have much to contribute. I'm hopeful that this scheme will allow people to come here, to put down roots, to be part of our communities and to bring the rich culture that the Pacific can offer Australian communities.

We know how important remittances—people sending back money—are, not just in the Pacific but around the world. It is a huge part of developing nations' economies. We saw during COVID-19 the huge spike in remittances to Pacific island countries when people saw that their families were doing it tough. In Fiji alone, remittances increased by 10.9 per cent over the year between 2019 and 2020. These are significant numbers. You're talking from US$270 million up to US$301 million. As a country we will have to continue to engage with the Pacific. We have a pretty patchy history when it comes to some of our interventions, some of the exploitative practices that Australian mining companies have undertaken in the Pacific, in Papua New Guinea, and there is much work to be done by Australian governments.

We also need to confront the climate crisis that we are facing. We are fuelling it with our policies here in Australia. We hear the major parties say, 'Well, we are a small nation and we don't contribute that much.' Per capita, it is off the charts. We can't continue to look Pacific island neighbours in the eye and at the same time enable Woodside and Santos and other companies to expand fossil fuel production, because climate change is truly existential for them. We will have to start looking at not just lotteries for 3,000 people but potentially mass solutions for people who are losing their homes in the next few decades, unless we see the kind of bold leadership and action that a middle power like Australia can play on the world stage. As one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, Australia should take a strong stand and transition rapidly, not approve new fossil fuel projects. At every opportunity, we should be raising the concerns, raising the voices of our Pacific island neighbours who, for too long now, have been left to call for more ambition, who have been undermined at COPs by successive Australian governments. We have an opportunity now. We have a government that truly cares about the Pacific and is engaging and is building on the work the former government did there. This is a really welcome step forward, but we have to ensure we don't drop the ball when it comes to climate change. At the moment, we are. No amount of aid and development money and migration pathways will make up for people losing their homes, losing that connection to the place that they are from, that they live on, that they love. While I thank the government for their work on this, I urge them to take seriously this climate crisis we live in. I spoke yesterday of some of the Australian scientists that are grappling with despair every day. They are grappling with, 'Should I continue to be a climate scientist or do I need to try and do something else to wake our government up?' How much more do we need to know?

My amendment would simply ensure this ballot is not used for humanitarian visas or refugees or vulnerable people, who shouldn't have to rely on the minister being a nice person or thinking nicely towards them. We have international obligations as a country. This has been something that has been awfully politicised over a long time now, and we have to ensure there are guardrails to ensure this sort of scheme can't be used in the future for our international obligations when it comes to people fleeing persecution and seeking asylum.

We have a great opportunity as a country to build on this and truly make Australia a welcoming country when it comes to the Pacific. These sorts of schemes are great, but the main game is climate. I urge the government and the opposition to back them in there, and, as a country, to potentially start looking at things like windfall profit taxes so we can start contributing when it comes to adaptation and when it comes to loss and damage, which is something we don't hear enough about in here.

As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have an obligation to help out not just in our region but globally when it comes to the kinds of climate fuelled events that communities which simply do not have the resources to deal with them are going to have to face. That's where loss and damage comes in and that's where stepping up adaptation measures in the Pacific comes in, and someone needs to pay for that. The question is: should Australian taxpayers pay for that, or should the fossil fuel companies contribute some of the extraordinary profits we've seen them make over the last few years to solve some of the problems they've helped create?