Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to move the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 4911:

(1)    Schedule 2, page 9 (after line 9), before item 2, insert:

1A At the end of section 73

Add:

        (2)    If:

             (a)    the Minister has granted a bridging visa E or equivalent in accordance with subsection (1); and

             (b)    the applicant for the bridging visa E or equivalent has been in possession of the visa for more than 28 days;

                 the regulations must provide that the applicant be permitted to work in Australia for the period of the visa.

This amendment deals with the issue of people who are in the community on what is called bridging visa E. These people are asylum seekers and going through the process of having their protection visa assessed by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The decision is granted that they will be able to live in the community whilst that process occurs and they are given a bridging visa E.

As I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate yesterday, people who are on bridging visa E do not have work rights. They can apply to the department of immigration in order to get work rights but there is no automatic access to work rights for people on bridging visa E. In the Senate inquiry that looked into the Migration Act earlier this year, this was a significant issue for us. At that time, the department of immigration provided figures to that Senate inquiry to indicate that last year there were nearly 8,000 people who were living in the community on bridging visa E—that is, without having any automatic access to work rights—and trying to survive.

Yesterday I spoke a little bit about the impact of this for those charity and community groups that seek to support these people, who are given no opportunity to get support by being able to work and provide for their families and who are utterly reliant on charity from a number of these church organisations. When the Senate inquiry looked into this issue at the beginning of this year, we heard from a number of these organisations that provide care for people in our community who are living in these circumstances. One example that I spoke about yesterday was the Melbourne Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office. They told the Senate committee that research has found that ineligible asylum seekers live in abject poverty with virtually no mainstream supports available to them. The impact of this, coupled with prolonged passivity, has caused high levels of anxiety, depression, mental health issues and a general reduction in overall health and nutrition.

Though the bridging visa category E was originally intended to be only three months in duration, there are some asylum seekers who have been on a bridging visa E for over eight years. The burden to support these people has been left to underresourced community and church groups and is unsustainable, particularly for the needs of growing children. Most people seeking Australia’s protection in this situation are completely reliant on charity. This is an issue that a number of these groups have looked into to see what benefit would be provided for the whole of the Australian community if these asylum seekers were able to work whilst living in the community and having their asylum claims assessed. Clearly, there are enormous benefits that would come to asylum seekers and their families in being able to work, be independent and have some dignity and respect rather than continually relying on organisations, which many of these proud individuals do not want to have to do.

There are also benefits to the whole of the community. As I indicated yesterday, the Uniting Church commissioned some independent research into people who were living on bridging visa E within the community. In their research, which was released earlier this year, they indicated that the denial of work rights to asylum seekers in Australia equates to a potential loss of $188 million to Australia’s GDP over a three-year period. They went through a particular cohort of asylum seekers living legally in Australia in Victoria and New South Wales and found that 71 per cent of them have skills that Australia needs. Almost half of them have skills that are in high demand according to the federal government’s own migration occupations in demand list. The leader of the Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania at the time said:

Australia is placing most asylum seekers and their families in a position of devastating poverty. Although lawfully in the refugee determination process, they are given no means to survive. They have been given a Bridging Visa E (BVE), but this allows them no access to work rights, healthcare or any form of income support, and the church and the community are picking up the bill.

The Uniting Church indicated that its members are donating thousands of dollars to support asylum seekers living in the community who have been denied the right to work to support their families. The Uniting Church’s Justice and International Mission Unit estimates that, through its members—and this is just in the synods of Victoria and Tasmania—it spends over $1 million dollars of financial and in-kind support on this group of people. The leader of the Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania goes on to say:

The solution is simple ... providing work rights to asylum seekers whilst they await a decision on their protection or humanitarian visa, would enable individuals and families to live independently, save the community millions of dollars, and would contribute to the Australian economy.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry that looked into this issue earlier this year heard from a number of other organisations, such as the St Vincent de Paul Society. They highlighted the plight of children and the sick who are living in these situations when they said:

The plight of people within the community on Bridging Visa E with no work rights, medical care and welfare support is quite desperate and of grave concern to the Society, especially given that in many cases children are also affected ... It is a particular concern when individuals are released for health reasons without a health management plan, or the resources to provide health care, being put in place prior to their release.

We heard from a number of organisations about the way in which they scrabble to find a general practitioners, dentists or other health professionals who are willing to see patients for free or for a nominal cost because they are not given this access to health care. They are not given access to health care, to Medicare or to work rights so that they can earn the income to allow them to provide for their families whilst living in Australia.

This Australian Greens amendment enables those people to have access to work rights. We have designed an amendment which says that people get that access after 28 days. We did that because we wanted the point of the amendment to be for those people who have been on bridging visas for years. For example, we heard from the Catholic Church about one individual asylum seeker who has been living in the community for eight years with no right to work, no right to earn income and therefore no capacity to provide for himself and his family. These are the people that we want to ensure have access to work rights, which is why the amendment has been designed this way.

I want to go to some of the details of the Uniting Church survey in Victoria that looked at the skills that people in these areas had. They found that 71 per cent of them had skills in the skilled occupation list for the general skilled migration program. And, as I said earlier, 45 per cent of them had skills that were considered in high demand according to the government’s own migration occupations in demand list. Forty-three per cent of the people they surveyed—asylum seekers living in the community with no work rights—held professional qualifications, 33 per cent of them held trade qualifications and, of all those surveyed, only one stated that they were unwilling to update their skills. That one was an award-winning chef with 25 years experience who had been working for an international hotel chain and felt there was no need for an update in skills. These are the individuals we are talking about.

I will give some examples of the people that they surveyed—and remember, this is just a small group of asylum seekers, whom they accessed for this survey, living in Victoria. The situation is likely replicated around the country. They surveyed a welder, someone with a bachelor of economics and a technical diploma in machine and shopwelding. He had eight years experience in high-technology Japanese companies, supervising Japanese workers. He was able to perform five different types of welding, with arc, oxy and mig welding skills, and he was also able to program robot welders. Just one of these skills would be enough for him to qualify as a first-class welder for the skilled migration program—and he had five areas of welding expertise. He was fluent in five languages, including English. He had run his own export and import business. Yet he is living in the community on a bridging visa E with no access to work rights. So he is not able to contribute to fixing the skills shortages that exist across this country. He is not able to contribute to earning income so that he can provide for his family. In fact, people like this gentleman are left in the community for years—some of them for many years, some for eight years, as we heard from the Catholic Church—and are not able to contribute their skills to the Australian community. This is the reason why the Uniting Church did this survey: to indicate the loss to the whole community from these people not being able to contribute to the Australian economy and to the Australian community. Of course there are substantial difficulties for them in their individual circumstances but, as the Uniting Church found, there is a potential loss of $188 million to Australia’s GDP over three years by not allowing these people to have work rights.

Right now the department of immigration is carrying out a review of this issue, as I mentioned yesterday. I notice we had the minister in here earlier during this debate. I would really appreciate it if we could hear any update from the department about what is going on in relation to that review. When the Senate inquiry looked at this issue earlier this year we also heard from one of these individuals, a stateless Palestinian asylum seeker who is living in the community on a bridging visa E. He had this to say to the Senate inquiry:

Although I am no longer in an immigration detention centre, having been released from the Baxter facility in April of 2003, I simply moved from a small detention to a big detention. My life is hopeless. I was psychologically damaged by my two year’s experience in detention and my condition gets worse, not better, because there is no solution in sight for my problem. The Department of Immigration has washed its hands of me and is not taking any action to help me find a solution. I am not allowed to work and I am not entitled to welfare benefits. I am full of despair and often consider committing suicide.

This is just one of the many thousands who are living in the Australian community on bridging visa E and do not have access to work rights.

We have heard many speeches in here today about the need to ensure that we address the skills shortage that exists in this country. As people have acknowledged, there are many ways in which we can do this—and investing in skills and training opportunities for individuals is at the forefront of those. But one of those other options for us—indeed, it is an option that the government have considered, as they indicated, in relation to this particular bill—is allowing those people who are on visas, living in the community, who do not have access to the right to work, to be able to have that access.

The Senate inquiry at the beginning of this year looked at this issue. We heard from a vast number of people about the importance of this issue. As a result of that long inquiry that we were involved in, the Senate inquiry made a recommendation: to ensure that people who were on a bridging visa E and living on the community were able to have access to work rights. It is a request that we have heard throughout the community, whether it be from refugee advocates, from churches—as I have indicated—or from employers who want to be able to employ those asylum seekers who have the skills and training that we so desperately need in our community. It is a cry that has been heard by this government loud and clear for a long time. I will be interested to hear from the minister about the work that is being done by the government in ensuring that these people do have access to work rights, because right now they are reliant on the goodwill and the charity of people in the community—organisations like the Bridge for Asylum Seekers Foundation, which is based in Sydney. They described the situation this way:

These asylum seekers live in absolute poverty. At times there is no food in the house, children may need urgent medical attention and clothing. There is nothing to do and nowhere to go. They live close to despair, relying entirely on the goodwill of friends in the community. Those families, friends and community networks who provide board and offer accommodation, are often themselves struggling to survive financially. But asylum seekers dare not work, because they will be returned to detention. Those who are stateless and cannot return to their country face indefinite detention or freedom without the means of survival.

This amendment is crucial to allowing these people to live, for them to have the dignity to access work, for them to have the opportunity to provide for their families and for them to be able to contribute to the Australian economy. (Time expired)

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a couple of things I want to clarify, through the chair. As I understand it, the matters that were raised go to a different committee report than the one that dealt with this particular bill. Senator Nettle, perhaps you could nod to give me an indication of whether I am right about that.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both. I really did not want the government to hide behind this argument either, quite frankly, because I think many of the matters raised by Senator Nettle do require answering by the government. They are separate questions that have been raised in committee that in fact the government does have a duty to provide some explanation on rather than perhaps hiding behind the issue that I am going to raise. The matter is that it has been a longstanding principle—from the Labor Party’s perspective, in any event—that we do not tag bills. This bill deals with employer sanctions and, if there were an amendment or an addition to that issue, we could perhaps provide a more cogent view about that.

This amendment, in fact, adds to the existing Migration Act under schedule 2. It does not, in effect, amend the content of the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. It adds another issue that the government, of course, should deal with. But it seems to Labor that it is an inappropriate vehicle to use the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 to deal with it in that way. Much of what Senator Nettle says the Labor Party agrees with in principle. It should be dealt with and it has been dealt with in part. As I think Senator Nettle outlined, a report from the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee covered some of these issues. There was also a report by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee dealing with employer sanctions which dealt more specifically with the bill itself. This amendment is not a recommendation that came out of that.

The position we are in is that Senator Nettle has moved an amendment to the substantive act—not to the actual content of the bill—that deals with an area not directly related to employer sanctions. The opposition does support the bill dealing with employer sanctions. With regard to the issue Senator Nettle raises, we think, in principle, there is much merit in it. Labor would support an inquiry into the issue of work rights, as raised by Senator Nettle, but is unable to support the amendment, as framed, for the reasons that I have outlined.

But there is much merit in looking at this issue. Of course, more than just bridging visa Es are issued to asylum seekers or those people to whom it has been determined that this country owes an obligation; there are bridging visas issued in a wide variety of circumstances. In fact, the way this government issues bridging visa Es and the way this government uses bridging visa Es should form part of an even broader inquiry. Only this week, Labor moved for an inquiry into the use of 457 visas—that is, the temporary business visas. However, this government opposed that and did not let it proceed. This issue certainly would have been a matter that could have been examined as part of that inquiry. If the Greens want to raise a broader inquiry dealing with this specific matter, certainly the shadow minister would be open to that course. It is a serious issue and I think Senator Nettle has highlighted many of the reasons for it to be dealt with. Senator Nettle pointed quite clearly to why this government has failed to cogently deal with this issue.

It is an area that Labor have also looked at internally in our social policy committee as to the appropriateness of the various restrictions on work rights and Medicare access for asylum seekers, including the 45-day rule. It is an area that also strikes a chord with Labor in that it does require further examination and further work. However, simply to move an amendment in this way tends to cast it into an area where it may in fact have a broader reach than was intended. The amendment does not go to the employer sanctions issue. As I said earlier, I do not want the government to pick up that argument and run with it. I think the government should answer many of the questions raised by Senator Nettle in a way that at least satisfies some of the issues Senator Nettle has raised.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nettle has moved an amendment and has argued the case for this amendment. By way of an aside, I was very pleased to hear Senator Nettle quoting the churches. A few bills will be coming into this chamber in the foreseeable future and I think the churches can be quoted, but it is not always the most telling point to make. I do not doubt the sincerity with which Senator Nettle brings this amendment before the chamber, and I listened very carefully to the arguments. I thought Senator Ludwig made an interesting point and I agree with it: this bill is probably not the appropriate place to deal with this particular issue.

The Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 is designed to ensure that employers employ only those visitors or immigrants who are appropriate. The issue of work rights, which was one spoken about by Senator Nettle for bridging visa E holders, is really a separate issue to do with the management and protection of visa applicants and others. Senator Nettle is aware of the fact that we are having a review at the moment, and one of Senator Nettle’s specific questions relates to the status of this review. This review involves work rights and support for bridging visa holders. So they are being considered as part of this review and the minister expects to receive the department’s report on the review within the next month.

Bridging E visas provide lawful status to noncitizens in a range of circumstances, including those who are unlawful in making arrangements to depart Australia and those who have had a negative decision and are challenging it in the courts or requesting ministerial invention. As at 6 April 2006, there were just over 7,000 BVE holders in Australia, many of whom were people making arrangements to leave. The department is currently reviewing the bridging visa system. As part of this review, the department has consulted with a number of interested parties, including several non-government organisations. Work rights and support for bridging visa holders are being considered, as I said, as part of this review.

It is worth noting that around two-thirds of protection visa applicants apply shortly after their arrival in Australia—and Senator Nettle may not be aware of this—and have work rights and access to Medicare while their application is being considered. Asylum seekers who are unable to meet their basic needs for food, accommodation or health care and who have no other support may qualify for support under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme while their initial application is being considered. To add to that as a point of interest, around a third of the BVE holders have work rights. The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Nettle. We do not think that this is the appropriate bill for this matter. There is a review, which Senator Nettle referred to, and that review will be in the hands of the government within the next month.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put on the record the Democrats’ support for this amendment. It is very much consistent with the longstanding Democrats policy and approach on this issue. A few of the comments that have been made do need a response, I think, and we need to do that in the context of recognising the reality of what this amendment goes to. A significant number of people including people with children are in the Australian community lawfully for very long periods of time with absolutely no support at all. That is the context and that is the reality today. This amendment seeks to ameliorate that situation and I think it should be supported.

We have heard comments that this is not the right bill for it, that the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 does not really address that matter. There is a point to be made there, although I think that it is also able to be linked, frankly. This legislation goes to employers being sanctioned if they employ people without work rights. The reality and the inevitability of forcing people to live in the Australian community for years with zero support is that some of them will by necessity end up having to work illegally to survive. I suggest that goes right to the core of what this legislation is about. We do not want employers employing people who do not have work rights. We do not want people being employed illegally. But we also do not want people left to starve in the Australian community for years and forced to work illegally. And we do not want people to be put in a situation where they might know somebody in that circumstance who is in absolutely desperate straits, who provides them with some sort of casual work—even a very small amount, cash-in-the-hand stuff—which could put them within reach of this legislation.

So I think that it does link. It may seem tenuous but it is a genuine linkage. People who consciously and knowingly work illegally whilst they are in the community unlawfully or people who are here as tourists, for example, who then work when they do not have entitlements to are the problem. But it should not be a circumstance that people who are lawfully resident in Australia for an indefinite period of time—sometimes a very long period of time—are being forced to work just for survival. That is not an appropriate circumstance for a nation like Australia.

As I said in my second reading contribution, there are issues to be balanced here, and I think this amendment seeks to go to those. It does seek to bring in work rights if people have been in possession of the bridging visa E for more than 28 days without work rights and that goes some way to addressing the problem of people seeking to get onto these visas and then stretching out their time here consciously and working the whole time. That is a valid concern. It is one of the reasons some of these restrictions were brought in. But I think that if those concerns are balanced against families, particularly asylum seeker families, left in the community without support or living on charity and in penury for years at a time, then certainly from the Democrats’ point of view it is very clear what the balance should tilt towards. It should be to ensuring that children are not raised in poverty and that people are not left in penury particularly if they are asylum seekers.

I think that it is insufficient to reason that this should not be supported because it is the wrong bill or that we do not tag bills with amendments to deal with other matters. Labor has just spent a number of hours in the second reading stage continuing their campaign on the 457 visa. Again, this has some linkage with the legislation, although I suggest that it does not go to its heart. I think they spent the whole time utilising the opportunity of this legislation to repeat at great length points they wanted to make as part of a broader campaign. So I think it is a bit cute to say that they cannot support this amendment because it is a little bit off topic when we have had a few hours of slightly less than perfect on-topic speeches.

Be that as it may, there is another point that does need to be emphasised. There is a review, and we appreciate that, and I hope that that review does lead to improvements in the current arrangements. The Democrats do not support many aspects of the current arrangements. We opposed the introduction of the 45-day rule, which meant that a number of people who sought protection after they have been in Australia for longer than 45 days got put into the circumstance where they could be without support for prolonged periods of time. We have seen the consequences and they have not been very pretty.

I will also never forget losing a disallowance motion that I moved in this place which put an extra group of people into the category of being without any support once their RRT claim was finalised—a disallowance motion of mine that went down on the vote of then Senator Colston, creating a tied vote and defeating it. I suppose one is not allowed to reflect on a decision of the Senate, even if it is about eight years old, but it is very hard not to when basically a corrupted vote led to this mechanism being in place and many people suffering as a consequence. At least the situation is being reviewed now. I believe this amendment would not circumvent that review; it would address a problem that is real. Certainly, as I said at the start, it is very consistent with the position the Democrats have had for a long time and that we continue to campaign for. It is one that I urge all parties to give consideration to implementing.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, Senator Bartlett, you have provoked me again to stand up and deal with some of the issues that you have raised. I will deal with the latter issues first. It is, as you well know, permissible in speeches in second reading debates to look at topics more broadly. It is one of those areas in which I am sure everybody offends at some point by going just one step too far. It is also permissible at this stage to deal with second reading amendments, which also go more broadly to the substance of the wide range of issues under the bill or related to the bill. In principle, Labor have also maintained in this place that, when you get to the committee stage of bills, you stay relatively on topic.

You made the argument, Senator Bartlett, that section 235 of the Migration Act is on topic. Section 235 currently provides for employee sanctions under the migration legislation. This amendment bill is about employer sanctions, not sanctions on employees. Sanctions on employees have existed for some time. That is, if a person does not have a visa that allows them to work then they are in breach of the legislation as it currently stands—and this legislation does not cavil with that. What this amendment bill does specifically is introduce employer sanctions which are, as I have stated in this place, long overdue. Employer sanctions are a matter that was raised back in 1999 with the then immigration minister, Mr Ruddock, with regard to dealing with illegal workers. It is about time this government acted in that area—and, although belatedly, they are acting, and we do support them on that issue.

We do note that the government will have a review of the bill’s provisions. At the risk of upsetting the minister, I do not know when the review will be finalised, what it will contain or whether it will in fact provide recommendations that will go towards remedying the issues that were raised by Senator Nettle. If my comments suggest that I do lack a little bit of confidence in the review getting to that stage, I suspect the minister understands why I might have that lack of confidence. But the government has indicated it will review the effects of the bill, and it should. It should then bring forward a more comprehensive position. Without seeing that, I cannot comment on it, but I would expect that the government would then act on any recommendations it made to fix the problems that Senator Nettle raised.

On the matter of a more comprehensive review by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, or the references committee, certainly Labor would support that in principle. We would reiterate to the Democrats, as well as to the Greens, that if they also wanted to support a broader inquiry into this area, Labor would support them coming onboard. I would have more confidence in our getting to the bottom of some of the issues and putting forward more proactive recommendations than I would have in any alternative position that the government might put up. But the numbers in this place probably dictate that, without the government’s support for a reference to the committee, that inquiry will not get up, similar to the 457 visa inquiry.

That was one of the other substantive matters that you raised, Senator Bartlett—that this bill was not dealt with by the legislation committee. This matter was not referred to them and therefore they made no recommendations about bringing forward a bridging visa E type work permit. Senator Nettle has pointed to a range of quite concerning circumstances where people do not have work rights—and I suspect the government could also point to a few. There are situations that come to mind where bridging visa Es are provided and where, it would seem to me, they are not the appropriate thing to provide. For example, a holiday visa overstayer, who is therefore in breach of their visa conditions, finds work, and the government, in one of their rare compliance audits—perhaps I should not say that; I should say in one of their compliance audits—discovers them and gives them a bridging visa E before they then send them on their way. In that case, the penalty is in fact repeating the offence. In other words, they were discovered working unlawfully and they are going to be sent back, but they are given a bridging visa E which allows them to work until such time as they do go back. It would seem an illogical result to me. It may not come to pass; the government may change its position and not provide them with a bridging visa E in those circumstances.

Granted, those people are at the other end of the substantive problem that Senator Nettle raised, but we do not know without a proper review or inquiry to look at it more broadly. That is why Labor find ourselves in the position where we do not know all the unintended consequences that might arise. We also know the reality, unfortunately, is that this government will not support such an inquiry and it will not get up, more’s the pity. But I hope Senator Vanstone heard some of the issues raised by Senator Nettle and will provide a more holistic answer than was provided by Senator Kemp, although he did his best. Perhaps Senator Vanstone can add some more helpful information for Senator Nettle.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ludwig for his contribution. I am not sure that Senator Nettle will be happy with what I have to say. What she would like to achieve by virtue of this is quite clear, and I can assure you that the government will not support it, but at the same time I am keen to reinforce that we are having a review. We have been looking at this issue for some time. I have not been happy with some of the ideas that have come up. It is a very difficult area. No-one wants anybody who should be looked after to be in perilous circumstances. They should be able to get the asylum seeker assistance support scheme if that is the situation that they are in. Equally, we do not want to set up a system whereby, when people who may have arrived lawfully and have become unlawful because they have just decided to overstay or they have been through the asylum seeker process and have received a no, we say to them: ‘We set up this very expensive edifice called the migration system. You went through it and you went to the relevant tribunals and through all the courts. You got a no. We know you’re unhappy with that, but, by the way, here’s a visa to stay here lawfully and work as long as you like.’ In the end, there has to be an end point for some people, unless you want to have an open door.

We need to design a system that gets rid of some of the clutter that is there now. I think there is too much clutter. It is not so much complicated—that is, difficult to understand—as messy. The bridging visa arrangements are a bit like a game of pick-up sticks at the moment. I think the arrangements can be simplified. The government can recognise that perhaps the end point in some circumstances will be the same, so we might as well just bite the bullet and wear it. There has to be a means of arriving at a point where someone says: ‘I’ve had every opportunity. I’ve used up a lot of Australian taxpayers’ money to have my case heard. It has been properly heard and I am now going to go.’ In some cases we might agree and in other cases we might disagree about when you get to that point. But, just for the sake of argument, when you get to that point, saying to someone, ‘You’ve got to go—and, by the way, you can keep working and just keep thinking about it,’ is crazy. The alternative is to say, ‘You’ll go into detention and we’ll forcibly deport you.’ It is not sensible to have to get to that point either. It would be better if we could design a system whereby people have all their rights and opportunities and exercise them if they want, at vast expense to taxpayers, but then accept the decision when it finally gets to it.

Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, I say to Senator Nettle and some advocacy groups that an acceptance of when the answer is no would, I think, facilitate much speedier and easier treatment of the ones for whom the answer is yes. I say that because, in any group of 100 people that you are looking at, you know that there are some who are not genuine. You will obviously carefully look at all of them in order to find the genuine ones. If you had greater confidence that, amongst the 100 people, 99 per cent were genuine, I think you would find that there would be easier administration of this. The administration of the immigration area is made harder by people trying it on and it is made harder by people not accepting the final outcome. What I and the department want to achieve is something that is simpler and easier for people to understand. I think that, if it is simpler and easier to understand, that necessarily makes it fairer. It needs to accommodate people who—and I think there would be some broad agreement on this—need to be accommodated, but there needs to be some finality for those who have had their chance, have had their go, and now should go.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her comments, and I will address some of those in a moment. I first want to deal with the issue of whether or not the amendment is relevant to the bill. The contributions on that issue that we heard from Senator Kemp, from the government, and Senator Ludwig, from the opposition, were not only disappointing but dishonest. If they turn to either the explanatory memorandum of this bill—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nettle, I do not think that is appropriate. I think you were referring directly to specific senators when you said that their contributions were dishonest. That is inappropriate and you should withdraw that.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the reference to the individuals and maintain that the position put forward by the government and the opposition that this amendment is not related to this piece of legislation is absolutely false. The explanatory memorandum deals with this issue as one of the six options put forward about how we deal with the very issue of people working illegally in the community. One of the six options that the government proposed extended the work rights to people in the community who do not currently have work rights. I can point any of the people present to the pages—about four of them—in the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill which deal with this issue. I can also point anyone present to the pages in the report of the inquiry into this piece of legislation that deal with this very issue. That is why this amendment is here. It is one of the options that the government looked at and dismissed. Also, it is an option into which there has been not one inquiry but two inquiries—six months of inquiry last year in which we looked at this issue, an inquiry that was chaired by a member of the opposition and for which a recommendation came out. That recommendation—and I shall read it for the Senate—was: ‘The committee recommends that all holders of bridging visa class E should be given work rights.’

So, when Senator Ludwig indicates that the opposition would support an inquiry into this bill, I am well aware of that, because there have been two inquiries already. One of those inquiries, chaired by the opposition, recommended precisely what this amendment does. The organisations in the community, as I indicated previously—like the Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania—which have spent over $1 million in providing financial assistance and in-kind support for people who do not have work rights, do not actually want another inquiry; they want some change on this issue. They want to ensure that people who currently rely on these organisations for charity are able to have the dignity and the respect that they deserve and be able to look after themselves and their families.

The minister spoke about people in this situation. As we have all indicated, there are a number of reasons why people may be on a bridging visa E. I am happy for the minister to correct me if I am wrong but, in the evidence given by her department to the inquiry into this legislation on this issue, they talked about the number of people who had protection visa applications on hand with the department or who were going through merits review. It is my understanding that there are people who are given a bridging visa E so that they can live in the community while their claim is being assessed. They will be at a variety of stages, I would imagine, in going through that procedure but there are people who are still having their claims assessed that are on bridging visa Es. If I am wrong about that I am more than happy to be corrected, but it is my understanding that there are people who are living in the community having their asylum claims assessed.

As I indicated previously when I spoke to the chamber, some of these people have been on bridging visa Es for eight years. The example the Catholic Church provided to the Migration Act inquiry indicated the circumstances of an individual who had been on this kind of visa for eight years without the ability to work. These are the people we are trying deal with in this amendment, and that is why we have framed it in this way: we are talking about the people who have been on this visa for a long time and whether or not they should have an entitlement. I acknowledge the minister says that it is an issue we need to deal with and that is why I asked, prior to her being here, about where the review was up to, knowing that the department is doing a review into this issue.

It is an ongoing concern, and I acknowledge the minister’s comments that it is an ongoing concern that needs to be dealt with. Given that we have had two inquiries looking into this issue, one of which has recommended that people on bridging visa Es be given access to work rights, I am moving this amendment on behalf of the Australian Greens to ensure that those people do get access to those work rights. I can see from the refusal of the government and the opposition to support this that it may not pass, but what I and all of those people who support people in our community who are on bridging visa Es without work rights are hoping is that, out of the government review into this issue, this issue will be addressed so that those people who live in the community for years and rely on charity and church groups to support them are able to hold their heads high, access employment and look after their families.

Perhaps while the minister is here she could indicate, if possible, how many people in the community are in this situation. We have had some indications—and I note comments already about the number of people on bridging visa Es, what proportion have work rights and what proportion do not and the contribution to this inquiry by the department—but if the minister were able to give a figure about the number of people in the community on bridging visa Es without work rights to the Senate, it would help us to be clear in this debate and would be much appreciated.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that there are about 7,000 people on BVEs in Australia, many of whom are making arrangements to leave and many of whom are people who would have put their asylum claim in within 45 days—that is, they came here with the intention of doing it. That is fair enough. That is what it is meant to be: you can come to Australia, seek asylum and be dealt with properly. There will be others within that group who will not have applied within 45 days and a number—and I cannot put a figure on it—who will only have discovered in their own minds that they might need protection about seven years after getting here when they have finally been caught overstaying. It is amazing what insight people have into the protection they need once they have been caught, and that just further delays it.

Through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, the senator raises one of the problems with the immigration system. She talks of a family who have been here for eight years going through the processes. When you consider that the immigration department either wins or the other side withdraws from over 90 per cent of their cases, you have to ask yourself: who is telling some of these people to hold on and waste their money, time and effort and, more importantly, their own heartstrings and nervous energy pursuing a matter to the nth degree?

We have a system that enables people to do that. I have indicated that we are reviewing the system. We want something that is more sensible, but the proposition being put—that everybody on a bridging visa who does not have work rights is a person who is being persecuted and not looked after—is frankly crazy. People who need it can get the asylum seeker assistance, and we are not going to set up a system whereby people will be given lawful status in Australia and work rights to stay forever and a day. We will set up a system that we think is simpler, cleaner and therefore, I think, fairer but it will have an end point.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the minister for the indication that there are around 7,000 people on bridging visa Es in the community. If she is able to at a later date provide us with some more information about how many of those people do not have work rights, that would be appreciated. The minister spoke about her belief that people who need it have access to the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme. The minister may well be aware of a report into people on bridging visa Es carried out by the Hotham Mission, in which they make a number of recommendations, including that asylum seeker children should have access to the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme throughout the protection visa and the 417 stages from the time of lodging to final outcome and that that should include asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas. These are recommendations that have been made by one of the organisations involved in the asylum seeker project in Victoria to ensure that people do have access to the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme that the minister has spoken about. I would question whether everyone who needs it has it—otherwise, why would these organisations be recommending that children have access to that particular scheme?

The minister spoke about the need for people to accept final outcomes, which is something that we have heard her say here in the Senate on a number of occasions. One of the great difficulties for asylum seekers who are in this situation is that throughout the process they are given a number of decisions which are presented to them as final outcomes. I think of one asylum seeker that I spoke with recently, who was on Nauru for several years. He was given a number of final outcomes, in which he was told that he was not an asylum seeker. He had the experience of having departmental officials talking to him about a scheme known by the government as ‘voluntary repatriation’, whereby he was offered either $1,000 or $2,000—I cannot remember which it was—to go back to his country of origin. He did not accept.

Some time later, he received another final outcome from the department—one which, after the several years that he had spent on Nauru and the three previous final outcomes he had been given by the department of immigration, said that he was now being recognised as a refugee. And there are numerous asylum seekers throughout the community, many of whom I and I am sure others have met, who have gone through the experience of being given decisions by the department of immigration that are presented to them as final outcomes. After sometimes years in detention and in Nauru they are given a different final outcome—one which says they are a refugee.

That is one of the difficulties that I have with the minister’s comments that these people should accept the final outcomes. The track record of her department is not one which is able to give me as a parliamentarian or indeed asylum seekers in this country confidence that the final outcomes, as the minister puts it, that are being given are based on genuine and expansive investigations into the circumstances of each case. If that were the case then we would not see people who have sat in Nauru for many years, when they finally get access to some legal advice or when a migration agent is finally able to go to Nauru to hear their cases, all of a sudden getting a different final outcome, which says: ‘You are asylum seekers. We have kept you on Nauru for however many years and told you that you were not refugees, but now that you have been able to have access to a migration agent we have found that you are refugees.’ So, when the minister says we need people to be accepting these final outcomes, I think—and certainly the Greens think—that we need these final outcomes from the department to be accurate. Then we would have a situation which would increase the confidence of people going through the refugee determination process and members of parliament that decisions are being made accurately.

I read in the Sydney Morning Herald today about one such asylum seeker, a gentleman from West Papua. This man’s father was one of the thousand chosen by the Indonesians and asked to vote on whether West Papua should be part of Indonesia. Unsurprisingly, the father, like the other 1,025 hand-picked individuals, said, ‘We will comply with the threats being put to us and say that West Papua should be part of Indonesia.’ His son—who was being threatened and intimidated in the village that he lived in in the south of West Papua, in Merauke—travelled with his wife and children over to Papua New Guinea.

According to the Secretary of the Department of Border Affairs in Papua New Guinea—whom I met with some weeks ago, when I was there—the man was in Papua New Guinea for fewer than seven days before he arrived by boat in the Torres Strait. At that point, he and two colleagues handed over a letter which indicated that they were claiming asylum. They were taken in a helicopter by the Australian government and department of immigration and put in a hotel, where they had no access to Amnesty International, to the Red Cross, to lawyers, to human rights advocates or to journalists who wanted to speak to them. The department of immigration provided him with an Indonesian interpreter, who said: ‘Do not raise your concerns about the issue of the independence of West Papua. You should not raise in your discussions with the department of immigration, which has employed me as an interpreter, your concerns about the independence of West Papua, because that issue has been dealt with.’ So, he was provided with an interpreter by the department of immigration whose advice was: ‘Do not talk about the persecution you have experienced in your country at the hands of my government.’ Of course, that was the Indonesian government. As a result of that, some discussions occurred between the Australian government and the government of Papua New Guinea. Australia has signed agreements with the government of Papua New Guinea in which the Australian government has said that if people spend more than seven days in Papua New Guinea fleeing persecution in West Papua then the Papua New Guinean government must agree to take them back. The Greens do not agree with those agreements, but we have signed them.

So I was very interested to have the meeting I had in Papua New Guinea with the secretary of Border Affairs. He indicated to me in our discussions that the gentleman we are talking about, whose story was in the Sydney Morning Herald today, had not spent seven days in Papua New Guinea before arriving in the Torres Strait on his way to Australia. During that period of time, his wife and children were in a village near the border with Papua New Guinea. And, during that period—in which he was being held by the department of immigration in a hotel in the Torres Strait without access to lawyers, human rights advocates, journalists or support—his youngest daughter died.

The man is now in East Awin settlement, which is one of the most remote parts of Papua New Guinea. To travel there involves an extraordinarily expensive flight to one of the nearby towns. Then you go along the Fly River by canoe. And then, if you have a tractor with a big enough axle, you go along the muddy road that takes you in the direction of the refugee camp. But you cannot get a tractor all the way down the road, so you have to get off and walk into the camp, which holds 2,500 West Papuan refugees, who have been found by the UNHCR to be refugees.

Some people have been living there for 20 years. When I was in Papua New Guinea I met a 25-year-old woman who was living on the edges of Port Moresby. She had spent several years of her life in this settlement, where this man who was held by the department of immigration in the Torres Strait is now, and I asked her what it had been like there. When I asked her that question tears started rolling down her face. She apologised to me. She said: ‘I’m sorry. When you ask me that question it reminds me of how horrible it was.’

She and her family come from a small island in the north of West Papua. They have been fisherpeople all their lives. That is how they have survived. They were put into this settlement which, as I described, is in a completely remote area, a landlocked area, of Papua New Guinea. They were put there without the capacity to survive. Some families have been there for 20 years and are still there. She was lucky. She had an uncle in Port Moresby who was able to fly her and her family to Port Moresby, where they now struggle to survive. The day I saw them they were cooking food for a soccer team they had set up amongst the West Papuan refugees living in that area, because they wanted some activities for the young men to do so they could have a meaningful engagement in their lives and not get caught up in any criminal elements in that area.

This was her experience and this was the experience of the man who arrived on an island in the Torres Strait seeking the protection of the Australian government. He is now in that refugee camp. He did not spend more than seven days in Papua New Guinea. No, the secretary of that department in Papua New Guinea told me he spent less than seven days there. But the Australian government made a special arrangement to allow this man and his two colleagues to be taken back to this remote settlement where they are now. This arrangement was made at a time when the Australian government was proposing in legislation to this parliament that all asylum seekers who arrived here by boat should be taken to Nauru—legislation that came out directly as a result of the arrival in Australia of 43 West Papuans and the response and the criticism of the Indonesian government.

While this was going on, some West Papuans arrived in the Torres Strait. They were held incommunicado from any people in the community they wanted to engage with. They were given an Indonesian interpreter who said to them, ‘Don’t raise the issues of the independence of West Papua.’ Then a special arrangement was made with the government of Papua New Guinea to take these people back. This man now lives in a remote settlement where the only resources provided are as a result of the goodwill of the Catholic Church in that area. The UNHCR recently bought some water tanks so they could get water while living in that refugee camp.

Those are the circumstances in which this man has found himself through his interaction with the department of immigration. So when the minister says to me that she wants asylum seekers who go through this procedure in Australia to accept their final outcome, I think about that gentleman and I think about the many other people in Australia and elsewhere who have had similar experiences with the department of immigration. Vivian Solon, Cornelia Rau: I wonder what confidence they have in the department of immigration to make genuine decisions on their final outcome.

If the minister spent more time ensuring that her department could make accurate final outcome decisions perhaps she would have some success in the area in which she seeks success. But right now I have no confidence that the minister and her department will be able to make accurate final outcome decisions with the raft of asylum seekers that they deal with. When the minister asks me and asylum seekers to have confidence, I believe she needs to look at the track record of her government and her department. (Time expired)

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not indulge myself by giving a soliloquy on my last visit to a refugee camp. I will just thank Senator Nettle for pointing out that people do spend up to 20 years in these stinking, terrible places. That is one of the reasons the government has a very strong commitment to border security: because we do not believe that people should be able to self-select who comes and takes our refugee and humanitarian places. We will take advice from the UNHCR. We have certain disagreements with them, and they are sometimes quite substantial, but they are the appropriate body to make those decisions. That is why we have strong border control—because we say: ‘No, you’re not going to take our places. These places are for those most in need and they are in these camps.’

Senator Nettle referred to decisions vis-a-vis people on Nauru and the point was made that an initial decision or a review decision might not be correct. I simply make two points in relation to that. What the senator is talking about is a case load on Nauru that was notoriously difficult. The difference between people from Afghanistan and Pakistan, when they might be in neighbouring villages, is just a line on a map; it is nothing more than that. Those people who arrive with their papers and who can give a cogent story assist themselves in being identified. Those people who do not arrive with any ID—particularly if they feel that they cannot keep their ID, albeit they managed, for example, to fly to Indonesia and have some form of identity documents, even if they were false documents, required for the purpose of escaping—can usually, when they arrive, give a cogent story as to where they lived. If they cannot do that it necessarily brings it into question.

What has happened is that after the expiration of time people’s circumstances might have changed in a country. That does not mean there was a wrong decision in the first place. It means they were not in need of protection then but their circumstances have changed and they are now in need of protection. A change of heart there, I think, is a good thing. It is a good thing that a department recognises when there are changed circumstances and is prepared to say, ‘We didn’t think you were a refugee then but we do now.’ Furthermore, it is a good thing that, if someone is able to produce material that, for example, identifies someone as being from Afghanistan and not Pakistan, a government is prepared to accept that. That is not a case for saying, ‘We’ll just stay here forever,’ and to run the line that Senator Nettle was trying to run, that the immigration department’s decisions are incompetent and that therefore it should never be trusted and people should be able to stay here at taxpayers’ expense for as long as they like until finally somebody gives in.

The UNHCR came out with the same assessments that we did on Nauru. This was not a function of the nasty, mean Australian government. The same assessments were made by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. And in both case loads there were subsequent changes.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder whether the minister is able to indicate whether the Australian government has accepted any West Papuan refugees assessed by the UNHCR to be asylum seekers—the 2,500 living in the settlement or any of the other thousands that live in Papua New Guinea—through the offshore program.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nettle, I find it hard to imagine that you are wondering that, because you have had a long interest in this area and you have had plenty of opportunity to ask millions of questions at estimates hearings, and you would be well aware of the fact that we take advice from the UNHCR as to from where we take the people most in need. And you would be familiar with the broad outlines that have been covered at estimates on numerous occasions when you have been there—namely, that about 70 per cent of our case load comes from Africa, and the remaining case load comes from a range of other places. If you want to put a specific question about a specific camp, as opposed to any other, I am happy to take it on notice and get the answer for you.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. It has been helpful for Minister Vanstone to answer many of the issues that have been raised by Senator Nettle. But in answering those and looking at bridging visa E, it might be helpful to understand the visas more broadly. In other words, it might be helpful to look at the type of visa a person was on prior to bridging visa E and then the outcome of that—that is, how many visas, like tourist visas, have been cancelled and bridging visas E then issued—because this is not only a humanitarian issue; it is more broad than that. But the minister can take that on notice. I will not pursue that during this committee stage. I will follow it up during estimates hearings.

In answer to Senator Nettle, I do not want you to think that our objection was grounded only in that issue. It was a subsidiary issue. The main objection is that it is a broad application that you have sought to amend, and you have used section 73 to do that. The specifics of much of the work in the committee stage usually go to amending or adding to the bill that we have before us. In fact, you could have perhaps used section 245 as a way in, with a type of amendment, which could have given you the ability to use the provisions of this bill. Certainly, when I look at it—I am not trying to give you advice—I see that as a way of providing the outcome you were seeking, rather than the method you have chosen. So I am not cavilling with the fact that it is an issue. I am saying, more specifically, that it is not Labor’s view—it might be your position—that we should use a type of tagging mechanism which amends section 73 of the Migration Act. My preference would have been to amend the existing bill to provide for the issue that you have outlined.

As I have said, the better way—because it is not an issue that arose directly—would be to have this matter subject to a review. Certainly the offer is still open to have a review into this area, to examine it more closely and put it up. The government, I know, is conducting its own review but, as I have said, I am not confident about the outcome of that. I would put more weight in a legal and constitutional legislation committee. The government might be able to indicate, even today, whether it would support a motion which would allow a reference of that issue to be brought forward, if the Greens and Democrats were minded to agree to it.

The other issues that I raised still remain valid. Senator Nettle, I should not direct my comments to you. More broadly, to be slightly pedantic, if you examine the EM, option 6—which you go to—comes under the RIS, the regulatory impact statement. It is not part of the explanatory memorandum which deals with the bill. You referred to option 6 but that was rejected by the government. I wonder why they are conducting a review into it if it was rejected as part of that process but, be that as it may, it is a broad government examination of the problem dealt with during a regulatory impact statement; it is not directly related to the provisions in the bill.

That is the only point I make. It is a fine point. It does not prevent you from using the committee stage to amend the legislation. You are certainly free to do that, as you have done, and we will form a view on that and vote accordingly. All I am saying is that our position—not your position—is that it is not a usual thing for us to do. We do not necessarily agree with it, but that is not why we do not support your amendment. The broad view is as I outlined earlier. I will not go to those areas again. This is just a part of the reasoning we bring to bear in making a decision not to support the amendment.

As I said, the principle you enunciated is supported by Labor. This is an area of great concern and a problem that needs to be addressed very seriously and urgently. I am not confident—as you are not, I suspect, Senator Nettle—that the government is taking it sufficiently seriously with a review. I am not confident as to when the review will be finalised and that any recommendations of the review will go to fixing all the issues you have raised. They are serious and they impact upon people negatively. There are people who suffer in the community as a consequence of actions by this government in this area of migration—as in other areas as well, might I say.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to check as to whether the minister is able to provide the Senate with any more detail and numbers about the 7,000 people who are on bridging visas. I take it the answer is no. Is the minister able to indicate whether she anticipates that any legislation will come before the parliament as a result of the review being carried out by the department in looking at the issue of bridging visas? Is it anticipated that there will be a legislative response? Is the minister able to indicate that?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not certain at this point.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I suppose we are left with the situation where we have the opportunity here today to decide whether or not people living in the community with a bridging visa E and having their claims for asylum assessed should be able to work. The Australian Greens say that they should. This amendment is before the Senate today so that we can determine whether or not these people, some of whom are here for eight years and some of whom are here for a far shorter period, will be able to work. Some of those 7,000 people living in the community on a bridging visa E will have work rights—I am not quite sure how many—but many of them will not. In fact, I believe it was indicated to the Senate previously that the majority will not.

Should they have the capacity to contribute to the Australian community? Should people like the welder I spoke of previously, who has expertise in five different types of welding, any one of which would qualify him as a first-class welder for the skilled migration program, be allowed to do so? Should people like the head chef with 30 years experience in an international hotel chain be able to contribute? These are the questions the Senate is being asked today. Should these people be able to contribute to alleviating the skills shortage that exists in Australia and to the Australian economy? Should they be able to look after themselves as individuals and provide for their families or should they have to rely on the goodwill of the church and community organisations around this country? Just in Victoria and Tasmania the Uniting Church spends over $1 million looking after these people, so one can anticipate that, across the country, millions of dollars are being contributed through church and welfare organisations to provide for these people who are living in the community whilst their asylum claims are being assessed. Should they or should they not be able to work? That is the question the Senate is being asked today, and the Australian Greens say that they should.

The Australian Greens say that, during the years that these people are sometimes on bridging visas, they should be able to work, provide for their families, contribute to the Australian economy and be a part of our community. That is the contribution we would like to see, and the opportunity is here before us today to determine whether or not to give these people the opportunity to contribute their skills to our country and to provide for their families rather than to rely on the goodwill and the charity of the church organisations which currently provide for them—and which have to provide for them. They do not have access to work rights and they do not have access to the same Medicare services as others in the community. They are reliant on the goodwill and generosity of the Australian people. That goodwill and generosity is there amongst the Australian people, and we ask today that it be there on the part of the Australian government. That is the question which is before the Senate today and on which the Australian Greens say yes. Let these people earn an income and contribute to our community whilst they wait for their asylum claims to be assessed. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Nettle’s) be agreed to.