Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Migration Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 6), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 143 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.

These migration regulation amendments issued by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship remove the requirement for onshore protection visa applicants to lodge their application within 45 days of arrival in Australia in order to be eligible for a right to work and Medicare benefits. Onshore protection visa applicants are generally granted a bridging visa while their claims are being assessed or reviewed. However, no work rights or Medicare benefits are currently available to people who are applying for a protection visa and who have been in Australia for 45 days or more in the 12 months before their application is made.

The 45-day rule will be replaced with a new test that provides that the minister must be satisfied that the applicant has a compelling need to work and the reasons for the delay in making the application for a protection visa are acceptable to the minister. The amendments will essentially allow all onshore protection visa applicants—at all stages of the application and lengthy appeal process, and regardless of whether they were lawful or unlawful at various stages of their time in Australia—to apply for permission to work, which presumably will be likely to be granted in all but the most exceptional of circumstances.

Amid the increase of boatloads of illegal arrivals, the minister’s silence on this issue is deafening. One has to delve deeply into the minister’s website to find any reference to these changes. These changes were announced as part of the 2009-10 budget in May this year, and at the time the only reference to these planned changes was buried deep within the portfolio budget statement. In fact, we had to wait until the minister’s press release of 1 July 2009 to find out more details of the Labor government’s proposed changes. Even then he only devoted a paragraph worth of explanation.

To understand Minister Evans’s silence, we need to be aware of the context in which these changes are being made. Australia is currently facing a drastic rise in the number of illegal arrivals through the criminal activity of people-smuggling. It seems to be a regular occurrence now, almost every week a new boatload of asylum seekers are intercepted by the Royal Australian Navy or the Australian Customs Service patrols.

Since the Rudd government abolished the temporary protection visa and further watered down the strong immigration policies of the coalition, there has been a steady stream of smuggler boats carrying a total of 1,293 asylum seekers, with an unknown number drowned at sea or intercepted and held in detention in Indonesia. In addition, and following the debate earlier in relation to the detention debt bill, it is very clear that we have approximately 48,000 overstayers in Australia at any given time.

Minister Evans knows that the policies of his government have directly led to an increase in the instances of people-smuggling to Australia. Despite these simple facts, the minister’s departmental website is littered with media spin falsely promoting his government as being tough on the issue of people-smuggling. It is no surprise that amid the spin we find only one minor reference to the government’s changes allowing greater work and Medicare rights to asylum seekers. This, of course, comes at a time when the Australian people expect the government to be directing their attention to deterring the criminal activity of people-smuggling. If the government feels so strongly about these changes, then clearly it should be actively promoting them to the Australian people. Indeed, it has been Labor Party policy for some time to change the system of access to work rights and Medicare benefits for refugees.

The Australian Labor Party National Platform and Constitution 2007 states in chapter 13:

Labor recognises that the arbitrary 45-day-rule results in legitimate asylum seekers on bridging visas being unnecessarily denied the right to work while their claim is being processed.

It is worth remembering that the statement was made in 2007, at a time when the Howard government’s tough stance on people-smuggling had reduced the flood of illegal boats to just a trickle. It is no wonder that, amid a surge in the number of boats, the Labor government is being noticeably silent over these changes.

The government earlier today debated the amendments which abolished immigration detention debt obligations, except for people-smugglers and illegal fishers. It is important to note that during that debate the key point raised by the coalition was that asylum seekers found to be refugees have their detention debts waived or written off. Other illegals who were subsequently granted visas can have their detention debt waived or written off. In relation to overstayers who have breached their visa conditions and are placed in detention, it is entirely appropriate that they meet their detention debts. If they depart Australia without paying their detention debt, the coalition argued that they should meet those obligations before they are granted a visa to return to Australia in the future. Overstayers who depart voluntarily or are deported are still required to meet their removal costs. This debt is registered on the movement alert list and will be taken into account should that person choose to return to Australia at a future date.

If this program is poorly administered, then administrative arrangements should be improved rather than the government abandoning another deterrent mechanism. Rather than dismantling the system and abolishing the framework for detention debt, the waiver and the writing-off procedures should have been retained for consideration on merit. Further changes such as these act only to weaken our well-established and effective system of deterrence. The coalition has always been committed to an orderly and humanely managed immigration and refugee program, and we will continue to ensure that Australia remains one of the most generous providers of humanitarian settlement in the world. However, we will do this in a way that does not encourage unauthorised arrivals.

The Rudd Labor government has systematically unravelled the measures which previously kept our borders secure and have ensured a properly managed immigration system. This includes abolishing temporary protection visas, the proposed creation of a protection visa for those who are not eligible for refugee protection under the rules of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and now these changes to the 45-day rule. People-smugglers clearly have a well-established pipeline to Australia and are using the Rudd government’s softer policies to recruit more. Instead of sending out the right messages with policies to end this trade, the Labor government is instead proceeding with its program of deliberately softening border protection and immigration measures. We have seen a raft of changes in the department since July last year, all geared towards softening border protection and immigration measures and sending the wrong message. The shadow minister for immigration and the Leader of the Opposition have consistently called for an inquiry into the linkage between softening of policy and the surge of illegal arrivals. Such an inquiry is now long overdue and it is time this Labor government looked at the evidence, toughened up and took decisive action.

I would like to remind the Senate about the history of the 45-day rule. The coalition introduced the 45-day rule in July 1997. The rationale for this and other measures introduced at about the same time, such as the $1,000 charge for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal if applicants were unsuccessful, was to discourage bogus claims. In a speech to the National Administrative Law Forum in May 1997, then immigration minister, Philip Ruddock, explained his rationale for the new rule:

I have particular concerns in relation to those who travel to Australia on a visitor visa, with the necessary documents issued by their own government to travel here, and who seek to claim refugee status in Australia.

I am gravely concerned by reports I have received that people are using the onshore protection system to obtain work rights and access to Medicare. There are people who apply to my Department asking for the $30 work visa who appear not to be bona fide asylum seekers. These applicants seek to delay their departure as long as possible knowing full well they are not refugees.

This abuse costs tax payers millions of dollars, undermines public confidence in the system and causes processing delays, disadvantaging genuine applicants.

There is no reason to expect that the number of potentially bogus claims would be fewer in the future after these changes, given other recent softenings of the Labor government’s migration policy. In fact, with the dropping of the 45-day rule, one would expect that the number of vexatious claims would rise.

Indeed, one only has to consider the words of Minister Ruddock and the circumstances in Australia at the moment, given the number of overstayers that we have in this country—about 48,500—to easily see that, for example, international visitors and students may come to this country for a particular purpose and suddenly decide at the end of their time here, now that we no longer having that 45-day-rule barrier, to claim refugee status in Australia, irrespective of the documentation they had when they originally arrived. Therefore, I am very concerned that the abolition of this rule will result in quite a number of vexatious claims.

It must be remembered that income support is currently provided to asylum seekers who are unable to meet their basic needs for food, accommodation and health care while their applications for protection visas are being assessed. The assistance is provided through the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, which provides 89 per cent of Centrelink benefits. It is run by the Australian Red Cross. After an asylum seeker has received a decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal, they are no longer eligible for this assistance. Under article 24 of the refugee convention, governments are required to provide state support for refugees equivalent to that provided for resident citizens. However, this requirement does not cover asylum seekers.

The 45-day rule has been effective in limiting abuse of the system. Vexatious claims occur mostly when international students and visitors exploit the chance to extend their time to earn wages in Australia. As we well know, and as I certainly saw in my many years of experience dealing in immigration law with the Australian Government Solicitor, appeals in this area can take a long time. Given the processes that are available, this can mean a highly extended period of time during which unsuccessful applicants will potentially receive unemployment benefits and Medicare assistance.

The arguments in support of retaining the 45-day rule for asylum seekers include the fact that most asylum seekers in the community have entered on visitor visas, which include no work rights or Medicare assistance. Nevertheless, they are given work rights and access to Medicare until their applications for protection visas are refused at the merit review stage if they apply within 45 days of entry. Secondly, so far as past governments have been concerned, asylum seekers whose claims for protection are rejected by the department and rejected again following merit review by the Refugee Review Tribunal are failed asylum seekers. The fact that they are able to pursue claims through the court should not entitle them to access the job market and other benefits and support. This creates a situation where, if one looks at the media reports, one sees some students doing courses for years, in areas in which they will never practice or undertake work, for the specific purpose of remaining here in Australia. At this time, given the economic circumstances, it is legitimate that Australia and Australians would question whether such persons should be also entitled to Medicare and unemployment benefits, especially given the levels of unemployment and, in particular, the very high levels of underemployment currently in our economy.

Thirdly, if the asylum seeker process is seen to be abused by people who have already been in Australia for months or years, it may indeed create a backlash against all asylum seekers in the community. Fourthly, the removal of the 45-day rule will further soften Australia’s border security and immigration policy, which is designed to provide all Australians with strong border security and an effective immigration system.

In conclusion, the opposition supports this motion for the reasons that I have outlined, given the very legitimate concerns about the potential problems, relating to abuse in particular, that removal of the 45-day rule may cause, especially in circumstances in Australia at the moment where we do have high unemployment and other real issues to deal with. I think this is a legitimate concern that Australians would want examined.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the disallowance motion before us that has been put forward by the coalition. This, of course, is an attempt to prevent a better system of community support for asylum seekers while their applications are being processed. The idea of this disallowance motion is to stop this better process from being implemented. I would like to state that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Greens do not support the coalition’s attempt to take us back to a system in which asylum seekers are denied basic access to services such as health and welfare support. In fact, the Greens have been at the forefront of pushing and lobbying for the removal of the 45-day rule, so there is no way that we would support the coalition’s motion. What we see before us today is another attempt by the coalition to mount a scare campaign—that Australia is sending a message to people-smugglers that we are going soft on people-smuggling. I do not know how far from the truth the coalition can be when talking about the basic rights of desperate human beings seeking our protection.

We are talking about the most vulnerable people—people who have fled persecution in search of a better life for themselves and their families. Yet the coalition, through this disallowance motion, are seeking to prolong the unacceptable, undeserved hardship of those in the most need of support and assistance. For the past 12 years we have had a system that has meant for asylum seekers who have not applied for a protection visa within a 45-day period after their arrival in Australia the denial of work rights, welfare support and access to Medicare whilst waiting for their visa application to be processed. The fact is that there are many legitimate reasons why an asylum seeker may not lodge a protection claim within 45 days of arrival in Australia, such as being given the wrong information by family and friends, having limited English skills or lacking an understanding of Australia’s immigration rules and processes. The coalition are attempting a return to a system where asylum seekers are dependent on charities for basic survival—a system we do not have to, and should not want to, return to.

This draconian policy, introduced by the coalition to ‘prevent extensive abuse of the refugee processing regime and limit the making of vexatious claims’ has resulted in many asylum seekers living in conditions of extreme destitution, with social isolation a common occurrence. This has meant that their basic mental and physical health has been impacted upon. Many key refugee and an asylum seeker advocates have highlighted the serious effects on the mental and physical state of asylum seekers who are unable to support themselves due to the current imposition of the 45-day rule. The imposition of this rule has meant the deterioration in health of asylum seekers and a complete dependence on charities, churches and community groups for basic day-to-day living requirements while their application is being processed.

When this policy was introduced the Howard government simply accepted that other people would carry the can, that other people would offer the support and assistance that these vulnerable human beings needed, and that, for some reason, it was not the role of the government, who had signed up to the UN refugee convention. The Australian Human Rights Commission, in evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s inquiry into Australia’s immigration system, stated:

... the [current] conditions and restrictions attached to some bridging visas may significantly impact on the ability of asylum seekers and refugees to exercise their basic human rights, including the right to work, the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to the highest attainable standard of health.

Is this really a policy that we want to retain? Is this really the type of immigration policy we should be proud of? I think not.

Statistics prove that there is a higher visa grant rate—that is, around 36 per cent—among asylum seekers who have applied after the 45 days than those that have applied within the 45-day limit, which is at 20 per cent. This clearly puts at rest the argument from the opposition that there is some link between the time that a person lodges the protection visa application and the merit of their claim. That argument is clearly false.

Last year the joint standing committee also heard from the Hotham Mission’s asylum seeker project. The Hotham Mission gave the committee an example of a client that has been affected by the imposition of the arbitrary 45-day rule. According to the Hotham Mission, their client, who has a master’s in social work, was not aware of the 45-day rule when he arrived here. So clearly it was not a deterrent. He has subsequently been denied the right to work for three years. The mission said:

His mental health has deteriorated because he frankly has nothing to do and he is living on $33 a week.

This is despite the fact that he is willing to work, willing to be a participant in his local community.

He has recently been linked into mental health services and has been deemed unable to work due to his mental health issues. If he even does get a visa now he will be a greater cost to the community than he would have been if he had been allowed to work.

So is this really a cost-effective policy in terms of monetary cost or social and human impact? Clearly it is not.

While the Asylum Seekers Assistance Scheme can provide some financial assistance, having no permission to work and being reliant on welfare and other support networks that may or may not be easily accessible does cause substantial alienation and psychological problems for those asylum seekers awaiting their visa resolution. Why would the coalition want to put more hardship and stress on a group of individuals that have fled dangerous and traumatic circumstances in their home country simply in search of a better life? It beggars belief that we are being told by the coalition that these people should not be able to go and get a job, work, sustain themselves, prove that they actually want to start a new life and participate in the community. We need to be looking far beyond the ignorance that is currently being spewed from some of the members of the coalition.

Placing punitive work, health and welfare restrictions on those seeking our protection is an abhorrent policy, and we as elected parliamentarians must not allow it to continue any longer. I commend the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship—this is the second time today that I have commended the minister—on moving to a more humane approach. In this aspect he has stayed true to Labor’s 2007 election promise, where they clearly stated that they:

... recognise the arbitrary 45-day-rule results in legitimate asylum seekers on bridging visas being unnecessarily denied the right to work while their claim is being processed.

So good on the government for actually standing by at least one of their election promises.

After the Senate today voted historically to overturn the appalling policy of detention debts, the coalition still have the gall to come in here and argue that this rule should not be overturned here. They are clearly out of touch with what the Australian community thinks is acceptable, humane and fair. It is time for them to step back and perhaps rethink where their party is sitting on these issues, because they clearly are not in touch with the Australian public. It just highlights over and over that there is a lot of cleaning up to do in the coalition ranks. This disallowance motion is just another example of the regressive immigration stance that the coalition continues to advocate.

We have moved beyond the days when people turned a blind eye to locking children in detention, to vulnerable people sewing their lips together in the middle of the desert. We have moved beyond that. Let’s keep moving forward. Let’s keep moving towards becoming a country with a reputation that we should be proud of. We have now abolished detention debts—fantastic. Let’s not go back to a place where we think that vulnerable people should be left to beg for the support of charitable organisations because the government does not want to take the responsibility that has been clearly outlined in our obligations under the refugee convention.

I should note that none of the unfair, inhumane and punitive policies on asylum seekers that have been implemented—such as the 45-day rule, the temporary protection visa regime or even detention debts—has ever been shown to be an effective deterrent to people seeking asylum. Why is that? Because when people are desperate for freedom and protection of their families it does not matter what is written on the government’s website or whether the Australian government has overturned or accepted a disallowable motion of a particular policy. Desperate, vulnerable people will always seek protection and freedom for themselves and their families. And it is something that we, as Australian citizens and as parliamentarians of a country that advocates for fairness and justice, have a responsibility to uphold.

What happened to the Australian fair go? It clearly disappeared—it was dissolved—during the 12 years of the Howard government. Let’s not go back there. Let’s move forward. Let’s ensure that we become the compassionate, humane nation that we desperately want to be.

So, the entire basis of the coalition’s argument that we are seeing an ‘influx’ of ‘illegal entrants’ due to the removal of these policies is clearly redundant. What should be noted, however, is that the existence of these punitive polices has been not only a blight on Australia’s international human rights reputation but also a clear breach, as I have pointed out, of our international human rights obligations—a claim that is supported by organisations such as the UN Human Rights Committee, the UNHCR and the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The Greens, as I said right at the beginning, have been advocating for years for this unfair regime to be removed, and I hope that the Senate will see sense, as it did earlier today, and quash the attempt of the opposition to continue to keep this oppressive 45-day rule regime. I would like to stress, as I did at the beginning of my contribution, that the Greens do not, and never will, accept any attempts to turn back the clock to the dark days when we locked children in detention and threw away the key, to the dark days when we thought it was okay for the person in the highest office of the land, the Prime Minister, to demonise the world’s most vulnerable people. The Greens will not allow that to happen. We must get rid of this 45-day rule, and there is absolutely no way we will be supporting the coalition’s scare campaign and voting for this motion. We will absolutely not do that.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our vote on this regulation today will not change the country. It will not pave new highways, fix our hospitals or build more schools. But it will show that we are a nation of compassion by righting a wrong that is causing needless suffering to people in our country.

These regulations amend the Migration Regulations 1994 to abolish the 45-day rule for some bridging visa subclasses and make new provisions such as for the right to work, income support and access to Medicare. Introduced in 1997, applicants must have applied within 45 days of arriving in Australia or relinquish their right to work, access to Medicare and funding for torture and trauma counselling.

It has been estimated that 40 per cent of these applicants do not meet this deadline due to poor English skills or the lack of, or incorrect, information given by well-meaning but badly-informed family or community members. Unable to work to support themselves, asylum seekers are forced to rely on the charity of churches and community groups for financial support, food, and, as many live out in the community, assistance with accommodation.

The American Vice President Hubert Humphrey once observed that compassion is not a weakness and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism. It is not a mark of pride for this parliament that successive governments have devalued these principles in the administration of this policy. The shameful burden placed on churches, community groups and benevolent individuals by this policy is incompatible with the indelible concept and revered national tradition of the fair go.

Beyond our shores, this policy seriously undermines what should be Australia’s commitment to the highest standards of international rights. As a signatory to the 1951 Convention on Refugees, Australia has an obligation to provide essential living necessities and adequate health care for asylum seekers living within our territory. We are also committed to treaties that require their member states to ensure asylum seekers have the right to seek work and somewhere to live. They include the United Nations High Commission for Refugees—ExCom, 2002—and article 24(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires:

States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.

The International Covenant on Economic. Social and Cultural Rights states:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

These changes not only epitomise Robert Menzies’ conviction that a strong economy is the best form of social justice but demonstrate that real social justice can build a strong economy.

In 2005 the Uniting Church’s Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker project surveyed 211 asylum seekers living in Victoria and New South Wales who did not have work rights or Medicare access. Among those surveyed; 74 per cent had skills recognised on the skilled occupation list for the General Skilled Migration program occupations. They included engineers, teachers, tailors, social workers, computer programmers and agricultural scientists. Of those listed on the skilled occupation list, 45 per cent had skills that were considered in high demand, and the majority of those surveyed were willing to work in rural or regional areas. In particular, the research found that the cohort of 211 asylum seekers who undertook the skills audit would have potentially added up to $26 million to the Australian GDP over a three-year period. More broadly, it was estimated that, if 75 per cent of the population of asylum seeking bridging visa E holders obtained minimum wage employment, it would still add over $75 million dollars to the economy over three years.

The Liberal Party is having an important conversation with history on how we treat those who seek refuge within our shores. In the 1980s, we wrestled with the great economic debates of the century and emerged with a renewed commitment to an open, free market. Enabling people who are willing and able to work, who ask not for welfare but for self reliance, to sustain themselves is intrinsic to what we believe as the party of not just Menzies but Howard as well.

Today, as we hew a new path to government, the Liberal Party must arrive from our deliberations having found a confidence in our ability to defend our borders without closing our hearts. The Liberal Party has a proud story to tell on immigration, but both parties over the last 50 years have written some bleak chapters too. We find our genesis in Harold Holt’s dismantling of the White Australia policy and in Malcolm Fraser’s welcoming of Vietnamese refugees that not only made Australia’s migrant intake truly multiracial but turned the abolition of the White Australia policy into a practical reality. In 1999, the former government rightly provided Australia as a beacon of safety for 4,000 Kosovars and for 1,500 East Timorese fleeing conflicts in their respective home countries. But it also introduced legislation that had no place in the contemporary nation we aspire to be.

Debates on the plight of asylum seekers in Australia too often invoke the defence that we ought not send the wrong message to those who seek shelter within our borders from tyrannies abroad. Let us grasp a new opportunity to understand the difference between sending the wrong message to those who truly wish us harm and sending the right message to those who need our help. Australia does not have to choose between strong, secure borders and compassion for those seeking liberty and freedom. We can have both.

Many of the people seeking to reach our shores do so as a result of their flight from tyranny in places such as Afghanistan. Australia has sewn together a rich tapestry of multiculturalism. The challenge now is to weave our future as a country big enough to recognise misdeeds and small enough to administer changes that work. The changes to these regulations mark an important step that should be supported by the whole parliament. And there should never be opportunity found in human misery; there should be a united determination by all who take their place in this parliament to conquer it jointly.

Today we talk a lot about respect—respect for oneself, respect for one another. We talk about respect where we see the demise of community and often of family too. Menzies’ Forgotten People speech applies just as well today as it did in 1942. Where Menzies extols a society not reliant on government for bread or ideas, today we vote to give people the right to work, not just to sustain themselves but for the self-respect that work brings with it. Perhaps through this small token of generosity, the righting of a wrong, we can inspire a renewed respect within individuals, families and our communities and we can respect ourselves as a nation of true generosity to those who need it most, and who want most to give it back.

I commend to the Senate these amendments moved by the government.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose on behalf of the government the disallowance motion moved by Senator Fierravanti-Wells. The government moved to reform work rights arrangements for asylum seekers as a result of approaches by many community activists and community organisations that have to care for asylum seekers living in the community who do not have access to work and therefore have no income and, often, are destitute. As a result of that destitution, as I say, service organisations have to try and support them.

These are people who are lawfully in the community. In this debate again we have confusion between lawful and unlawful boat or air arrivals. These changes do not apply to unlawful boat arrivals. So all these arguments about weakening border security et cetera are a complete nonsense, a complete furphy, continuing a drum roll of disparaging refugees and creating fear in the community. These changes do not apply to unauthorised boat arrivals. Those people are mandatorily detained and they are only released into the community after they have had health, identification and security checks. The vast majority of people we are talking about here are people who are lawfully in the community, who have arrived on another visa and are living in the community while they pursue their protection claims. Most of them arrive at Sydney airport on a commercial plane with a valid visa. Senator Fierravanti-Wells rightly quoted what Minister Ruddock was talking about when the changes were introduced in 1997. But we have to be clear about this. This is not about unauthorised boat arrivals. What it is about is a group of people who arrived legally in this country, who are living in this country and who are applying, as they have the right to do under international law, to seek our protection.

While they seek our protection, the issue at question is: should they or should they not have the right to work and support themselves? Under the Howard government—and the existing conditions until 1 July this year, when the government changed these regulations—two-thirds of those people were entitled to and allowed to work but a third of them were not allowed to work. They are mainly the people who are caught by what is known as the ‘45-day rule’. So this is not a question of great principle, it is not a question of border security and it is not a question of opening the borders to unauthorised arrivals; it is about evidence based policy.

We have had since 1997 to assess the success or otherwise of the 45-day rule and we have found that circumstances have changed. We are now dealing with a different situation. The previous government introduced the 45-day rule in order to put a time limit on people seeking a protection visa. In other words, the theory was that if they had not applied for a PV within 45 days they would lose the right to work and this would provide an incentive for them to seek a PV. The logic of it was not too bad; it was worth a try. Also, quite frankly, it was driven by the real problem at the time, which Senator Fierravanti-Wells is well aware of—that there were advantages for people in delaying the whole process. They could delay applying for a PV and use a range of appeal rights to delay the processing. But what the previous government did, following that, was speed up the processing by the introduction of the 90-day processing rule and a lot of that problem went away. We have a situation now where 79 per cent of applications are finalised within three months. When this was introduced, only 25 per cent were finalised. The problem has changed. Senator Vanstone did some work on how we might improve the system and when I became the minister I inherited a report commissioned by her.

The question before us then is whether we continue to deny a group of people who are legally in the community the right to support themselves, the right to have self-respect, to work and to feed and clothe their kids—whether we say to them that they have got to be destitute and live off scraps from charities—while we allow them to exercise their legal rights. You have to ask yourself, ‘Why would we punish them and deny them the right to work and force the Hotham Mission and others to support them?’ It does not make any sense. In fact, we know that more people who have been affected by this rule are actually found to be owed protection than those who apply within the 45 days. It just does not make sense any more. If it did make sense it certainly does not now. We know that a lot of people are destitute in the community.

As a result of the changes initiated by the previous government, when they did the community care trial and the case resolution trials, we have also learnt that you have better results at resolving people’s status and better results in getting them to return home if you treat them with respect and manage them in the community. Locking them up did not work. That is why we had long-term detention. For this group of people, who are lawful, if they are treated with respect, allowed to work, allowed to save some money and allowed to treat their kids appropriately and support their families we have had much better success rates—and the previous government had much better success rates; it was a Howard government initiative that I am looking to expand—at getting people to return. They will understand where they are at and that they are not going to be allowed to stay in Australia and will return voluntarily. It is about treating people with respect and allowing them to make proper decisions, while having an understanding of all their circumstances. The Howard government are to be congratulated for those initiatives. What we have done is seek to expand them and ensure that we treat people with respect.

But I reinforce—and I will not cover some of the ground because of the shortage of time and also because Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Troeth addressed the arguments better than I could—that this is not about unauthorised boat arrivals. This is about people who are legally in the community who came in on visas and are allowed to apply for protection under our law and international law. It is a question about whether we let them work and support themselves or let them starve and rely on charities to look after them while that process occurs. I am all for strong integrity in the immigration system. I am all for saying to people that they have had their chance and, if they failed on their PV application, they have no right to stay here and they have got to go. I am working hard to make sure our compliance arrangements are improved so that people who are found not to be owed our protection are removed or encouraged to go. But the success of encouraging them to go has been much higher when they have been managed out in the community and when they have their dignity and self-respect, and that is enhanced by the capacity to work.

We are talking about perhaps 600 people in addition to those already allowed to work. Early indications are that we are seeing a slightly increased number of people seeking work rights. But what we are doing is ensuring that we do not have that arbitrary 45-day rule and that we assess people’s circumstances and say to them: ‘If you are lawful, if you are cooperating with the immigration department and if you are looking to resolve your status you will be allowed to work. If you do not play the game, if you are unlawful, if you are working without permission, if you are engaged in any activity contrary to your visa, there will be no sympathy. Play the game and you are allowed to work. Don’t play the game and you do not get the benefit of that consideration.’ That is the system we put in place.

The 45-day rule was arbitrary. If you applied after 46 days you missed out on work rights, with no discretion. It is crazy. There are all sorts of reasons why people might apply after 46 days rather than before the 45-day cut-off. For instance, for many of them the circumstances in the country they came from may have changed. If there is suddenly a civil war in a country they may apply for protection and may be successful whereas they would not have been earlier in the piece. So there are good reasons for people failing to meet the 45-day rule other than trying to delay their processing.

I will not go further because I know we are short of time and I think it would be good to get this matter resolved tonight. We think these changes are positive. We think they are working well so far. We think they are responding in an evidence based, risk management approach to the reality of PV applicants who are living in the community lawfully now. It treats them more fairly, it gets us better immigration outcomes and it removes the arbitrariness of the 45-day rule, which was introduced to solve a problem that no longer exists. We think this is good public policy. It is not about some of the emotive debates that we have again had about unauthorised arrivals, boat people, sending signals about softness and all that terrible rhetoric. Look at the case here: it is about good public policy, improving the conditions of those who are lawfully here seeking asylum, but, equally, it makes it clear to them that if they fail in their claim for protection they go home. It is a system with integrity. It treats people with respect and with dignity and does not insist on them being destitute. But, also, it is firm in the message that, if you are not found to be owed that protection once your case is resolved, you go home. The system we have introduced is better and I urge the Senate to reject Senator Fierravanti-Wells’s disallowance motion on behalf of the opposition.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a couple of quick comments in reply. I will not reiterate the points I made except to say—and I take the points that the minister made—that assistance is provided, as we know, to asylum seekers through the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme and, once the asylum seekers have received a decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal, they are no longer eligible for assistance.

The reality is that we now have, and we are increasingly seeing, people who see Australia as a place they want to come to and to stay in. I take the minister back to the reasons for the 45-day rule. The 45-day rule was introduced to deal with those claims that are put in by people who, as the minister says, legitimately come here with a visa but then decide to claim refugee status in Australia. The prolonged litigation, which I have personally seen over the years, really undermines public confidence in the system, and there is a legitimate question about it. I say to Senator Hanson-Young that there are some people in the community at the moment who not only are doing it tough and are unemployed but have a legitimate expectation that people who abuse the system will not be afforded additional rights. I say to the Senate that those people are entitled to have their views articulated in this place, not dismissed in some manner, as you, Senator Hanson-Young, have sought to do today.

I conclude my comments by saying that there are concerns. We will be looking to see that abuses of this system do not occur like they occurred in the past and that the dropping of this rule does not result in bogus claims. We will see, Minister, what the ultimate result of this is.

Question negatived.