Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Case Load) Bill 2014. Before I commence my contribution I want to acknowledge the large number of emails and visits we have had from members of the community who are genuinely concerned about what is involved in this bill. I think all senators would have received emails and visits from people who really care about what is happening with asylum seeker policy in this country, and who have raised issues about this bill.

The bill contains the most comprehensive set of changes to—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Sorry, Senator Moore. Senators: Senator Moore is on her feet and there are a lot of conversations going on. Could you please give Senator Moore the courtesy of being heard.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. This bill contains the most comprehensive set of changes to Australian law on immigration and asylum seekers to be brought before the parliament since the Abbott government took office. Much of the bill is a response to actions of the judiciary. Some of the response is understandable, but much of it is an attempt to pre-empt work that the courts ought to be allowed to do. Labor has grave concerns about many of the provisions of this bill. We believe the bill should be rejected entirely. If it is given a second reading, we propose to introduce substantial amendments.

The minister described the bill as a formal legislative recognition of the government's policy of turning back asylum seeker boats. He claims that this is about saving lives at sea. Let me be clear: Labor does not want to see deaths at sea. That is why, when were in government, we established asylum-seeker processing in PNG. That decision has played an enormous part in stemming the flow of boat arrivals. However, we have grave concerns about the turn-back policy, for two reasons. The first concerns the impact of the policy on Australia's relationship with Indonesia. The turn-backs have clearly harmed that relationship. If there is to be a long-term resolution to the question of boat arrivals, it could only be in the context of a close cooperation between Australia and the country from which most vessels bearing asylum seekers depart. That close cooperation existed when Labor was in office. The government's actions have destroyed it. Turn-backs have resulted in at least six incursions into Indonesian territorial waters. The other aspect of the turn-back policy that is of concern is the question of whether it does in fact save lives at sea, or whether it puts them at risk. The government have never been able to give satisfactory assurances on this question, because of their clear obsession with operational secrecy.

The minister's argument that the aim of the bill is to recognise turn-backs is deceptive. In fact, the relevant clauses of the bill are about a case now before the High Court: CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor. In essence, this legislation seeks to scuttle that case, which is fundamentally about the Maritime Powers Act. If the bill passes with these clauses, the precedent value of the case would be made redundant. Labor believes that this is inappropriate. The High Court has a role in upholding the rule of law that parliament must not undermine. If, after the court has made its decision, the government believes that legislation is required because of the consequences of that decision, it can bring another bill before the parliament. But it is not appropriate to legislate while the relevant case is being heard.

On the issue of new visas, the bill also resurrects temporary protection visas, TPVs, and creates a new class of temporary visas, the Safe Haven Enterprise Visa. Labor's position on temporary protection visas is well known. We oppose them because they place their recipients in limbo, with no certainty or assurance about their future beyond the three-year duration of the visa. Our view is that people who have been found to be entitled to Australia's protection should be given permanent protection visas and provided with assistance to settle within the community as quickly as possible. That also gets them off the government's tab, as quickly as possible, and on their way to becoming constructive and contributing members of society. Let us be clear: the vast majority of these people will live here for the rest of their lives, and want to do so. That is what we saw when TPVs were effectively abandoned during the Howard government. We should not repeat that experience. We should accept our obligations, and give those receiving Australia's protection the permanency to which they are entitled.

This bill, the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Case Load) Bill 2014, also purports to introduce another visa class, the Safe Haven Enterprise Visa, ostensibly in fulfilment of undertakings the government made to the Palmer United Party. I say 'ostensibly' because, in fact, all this bill does is to name a new visa The explanatory memorandum states that 'the conditions and operation of SHEVs will be laid down by regulation next year'. The bill therefore holds out a glimmer of hope for permanency to those who might be eligible for the new visa, but guarantees them nothing—in fact, it tells nobody what is involved in these new visas. Labor believes that a pathway to permanent protection, and ultimately to citizenship, is worth supporting. But that pathway must be more than just a name in a bill. The government should withdraw this bill and introduce another that provides a real pathway, and it should also provide information in regulations about how it will work.

Mr Acting Deputy President, this is an issue I have been raising for years, with various governments: the need to have the regulation and the legislation made available at the same time, so that people can see the detail. Too often, we have the situation where the real details are in regulations which are in the future at some time. This is something that needs action across all areas of legislation.

The government should withdraw this bill, as we have said. If it does not and this bill reaches the committee stage, Labor will join with other senators in proposing amendments that turn the imagined pathway provided by the new visa class into a real one. Under those amendments, the new safe haven enterprise visa would be a temporary visa valid for five years and applicants for this visa would need to demonstrate their intent to work and/or study in regional Australia. If visa holders do work and/or study in a regional area for at least 3½ years of the visa period, they would become eligible for permanency. Under other amendments we would propose, the right to work would be extended to asylum seekers on bridging visas while their claims for refugee status are assessed and sections of the bill concerning temporary protection visas would be deleted. We believe these should be either abolished or automatically converted to a permanent protection visa after a successful application for refugee status.

Under the issue of fast-tracking, the bill also seeks to change the refugee assessment process in two ways. First, the bill seeks to speed up the process for assessing claims by people who are in Australia in an unauthorised way either because they have overstayed their visa or because they have arrived without appropriate paperwork. It is not clear how this fast-track process will work, because that will depend on regulation, and details of the necessary regulations have not been provided. The second change is the replacement of the Refugee Review Tribunal by an immigration assessment authority, with a limitation of the existing right of review of adverse decisions. This change is of grave concern. Since the Abbott government was elected, Labor has supported much legislation intended to strengthen the refugee assessment process. This support has caused considerable debate, but the Labor Party has actually supported the proposition put forward by the government. In our view this change goes well beyond that. It guts the process. Labor cannot support limiting applicants' rights of review to the extent envisaged in this bill, or can we support the proposed fast-tracking of applications, which doesn't offer much by way of reducing the duration of the process but would go a long way towards reducing people's rights.

With regard to the refugee convention, the bill seeks to remove any reference in the act to refugees. Labor absolutely rejects this. The government argues that the bill codifies the obligations existing under the convention so that the decisions of Australian courts, rather than the decisions of international tribunals or courts in other jurisdictions, will determine Australia's law in this area. There is no good reason for this change, and it is any case unlikely to achieve the government's objective. The minister's second-reading speech makes clear that Australia remains a party to the refugee convention, and that this is given legislative effect by the Migration Act. Our courts will inevitably refer to decisions by courts in other common-law countries when determining how obligations of this kind should be interpreted in Australian law. That happens now and will continue to happen. The codification set out will not remove the established practice of judicial reasoning

There is a further problem raised by the attempt to codify the law. The bill inserts a requirement in the act that, if persons are able to alter their behaviour reasonably, they should not be able to claim Australia's protection. There are cases now before Australian courts in which a version of that requirement is under consideration, and courts have made decisions on a similar basis in the past, but setting the requirement down in fixed, statutory form raises questions that would not be easy to resolve. What if someone sought protection of the basis of sexual preference, but protection was denied on the basis that alteration of their behaviour would result in that person not being persecuted in his or her country of origin? That may not be the intention of this schedule, but it is not difficult to see how such a possibility could arise.

The bill also contains a provision removing the 90-day rule for hearing of asylum claims, which is an important accountability measure. At the time of last year's federal election, when Labor left government, about half of protection applications were decided within the prescribed 90 days; but, in the most recent report on the Abbott government's performance, only 14 per cent of decisions were being made within go days. The 90-day rule, which was introduced by the Howard government, has proven its worth as a test of the speed with which governments process applications. The rules should be retained. If the 90-day rule is not being met by the department, there should be rationale as to why it is not being met. Rather than changing the rule, there should be an acceptance that the 90-day rule stays and that exceptions to that should be subject to question and a process of explanation from the department to the minister and then to the parliament.

For all of these reasons, Labor opposes this bill, and we will vote to deny it a second reading.

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

Today I stand here with the overwhelming majority of legal and human rights experts in this country to condemn the regressive and dangerous Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 before us today. This piece of legislation, if it were to pass, would be a fundamental shift from what are known as due process, fairness before the law, a fair go under the refugee system and, of course, the proper checks and balances to make sure whoever is the government of the day is abiding by our international obligations as well as the basic rules and values of decency and fairness.

This bill should not be called the asylum legacy case bill. It should be called the immigration minister's outrageous grab for power bill. That is all that is in this piece of legislation. This bill is all about Scott Morrison, as the Minister for Immigration, grabbing more power for himself to dictate who will be a refugee, under what conditions they will be a refugee and whether or not they get access to a visa. Of course, overarching all of this is whether children and families remain languishing in terrible conditions on Christmas Island.

When it comes to the way we treat refugees in this country, never before have we seen a bill as insidious, as deceptive and as downright dangerous as this. It is a smorgasbord of suffering, a buffet of brutality, and it should not be allowed to pass this place today. Within this bill the immigration minister wants to make babies that are being born in Australia stateless. He wants to send those babies to camps of cruelty offshore.

He wants to give himself a licence to break international law. He wants to rip the refugee convention from the Australian law books. He wants to change the very definition of who is and who is not a refugee. He wants to fast-track the refugee determination process to remove the right of review, meaning there would be less protection for people who deserve it, less protection for people who may, as a result of mistakes, be sent back to death and torture.

He wants to deny protection to as many refugees as possible. He wants to introduce temporary protection visas for those who have been found to be in genuine need of protection, making them suffer even more for the fact that they dared to dream of freedom and safety for their families. That will leave thousands of refugees—genuine refugees who have been through the proper process, who desperately need protection and have every right to start putting their lives back together—in limbo effectively for the rest of their lives.

He wants to trick the Senate crossbench into thinking that a new visa that is being offered is a pathway to permanency when there is no detail of the safe haven enterprise visa in this legislation. If the minister thinks he can continue to trick this Senate and the crossbenchers in this place, he better think twice because he cannot. It is as clear as day that this minister has no intention of following through with the agreement that was made with the Palmer United Party and with the statements that have been made. He wants only more power for himself and less protection for refugees.

This is an unbelievable grab of power from the minister, and senators in this place have the opportunity to stop this minister, who is so arrogant and so drunk with power, from being able to have even more unfettered discretion. The immigration minister wants to give himself the ability to play God. He wants to be the judge, the jury and the executioner in all these cases. He wants to send refugees, including families and children, back to danger in their homelands. The whole point of this bill is to give as few refugees as possible the opportunity for protection. Even if they are granted protection, he will not even bother to give them a permanent visa that will allow them to rebuild their lives and allow them to contribute to this country. We have thousands of refugees living in the Australian community desolate, without work rights, without the ability to study and without even the right to be able to volunteer. All these people want to be able to do is get on with the rest of their lives—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the 1,200 who can't?

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

and this minister wants to start shipping them offshore.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young has the right to be heard in silence. I would appreciate her being able to continue in silence.

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

Right now there are about 30,000 asylum seekers waiting for processing in Australia. Disturbingly, there are also 559 children in detention facilities across the country. In total there are 3,084 people in detention here in Australia. To our great shame, there are 167 children locked up on Nauru and in total 1,095 people are detained on Nauru and 1,056 on Manus Island. There is no question that these people need to have their claims processed immediately and be taken out of detention, put into the community and given the opportunity to start contributing to this country and rebuilding their lives. This bill does none of that.

Astonishingly, the immigration minister is using the suffering of these children in detention as a disgusting bargaining chip. He is trying to blackmail the Senate crossbench into accepting this cruel bill by threatening to send each and every one of them to the hellhole on Nauru. How appalling to see the minister who already has so much power—the power to keep people in detention—and who is keeping these children locked up, threaten this place today by saying: 'If you do not pass the bill the way I like it, it is my way or the highway. The children will remain in jail.'

What kind of human being uses children as his pawns in a game of politics? How gross, distasteful and sickening is the minister if he is willing to do this? These are children and they are being destroyed by these policies. The immigration minister is threatening to turn the screws on them even harder. He says that until he gets his own way he will keep them locked up in appalling conditions—conditions that have been condemned by the United Nations and condemned by our own Human Rights Commission here in Australia. That is not being a leader; that is being a bully and a coward.

What the immigration minister does not want senators in this chamber to understand is that he can release all of these children today if he wants to. He has the power to keep them in detention or to release them into the community. You do not need a bill that condemns them to a life of uncertainty just to get them out of the locked gates and out from behind the barbed wire. He can have them in the community and be processing their claims as we speak. He is actually obliged to do that under the current domestic law, but in fact he is refusing to act as the law currently prescribes to process people's claims, to get on with assessing them.

If they are genuine refugees, let them stay and let them get on with their lives. If they are not, then send them home. No-one is arguing that anyone should get a free ride here. Get on and process their claims. If they are refugees, they can stay. If they are not, deport them. At the moment we have the worst of both worlds. We have a minister who is keeping children locked up, incarcerated in immigration prisons, and babies being born to asylum seeker parents being told they have no right to protection in Australia. Despite being born in Australian hospitals, they will be on the next flight to Nauru, where we know children are being abused and are witnessing abuse every single day.

The Senate inquiry into this bill heard from thousands of human rights lawyers, refugee advocates, academics and community members, all of whom object to this outright. Over 5,000 submissions were made to this Senate inquiry and every single one of them bar the immigration minister's own department said this bill was wrong, said this bill would set Australia up for failure when it comes to looking after some of the world's most vulnerable people.

The overwhelming evidence from experts and the community was that this bill cannot pass, must not pass. Who does this minister think he is to delete the refugee convention from our law books—to say that we will delete the refugee convention from our law books and it will be he who interprets our obligations? Scott Morrison, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, wants this Senate to give him the power to dictate who is a refugee and who is not—unfettered, unchecked and not able to be appealed.

Australia is obliged to provide protection to those who arrive on our shores. We are obliged to do that under international law, but we are actually required to do it as part of being a good global citizen—as a nation that stands for fairness, as a nation and that cares about the rule of law, as a nation who proudly drafted the refugee convention 60 years ago because we did not want to see vulnerable people turned away and deported back to danger. And here we have a bill that in the midst of the political heat of the refugee issue here in Australia we have the Abbott government wanting to undermine and delete those very values from our law books.

There are some ways forward in how we manage the needs of refugees and asylum seekers in this country. There are 30,000 people who need their claims assessed. Get on and assess them, find out whether they do need protection or not. If they do, we resettle them and we let them get on with our lives—we get them into the workforce, we get the students and the children into school, we allow families to rebuild here in Australia and contribute to our local communities. If they are not refugees, finish their application process and send them home. But give people who do need assistance a fair go—and that means a genuine pathway to permanency.

The SHEV visa that has been spoken about and was part of the Palmer United Party's deal on this piece of legislation is not what is before us today. There is no detail about how the safe haven enterprise visa would work. Why would that be? It is because the minister has no intention of following through on his obligations. If he did it would be in the legislation or there would be substantial amendments that would have been circulated and talked through in this place. But we see none of that from the government. This is, 'My way or the highway,' according to the immigration minister and the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.

There is nothing in this piece of legislation that upholds the original deal between the Palmer United Party and Scott Morrison. In addition to that, they have stapled on six other schedules in this piece of legislation that fundamentally undermine the spirit of that arrangement in the first place: more people will be in detention, children born here in Australia sent off to the detention camps on Nauru, deleting the refugee convention, handing ultimate power to the minister to make a decision as to who he thinks deserves his tick of approval and who does not. We know the track record of this minister on these issues and he doesn't give two hoots about the humanitarian needs of those who have come to our shores. Why do we know that? Because we see that he is keeping children locked in appalling conditions every day. Every day those children remain in detention they are damaged further. Mr Morrison keeps them there locked up.

The Australian Greens agree with the majority submitters to the inquiry into this bill that this is a radical deviation from Australia's longstanding commitment to international law and human rights. If this bill passes, it will seriously endanger the lives of many thousands of asylum seekers. The Greens strongly recommend that this bill be rejected by this place today. There would need to be substantial amendments made to this bill if it were to proceed. Six of the seven schedules would need to be deleted and the remaining schedule would need to have a genuine pathway to permanency, so that if people are found to be refugees—after all this time they have spent in detention, all this time they have been left dumped in the community—they should be able to stay, work, pay their taxes and send their kids to school. It is simply asking for a fair go and for people to be treated with dignity and respect. As this bill stands none of that is in here. I strongly urge this place to vote it down at the second reading.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always easy to follow Senator Hanson-Young in any debate because each debate relating to migration she uses the same emotive words, no matter what lies they are, no matter how untruthful, how contrary to the facts. We have just had another example of that. Don't worry about what is actually in the bill; just use your normal, emotive language that you use on everyone, as I say, no matter how inaccurate and what complete mistruths those statements are. Let me take up some of the things Senator Hanson-Young said. She said, for example: 'We are going to delete the refugee convention from the Australian books.'

Senator Cash interjecting—

It is not just wrong, Minister—it is absolutely ludicrous that that would be suggested. But it is the typical thing. I have been around for a while and I have been able to work out the Greens. They never bother about the facts, never bother about the legislation; they just come out with whatever lie they can think of and try and fool the public—and it works with the eight per cent or so of Australians who do vote for the Greens.

I experienced Senator Ludlam talking about the telephone interception bill and quite unashamedly saying, 'If this metadata legislation goes through the government, Big Brother will be able to know exactly what you are looking at on your computer.' I was not involved in the debate, but I thought, 'Hang on, I have just been through a Senate inquiry into this, and that is simply wrong!' So I got up and I said to the chamber, 'That is wrong, Senator Ludlam!', and he sat there in the corner with a big smile on his face and nodded. That is the way the Greens behave—do not bother about the truth, do not bother about what the legislation says; just tell any old lie and hope that some people will believe you. As I say, eight per cent of the people clearly do believe the Greens.

I have written down some of Senator Hanson-Young's words, but I should not have to write them down, because you hear them all the time—'unforgivable', 'drunk with power', 'unfettered discretion', 'play God', 'refugees sent back to danger'—it goes on. If you listened to Senator Hanson-Young just then, check what she said back against any speech she has ever made on migration and you will get the same sorts of words. Can I again put out another deliberate mistruth by the previous speaker? She said there are, outrageously, 559 children still in detention—384 in Australia and 167 on Manus Island. Actually, she knows as well as I do that there are 167 on Christmas Island. But let me give you the full facts about children in detention, to put this all in perspective. When John Howard left the government as Prime Minister there were zero, zilch, none—no children in immigration detention. Under six years of Labor government supported by Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Wright and their party, we had thousands of children in detention and thousands of children who lost their lives at sea. We never heard any condemnation from Senator Hanson-Young over the loss of lives of children at sea. Not once did we hear that. Why? Because it was under the watch of the Labor Party, who the Greens kept in power—in fact they were part of that power.

When John Howard left government zero children were in immigration detention. When Tony Abbott became Prime Minister there were 1,743 children in detention centres. Did we hear from Senator Hanson-Young about that? No. Did we hear from the Human Rights Commission about that? No. But that was a year ago—1,743 children in immigration detention. Since the Abbott government has been in power, and thanks to the good work of Senator Cash and Mr Morrison, the relevant ministers, that number is now down to 647. You do not have to take my word for this—have a look at the evidence given at the estimates hearing held last Thursday in this building, a hearing that Senator Hanson was at. She knows these figures: 1,743 when the Abbott government took over, when Mr Morrison and Senator Cash started dealing with Labor's problem. Now there are only 647 in immigration detention. At estimates last week—and Senator Hanson-Young was there, so she knows this—I said to the officials: 'What is the forward projection? What do you think is going to happen to these 647?' And I was told—and it is on the record in Hansard; you can go and look at it yourself—that by June next year there would be no children in immigration detention. No children. I said to them, 'What does "no" mean?', and they said, 'We will be trying to get to nil, but we can almost guarantee less than 100.' That was on the proviso that this legislation gets through the parliament so the officials can have the necessary authority to do what needs to be done to get those children out of immigration detention.'

If you had heard Senator Hanson-Young, would you believe that that was the case? Of course you would not, because they will tell any lie, misstate any fact, to convince a few vulnerable voters that the Greens have a heart. The Greens do not have a heart. If they had a heart they would not have been part of thousands of people losing their lives at sea under the watch of the Greens political party and Labor, and there would not have been 1,743 children in detention at the end of their time in government. These are facts. They are not emotive words; they are not any old lie to try and gather a little bit of political support from the few who would believe that sort of rubbish. You see, this is not just Senator Hanson-Young—any member of the Greens political party is the same. They will just say anything, anything at all, to get a vote. I mentioned Senator Ludlam's comment—which he acknowledged! He knew it was a lie. But did that stop him from saying it?

These are the lies that the Greens propagate, and they expect people to believe them. Senator Hanson-Young says these children are 'behind barbed wire' in prison camp. Again, go and see what the officials said about that very subject last Thursday at estimates. They said there is no barbed wire around—the only chain wire fences are around the swimming pools that are put there for the children. Yet if anyone would believe Senator Hanson-Young, and I suspect that as every day goes past there are fewer and fewer people who do believe her, all 647 children in detention are behind barbed wire. How emotive!

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

Have you been there?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have not, but clearly you have not because the officials told you last Thursday—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, you are quite right. I should—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, please.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Senator Hanson-Young, order! Please make your remarks through the chair. I would appreciate Senator Macdonald being given the opportunity to be heard in silence.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and I take your admonishment. It is a shame there is someone in the Senate, a colleague of the house, who tells deliberate untruths about children in detention being behind barbed wire. When that question was put to officials last Thursday in a Senate estimates committee hearing, I think their comment was that the only chain wire fences, which of course are required in every Australian jurisdiction, are around the swimming pools.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is to stop them drowning. We do everything we can to stop them drowning.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You make a very good point, Senator O'Sullivan. We will do everything possible to stop children from drowning, unlike the Greens and the Labor Party who presided over the deaths at sea of hundreds and hundreds of children and nary a word of condemnation. I hope someone will be able to apologise on behalf of the Greens later in this debate.

Senator Hanson-Young uses words like 'the minister is a bully and a coward and he bullies children in detention camps'. Those of you who know Mr Morrison and Senator Cash know that you would not find any more humane people than those two people. They are there trying to do a job. I might say the Australian people asked us at the last election to stop the boats. Had they been stopped during the Labor regime, there would not have been 30,000 people in immigration detention at the moment, there would not have been 30,000 people wanting to have their cases dealt with. Not in this particular bill but in other bills before the parliament the minister is trying to give certainty to those people who are in Australia at the moment. If Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens political party wanted to have a look at the bill they would see that the bill before us is particularly beneficial. Temporary protection visas will be granted for a period of up to three years. Senator Hanson-Young would have told you in her speech—if anyone who listened believed it—that nobody was going to get a temporary protection visa. Temporary protection visas will be granted for a period of up to three years. On the expiration, a person's circumstances will be reassessed. Those who are found to still be owed protection will be granted a further temporary protection visa or what is called a SHEV. I want to talk about the safe haven enterprise visa because I think it is a very good initiative of the government. I congratulate Senator Cash and Mr Morrison for doing this.

Consistent with the Abbott government's principles of rewarding enterprise and its belief in a strong regional Australia, a new visa called the safe haven enterprise visa will be created. The safe haven enterprise visa will be open to applications from those who have been processed under the legacy case load and those who are found to engage Australia's protection obligations. The SHEV will be an alternative temporary visa to the temporary protection visa and will encourage enterprise through earning and learning. That is a great initiative. Perhaps the minister can elaborate in her speech on how it is going to be introduced. I think it will be introduced by regulation very shortly. The visa will be valid for five years and, like a temporary protection visa, it will not include family reunion or a right to re-enter Australia.

The SHEV holders who have worked in regional Australia without requiring access to income support for 3½ years will be able to apply for and, if they meet eligibility requirements, will be granted other onshore visas—for example, family and skilled visas as well as temporary, skilled and student visas. So contrary to what Senator Hanson-Young would have you believe, this bill contains a lot of protections and it starts to bring some order to the chaotic situation left to us by the Labor and Green government of the last six years, a government which presided over many deaths at sea, including the deaths of children.

I would hope Senator Hanson-Young might rise at some time during the day and apologise for misleading the Senate about those statistics on the children. She should because she was at the estimates committee just last Thursday when all of these figures were explained by officials. There were zero children in detention when the Howard government was defeated. When the Abbott government came to power, there were 1,743 children in detention, with not a word from the Greens and not a word from the Human Rights Commission. Since that time, in a short 12 months, over 1,000 of those children have been released and by June next year, according to officials—this is their hope, if they are given the authority to do this—there will be no children left in immigration detention. One would have thought that, if the Greens had any care at all, if they had any compassion, if they cared about children in detention they would be the first ones here supporting this bill.

It is my honour and pleasure to chair the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which looks into these bills very carefully. Senator Hanson-Young would tell you, I think she said, that there were 5,000 submitters to this inquiry. Well, sorry; there was a petition—the sort of petition you leave at the coffee shop and everyone signs it without knowing what is in it—but the number of submitters is clearly shown in the committee's report and, I am sorry, Senator Hanson-Young, they do not reach 5,000 or 2,000 or whatever other exaggerated number you might have said. There were the usual witnesses at the hearings; a lot of them are refugee advocates. I might say that I think the government's decision not to have taxpayer funding for these migration agents has caused some concern in the migration agents industry. We do get a number of people who, I concede and I congratulate them, do have some expertise in this area; however, they come from a particular view. We on this side come from the view that Australia has an ordered immigration system. We take around 14,000 refugees every year. But if you jump the queue, and if you are wealthy enough to pay the people smugglers—I often wonder whether the people smugglers are donors to the Greens political party; you would think there might be some other reason why the Greens are so in favour of the people smugglers—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I believe that Senator Macdonald's past comment reflects very seriously on people in this Senate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I am talking about the Greens political party. I am not talking about any member in this chamber.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: I think the slur on the party and the members here, about people smugglers being donors to the party, is a very serious reflection on the party and the participants in the Senate.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought Senator Moore might have taken a point of order on Senator Hanson-Young calling a distinguished minister a bully and a coward. She did not seem to worry about that.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very selective, Senator Moore, but then you would expect that from Labor, because Labor and the Greens presided over the worst mess that Australia has seen. Clearly the Greens and Labor do not want people to understand this, but Australia takes about 14,000 refugees every year. This means that, on a per capita basis, Australia is one of the best countries in the world for accepting refugees. We punch well above our weight.

When people jump the queue, when they have enough money pay people smugglers and other people who support people smugglers, it means that those genuine refugees who are languishing in squalid refugee camps right around the world miss their chance to come into Australia because we take only 14,000. If they come in illegally by sea, then those who are waiting their turn in squalid refugee camps around the world who have already been determined by the UNHCR to be genuine refugees miss out. They have to wait yet another year. I just want to bring some reality to this debate.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee looked at this legislation and made four recommendations. I am going to run out of time so I cannot go into those recommendations in detail, but they suggest that some amendment be made and that there be improvements made to the bill. The fourth recommendation was that, subject to the preceding three recommendations, the bill be passed. I commend the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill to the Senate.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 and to put clearly on the record my disgust for what is an outrageously cruel bill. The content of this bill sends shivers down the spine of all Australians who care about human rights and who consider that the moral health of our nation can be judged by how we treat our fellow human beings who are most in need.

If passed, this bill will widen the immigration minister's powers, marginalise international law and the rules of natural justice and muzzle the ability of Australian courts to scrutinise the government's treatment of asylum seekers. It will also establish a new high-water mark in the cruelty Australia is willing to show to those men, women and children who come to us from persecution and violence and throw themselves on our mercy. Increasingly, our wellsprings of mercy are running completely dry.

The title of this bill refers to the legacy caseload—that is, the 30,000 people who sought Australia's protection between August 2012 and December 2013 and who have suffered the physical and mental anguish of mandatory detention, family separation, uncertainty about their legal status, and the constant risk of removal to Nauru or Manus Island. To quote the New South Wales Bar Association, this bill goes far beyond what is necessary to deal with the legacy caseload. It involves serious departures from Australia's international obligations to human rights and, more generally, to the extent that the bill does deal with the legacy caseload, it does so in a way which is procedurally unjust and unfair.

One of the thousands of submissions received by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has described the bill as 'punitive and nasty' and written so as to suggest that, 'asylum seekers are being punished for their temerity in seeking our compassion; for taking at face value our oft-proclaimed commitment to human rights and the rule of law.'

Along with other migration bills before the parliament, this bill constitutes the single biggest change to Australia's asylum seeker policy ever made. The bill's six schedules would fundamentally change the way protection claims are assessed. The bill changes the criteria by which a person is found to be owed protection and the nature of the protection provided by Australia to those in genuine need. It also changes the legal status of those seeking our protection and empowers a range of government agencies to restrict or remove their liberty. In each schedule, the bill removes the now rare existing features of the Migration Act which operate to protect the rights and interests of asylum seekers, in favour of a system that departs from international law and rule of law principles.

As the Greens spokesperson on legal affairs, I have to raise particular concerns about those features of the bill that remove procedural rights and review rights, long-standing protections against oppression in our Australian legal system. These features prescribe a legal framework for the determination of refugee and protection status that is contrary to international law and rule of law principles.

In a move of shameless legal manipulation, the government uses this bill to remove references to the refugee convention from the Migration Act and replaces them with the government's own interpretation of the convention. How can we possibly persuade other countries to fulfil their international obligations when our own actions show that we are prepared to manipulate and undermine an important international convention? Our hypocrisy will be seen for what it is.

This bill also removes fundamental procedural rights to safeguard the integrity of what can be a life-or-death decision about a person's need for protection. It does this by introducing a new fast-track procedure which will give asylum seekers one shot at setting out the evidence needed to substantiate their protection claim to an immigration official, but without providing them any access to independent advice or support. They will not be able to have the merits of the claim reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

There are so many other egregious betrayals of human rights and rule of law principles in this bill. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into it. But there is a deep chasm between this proposed law and a principled, fair and dignified approach to providing protection to those in genuine need. The Australian Greens strenuously oppose the passage of this bill. This bill is indefensible and un-Australian.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not really sure why Senator Wright did not have the time to go into the detail of this bill; she had another 15 minutes on the clock. Perhaps it would have been better if Senator Wright did go into some of the detail. I think that the Greens in this debate do not want to get bogged down in detail because that would mean getting bogged down in facts, and the facts do not support their argument. That is why we heard that five minute contribution. That is why we heard the hysterical contribution from Sarah Hanson-Young earlier, the disgraceful contribution from Senator Hanson-Young. The hypocrisy that we see in an ongoing way from the Greens on this issue and from the Labor Party on this issue—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before you go on, Senator Seselja, when you are referring to senators, please use the term 'Senator'.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do apologise. The hypocrisy we have seen from the likes of Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Wright and Labor senators on this issue is absolutely extraordinary. I can see why Senator Wright would not want to get into the detail of this, because the detail does not back their argument. The detail does not back the Greens argument. It does not back the argument that comes from the left of the Labor Party, which seems to now be dominating them in opposition once more on this issue of border protection and illegal arrivals.

The Labor Party pretended at the end of its time—having completely messed up this policy with tragic consequences—that it had learnt its lesson. But in opposition unfortunately, as we see with this bill again today, the Labor Party is showing that it has not learnt a thing. It has shown that, if it is ever given the opportunity again to govern and to be responsible for the border protection of this nation, it will go back to the same old failed policies that the Greens advocate here openly and which the Labor Party has pretended is not part of their policy any more, but we are seeing it more and more.

I want to go to the difference in approach on this issue between the coalition government and the Labor-Greens view of the world, as put in place in government when they were there and as continued to be advocated by the opposition and by the Greens here today in an ongoing way. The difference is crystal clear. The Labor-Greens policy saw 50,000 illegal arrivals. We saw a flood of people coming to this country illegally and claiming refugee status. We saw at least 1,200 people drown in an effort to get to Australia, lured by the bad policies which were put in place by the Labor-Greens coalition—by the Labor Party in government, egged on by their Greens partners. That is their legacy. There were something like 2,000 children in detention under the Labor Party at one point, because they had been lured here. There were children and adults who got on those boats and did not make it here. That is the tragedy of these policy failures. We have seen a dramatic turnaround on all of those indicators—and I will go to each of them.

Anyone who really cares about this issue should acknowledge that the coalition's policies have actually seen a positive shift, because people are not drowning any more. We should be celebrating that fact. We should be celebrating the fact that we see fewer people in detention, fewer children in detention, now than when we came to office.

I heard Senator Macdonald's excellent contribution earlier where he talked about what the committee had been told in relation to the dramatic reduction in numbers that we had seen. And in fact the expectation is that those numbers will continue to reduce so that we will see, hopefully very soon, a situation where we do not any more have children in detention, just as we did at the end of the Howard government. That is the legacy when you get control of the borders. When you get this policy right, not only do you stop the drownings, not only do you regain control of the borders but you also see the ability for governments to effectively deal with these issues, and that is what the coalition is getting on with the job of dealing with.

I do find it extraordinary—we expect it from the Greens as they are quite extreme on this issue and we have come to expect it from parts of the Labor Party, though it is concerning—that a party of government, the opposition in this nation, still allows itself to go back to a policy direction which it acknowledges failed. Labor ministers saw that those policies were failing. They were failing Australia, they were failing our responsibilities, they were failing those who got on boats and did not make it here and they were failing those who waited in refugee camps overseas who could not be resettled because there were far too many people coming here and claiming asylum. So the policies failed across the board, and the Labor Party continues to advocate them.

I do find it extraordinary that we see protests. I have had protests at my office in recent times, and people are entitled to protest. Some of those protesters and some of those who were silent when people were drowning—and many of those people were silent when people were drowning—are now coming out and are very loud. As I said, we had had 50,000 arrivals but what has happened this year? I think there has been one successful people smuggling venture to this country this year compared to 50,000 arrivals over the term of the Labor government. Those people should be saying that is a good thing and some of them occasionally acknowledge that but many do not. The Greens Party certainly does not. I have not heard the Labor Party acknowledge it. But I would ask those protesters, as well-intentioned as some of them may be: why were they silent when people were drowning trying to get here because of bad policy? They were silent. Many of them were silent. They believe that those policies were reasonable, well, they were not and they failed.

Why was the Human Rights Commissioner silent? It was extraordinary, the evidence we heard recently, where the Human Rights Commissioner said that her concerns were there in late 2012. She had concerns about these issues in late 2012 but she chose not to launch an inquiry in 2012. She chose not to launch an inquiry while there was a Labor government all through 2013 and the boats continued to arrive, when numbers peaked at 2,000 children in detention. Apparently the Human Rights Commission was not concerned enough to inquire into that. Lo and behold there was a change of government to a coalition government. We stopped the boats, we started to significantly reduce the number of children in detention and that was when the Human Rights Commission thought it was a good time to start inquiring. Based on those facts, you would have to question the impartiality of such a body. It had got concerns from late 2012 and did nothing about it until after there was a change of government. That change of government actually significantly improved the situation that the Human Rights Commission was concerned about, but that was when it started to inquire. So Australians could be forgiven for thinking that many of these activists and the Human Rights Commission are not coming to this in an impartial way. They are actually found out to be quite partisan on this, and I think that is unfortunate.

So let's look at the record on these issues that we are told are of concern. All of us should be concerned about people getting on a leaky boat and not making it here. Thank God that no longer appears to be happening. It is a very rare thing. Thank God we have not seen drownings in recent times. We should all be pleased with that outcome. Surely that is something we can all agree on—that that is a good thing and that that is a significant improvement. Surely that has come about due to policy change because the message has gone out that that is not the path the residency. Getting on that leaky boat is no longer the path to residency in this country and that must be good thing.

We are reducing the numbers, we are getting through the legacy case load and this legislation goes to that legacy case load. It must be a good thing that we are seeing fewer and fewer children in detention. In fact there are far fewer children in detention now than when we came to office. The expectation is that with the right policy settings that will go down to zero as soon as possible, and that is what we should be striving for. I say to some of those critics including the Human Rights Commission, including some of those protesters: why not actually look at those facts and say we are heading in that direction? We are stopping the drownings, we are seeing fewer children in detention and we are getting order back into our immigration system—order that was sadly lacking for the past six years.

In taking significant measures, the coalition now has to deal with the legacy case load that was left to us by the Labor-Greens, Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. That is what we are doing and this legislation is about dealing with that. Labor and the Greens now, having created the problem, are again trying to sabotage the solution and are denying work rights to thousands of people—because people who are voting against this bill are denying work rights. So the Greens on the one hand say they want to see work rights but there is a policy in place from the Labor Party that denies people work rights. We are looking to reinstate them through this legislation and they are voting against it.

So what does that say about their commitment? What does that say about their commitment to these people? It says it all—that they would far prefer to pontificate and to oppose, and to go back to their failed policies, than actually help us deal with solutions that will improve the lot of many but that will maintain the integrity of our immigration system. If we do not maintain the integrity of our immigration system we can see the catastrophic results: we see the thousands of people drowning, we see children in detention and we see all of the things that we do not want to see.

That is what this bill does; it honours the coalition's commitment to restore the full suite of border protection and immigration measures to stop the boats. It reintroduces temporary protection visas; it introduces the safe haven enterprise visa—which is also a temporary visa; it reinforces the government's powers to undertake maritime turnbacks; and it introduces rapid processing and streamlined review arrangements.

The issue around turnbacks is an important one and it is worth reflecting on. Turnbacks have worked. Turnbacks have been an important part of the suite of policy measures that the coalition has put in place. Richard Marles knows this. Richard Marles acknowledged the turnbacks have worked.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Mr Marles!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he did! This is where the fundamental confusion is in the Labor Party over this policy.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We got no information on it!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Richard Marles went on television and said, 'We acknowledge that they have had an impact.' And he was very quickly rebuked and brought back into line. He was speaking the truth. It was a rare moment from this Labor opposition, where he was acknowledging that the policies that we have put in place have worked, and he was very quickly undermined by others in the Labor Party, including his own leader.

The turnbacks do work. The turnbacks are part of a suite of measures that have sent a very clear message that getting on a leaky boat and paying a people smuggler is not the path to citizenship in this country. It is not. We have made that absolutely clear, and that should be reinforced. All of our policies should reinforce that, rather than undermine that as they did under the previous government.

I often have discussions, as I said, with advocates. Many of them are well intentioned, but I think those advocates forget—and what they cannot seem to reconcile—that if you are going to have a limit on the number of people you take in an immigration setting then you have to have rules. Whether you take them in the humanitarian space, in refugee places or more broadly, if you are going to limit the refugee space—and virtually all Australians would agree that we have to have a limit—then we have to set those limits in terms of how many people come to Australia. If you are going to do that then you have to have rules and you have to enforce those rules. If you do not enforce those rules then the people smugglers get to choose. They get to choose who gets to be accepted as a refugee in this country.

There are those who languish in other countries in refugee camps—and I have spoken to many of them who are now in my electorate. Many of them waited for many years. I am not saying that some of the people who have arrived here by boat do not have legitimate claims. I am saying that we should not have a policy that is set up to give favouritism and preference, and to make the test of whether you are accepted as a refugee in this country being whether you can arrive here. Under the previous government—under lax border protection policies—those who got here got preference. Those who do not have the means to get here—those who, one would argue, are the most disadvantaged; of all the displaced people, those with the least means—they are the ones who are most disadvantaged under the former policies. They will never get a look-in because there will always be someone who gets preference by paying a people smuggler and getting here. So, if you acknowledge that we have to have limits then we have to have rules, and those rules have to be enforced. That is at the heart of the difference in how we do border protection and how we manage these things.

There are other significant problems that have flowed from those failed policies. Because so much extra money was being spent we saw cutbacks in other areas—things like Customs screening were cut back significantly under the former government; they were running out money because they blew such a hole in the budget. That is also important. It is important that we screen what is coming into this country, whether it is drugs or other illegal goods. That was undermined because the whole system was in chaos.

The reintroduction of TPVs is fundamental to the government's key objectives to process the current backlog of protection claims. The government is providing temporary protection to those IMAs who are found to engage Australia's protection obligations. TPVs will be granted for a maximum of three years and will provide access to Medicare, social security benefits and work rights. This is a really important part of this legislation: it is providing work rights. The alternative from those who want to vote against this is to deny work rights so that people who have not been processed and who are waiting cannot actually work to sustain themselves. Surely, that is not a good outcome? Surely that is not something that should be advocated, yet it is. It is being advocated; whether they say it or not, that is what they are advocating with their vote.

There is a range of other aspects to this bill, but it fundamentally goes to continuing our job of fixing the problems that we inherited when it comes to border protection. We have made amazing strides in that area, because we no longer see the boats, we no longer see the deaths at sea and we are seeing the numbers of children in detention dramatically reduced. All of those things are great strides, which have come about through strong border protection policies. This is the next step; this is the next part of dealing with that legacy, and I would commend this bill to the Senate.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014. This bill is a key part of the coalition government's promise to stop the boats. The coalition government, through this bill, is introducing a package of measures to resolve the immigration status of the illegal maritime arrivals legacy caseload, which currently sits at a staggering 30,000 people who arrived under the policies of the former Labor-Greens government.

In fact, when we came to government there were over 33,000 unresolved cases, 27,000 of which had not even started to be dealt with, and some of them had been in detention since August 2012. This bill honours the coalition's commitment to restore the full suite of border protection and immigration measures to stop the boats. These measures were successfully used under the Howard government but abolished by the former Labor government. I was working for the Howard government when we introduced these measures and faced this crisis over a decade ago. What happened under the previous Labor-Greens coalition was utterly foreseeable because we had been there before. We knew if you put the people smugglers back into business and you gave them a business model and a product to sell, they would do it. There is absolutely no surprise that once you implemented these policies then a flood of people would start to come in again. In fact, 50,000 people paid people smugglers to enter this country illegally. That was totally foreseeable, as were the consequences. If you get that many people coming in on boats you know people will die on the journey. You know that when they arrive they will have to be put into detention, and you also know they will have to be processed. But despite all of this being foreseeable as a consequence of the policy so irresponsibly implemented by those opposite, they did not make the provisions to process this increasing flood of people.

Those opposite talk about compassion all the time. Listening to the debate on this bill, and on similar bills and issues in recent times, I am still struggling—in fact, I find it impossible—to find compassion in a policy that entices people either to their deaths or to indefinite detention in this country. I do not understand the compassion; I see no compassion. In fact, with this legacy caseload, under the system of processing implemented and maintained by those opposite when in government, 30,000 people are still languishing under this system. Now what does that mean? It means 30,000 mothers, fathers and children whose lives are in limbo.

At the recent legislative committee hearing into this legislation, the department of immigration said that 'the government has made it very clear that no illegal maritime arrival will be granted a permanent protection visa. If this legislation is not passed, illegal maritime arrivals will remain barred from being able to lodge an application for a permanent protection visa.' So anybody who opposes this bill will be actively ensuring that these people remain in limbo. The question for these 30,000-plus people is: how long will they remain in limbo? The department said that 'if the government continued to process the IMA backlog for consideration of a grant of a temporary humanitarian concern visa in lieu of the TPVs'—which those on the other side have been blocking; now this is the important bit—'it is estimated that the backlog under the Labor-Greens legislation and processes would take at least seven years to process.'

I will say that again: if those opposite block this legislation it will mean that 30,000 people will remain in limbo, many of them for up to seven years. I struggle to understand where the compassion is in that—that is, leaving people, who were enticed to pay to come to this country, in limbo for a further seven years. Surely the most compassionate option would be to speed up their processing time by years so that they can get a decision: yes, they can stay on one of the new visas we are proposing; or, no, they cannot. Surely it is better to give people the news as soon as possible and not leave them in limbo indefinitely.

This bill will reintroduce temporary protection visas and will introduce safe haven enterprise visas, which are also temporary visas. It will reinforce the government's powers to undertake maritime turn backs and it will introduce rapid processing and streamlined review arrangements. Surely a compassionate response is to provide visas; to get people out in the community and provide them with an opportunity to work. It is not compassionate to provide permanent visas. This would again put the people smugglers back in business and we would start all over again with the deaths, with the arrivals, and with more people and more children in detention.

These measures deliver on the government's election commitments to reintroduce these TPVs, to ensure that no IMA will be granted a permanent protection visa, and critically, and most compassionately, to process Labor's backlog of 30,000 asylum seekers. This should come as no surprise to anybody in this chamber or anybody in the Australian community. The reintroduction of TPVs is fundamental to the government's key objectives to process the current backlog of IMA claims. I was on the committee inquiry into this bill; I heard the submissions from a wide range of people. Not a single one of them put forward a credible and implementable solution to this backlog that would not put the people smugglers back in business. To me, that is not the responsible and the compassionate course of action.

Under this policy from our government, we are providing temporary protection to those illegal maritime arrivals who are found to engage Australia's protection obligations. Temporary protection visas will be granted for a maximum of three years and will provide access to Medicare, social security benefits and work rights, despite what those opposite have been claiming. However, most importantly, temporary protection visas will not include family reunion or a right to re-enter Australia. Those of you who have had a look at recent committee testimony from a number of different inquiries will see that that is one of the products that people smugglers sell: you send us your young children—'anchor children'—and if they get in and get a visa, you can bring your whole family in. That is a horrific and an inhumane offering on behalf of the people smugglers and we cannot not deal with it.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about people who want to be with their families? What about them?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Whish-Wilson thinks that sending children by boat is a compassionate way to deal with children and that there are remotely has any human rights aspects to it, he is welcome to address that in the chamber later.

These visas will be credited for a period of up to three years. On expiration, a person's individual circumstances will quite reasonably be reassessed. Those who are found to still be owed protection will only be granted a further TPV or a SHEV, a safe haven enterprise visa. If they are found not to engage Australia's protection obligations, they will be required to leave.

Consistent with this government's principles of rewarding enterprise and its belief in a strong regional Australia, a new visa, the safe haven enterprise visa, will also be created by this bill. Again, it absolutely astounds me that people in this chamber, people who represent rural and regional communities in this country, would not be supportive of this new visa. The safe haven enterprise visa will be open to applications by those who have been processed under this legacy case load and who are found to engage Australia's protection obligations. They will be an alternative to the TPV and will also encourage enterprise through learning and earning, which I think is wonderful.

Those granted a SHEV will work in designated regions, identified through a national self-nomination process. These visas will be valid for five years and, like the TPV, will not include family reunion or a right to re-enter Australia because, again, that is another product for people smugglers to sell. Holders of these visas will be targeted to designated regions and encouraged to fill regional job vacancies, and will have access to the same support arrangements as a TPV holder, including Medicare, social security benefits and work rights.

In the last few months as a senator in this place and from my travels around regional Western Australia, I have had many conversations with growers and farmers who simply cannot find local people to do these jobs that keep their businesses, their farms and their horticultural industries going. Any opportunity like this to help growers and farmers across Australia find hardworking employees is something to be commended. Again, I cannot understand how anybody in this place would not think that is a good thing.

What happens to them after they have worked in regional Australia? If they have worked in regional Australia without requiring access to income support for 3½ years, they will be able to apply, if they meet eligibility requirements, to be granted other onshore visas—for example, family and skilled visas as well as temporary and skilled student visas. If a SHEV holder was to access government assistance to study for a degree, a diploma or a trade certificate in a designated regional area, this would not be classified as accessing social security benefits. However, holders of this visa will not be able to apply for a permanent protection visa. If a holder of a SHEV has relied on income support for more than 18 months during a five-year period, they will only be eligible to apply for another SHEV or a TPV, and this will only be granted if they are found to be engaging Australia's protection obligations. If they are not found to have engaged Australia's protection obligations, they will be required to leave the country.

Amendments in this bill to the Maritime Powers Act strengthen Australia's maritime enforcement framework and the ongoing conduct of border security and maritime enforcement activities. These amendments also reinforce the government's powers and support for Australian border protection officers conducting maritime operations to stop people-smuggling ventures at sea. Enforced turn-backs are a critical component of the government's suite of border protection measures and have been successful in stopping the boats, stopping people dying and putting people smugglers out of business.

These measures affirm and strengthen our government's ability to continue with the successful cessation of boat arrivals in Australia. As someone with firsthand experience with border protection policies, I know the effectiveness of stopping the boats. They are not easy decisions. They are probably some of the hardest decisions that any government has to take, but they have to be made in the national interest and, I must say, in the interest of those who are thinking of putting their lives at risk by paying people smugglers, and now in the interest of the 30,000 illegal maritime arrivals whose lives will be held in limbo under the policies of this government for nearly seven years if this legislation does not go through.

The migration system as it stands promotes a one-size-fits-all approach to responding to other claims. The framework is inconsistent with the robust protection system that promotes efficiency and integrity. While efficiency and integrity are buzzwords used in government and in business, what that actually means for those 30,000 people is that they will have to wait for up to seven years in limbo, and that is not acceptable. Under this bill, a new process, the fast-track assessment process, will efficiently and effectively respond to unmeritorious claims for asylum and, it has to be pointed out, there are many unmeritorious claims for asylum just as there are many that are meritorious. This new fast-track assessment process will replace access to the Refugee Review Tribunal with access to a new model of review—the Immigration Assessment Authority, known as the IAA. These measures are specifically aimed at addressing the current backlog of illegal maritime arrivals.

As we heard during our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hearings on this, 30,000 people are affected. Those who have meritorious claims will be afforded far better treatment under the provisions of this bill. However, it is the government's policy that, if fast-tracked applicants present unmeritorious claims or have protection elsewhere, their cases will be channelled towards a direct immigration outcome, rather than having them access the merits review process in order to prolong their stay in Australia. The measures in this bill will support a robust and timely process, which is, as I said, the humanitarian and the right process. It will better prioritise and assess claims, and afford a differentiated approach depending on the characteristics of the claims. Prompt removal of failed asylum seekers from Australia also supports the integrity of our protection program and reduces the likelihood of applicants deliberately frustrating and playing the system, and delaying removal plans.

The cost of the former Labor government's failures on our border over the last six years of government have been substantial in both humanitarian and financial terms. When looking at this bill and these measures, it is, I think, very important to go back and have a look at what they are designed to address. Labor and the Greens' failed border protection policies resulted in an environment where 50,000 people put their lives and their families' lives at risk by paying people smugglers, working through a pipeline of countries, to make this illegal journey. And why did they do it? Because those opposite deliberately, knowingly and with foresight implemented policies that drew them back to our country. Again, as I have said, I see no compassion in any government that would deliberately do that—not only deliberately bring them here in large numbers but put them into detention centres that were not ready and were not capable of looking after that many people. That is not compassion. That is not humane. Trying now to obstruct legislation that would deal with these 30,000 people in less than the seven years that their system would have taken—that is not the humane or right way to treat these 30,000 human beings.

As a consequence of the policies of those opposite, more than 14,800 have been waiting offshore in very desperate circumstances. Because of the policies of those opposite, they have been denied Australia's protection through humanitarian visas, as places were taken in our program by those illegal maritime arrivals who had paid to come here—many of whom had paid and sent their children on that journey so that the whole family could come in behind them. That is in no way a humanitarian or a responsible government approach.

To me, the most compassionate and humanitarian approach is to pass this legislation to give these 30,000 human beings a decision. If they are not going to stay, it is the right thing to do to tell them so they can get on with their lives elsewhere. If they are able to stay, we should provide them with visas so that they can work, study and raise their families here. That is the humanitarian way. Do not leave them in detention for up to seven years. That would be the consequence of not passing this bill, which I commend to the Senate.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to support the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, I support the comments of those who have come before me, particularly those of Senator Reynolds in the last few minutes. I will be urging, from a humanitarian point of view, everybody in the chamber to support this legislation. I do want to reflect initially, if I may, on why we are where we are, because I think it is important for people to have some understanding of the history of this issue.

We know that the previous coalition Prime Minister, Mr Howard, dealt with this issue. He of course made the statement that we, Australia, would decide who comes to our country and the circumstances under which they come. It was interesting for me, not long after I came here some six years ago, to hear a comment by the honourable Philip Ruddock, whom Mr Howard appointed as the immigration minister. Coming from his legal background, particularly associated with supporting those in need, one might have thought that Mr Ruddock's view would be very much along the lines of: 'What can we do to encourage more to come?' The interesting point he made was this: 'I came to the realisation that the best way of protecting these would-be asylum seekers who would come by sea under circumstances in which they are encouraged by people smugglers was to make sure that they didn't get on boats in the first place.'

Philip Ruddock took the view that the safest position for those people was to make sure they were not put on old wooden leaky hulks, having paid significant, indeed scandalous, sums of money to people smugglers. So Ruddock went about the process of making sure that that took place. History of course records that that is what the Howard government achieved. At the time, the shadow minister for immigration was Ms Gillard. Ms Gillard used to have a press release. The press release was headed: 'Another boat, another policy failure.' It got to the stage that her staff or their printers were not troubled by that media release, because they stopped when the vessels stopped.

I remember, before meeting Philip Ruddock—Senator Cash would recall as well—watching him being interviewed by a very aggressive BBC interviewer in London. This man was being highly critical and highly rude, and Philip Ruddock in his usual quiet way listened to this fellow for awhile and then said to him, 'Why are you attacking our country when you yourselves have exactly the problem that we did have?' He said, 'The only difference is we have addressed it and you haven't.'

Of course, when the Rudd government came into power, the first thing they did was dismantle the processes, practices, procedures and legislation that had stood the test of time with the Howard government. As one who had recently worked in and had businesses in Asia, on the subcontinent and in the Middle East, it became apparent to everybody that the message to the people smugglers was: 'We're back in business. We can put our sign up again because once again Australia is a weak target.' So what we saw in that time was the lamentable circumstance of tens of thousands of people paying hundreds of thousands of dollars collectively to people smugglers to get on leaking boats for the possibility of making it to Australia or to one of our offshore islands.

We know that in excess of 50,000 people got on those more than 800 boats. We know about 1,100 people—about one every second day that Labor was in government between 2007 and 2013 that we know about—were lost at sea. Why do I emphasise that point? I return to some discussions with our naval personnel with whom I had the pleasure and privilege of visiting at the Larrakeyah Barracks as part of Sovereign Borders in July of this year. For those in the gallery who may not be aware: we have this wonderful program between the parliamentarians and the Australian Defence Force where we—there are 14 of us each year—can participate in a program with our Defence Force personnel. We are given no privileges. We meet everybody from the cooks to the generals to the admirals. We have the opportunity to learn from them at the coalface what their activities are, where their challenges lie. For their sins the military officers come and spend a week with us in Parliament House in September or October.

A circumstance played out last night on national television. That was the stress to naval personnel who have been associated with the illegal-boat-led immigration programs over the last few years. The small amount of footage that I saw was distressing. But the point they made to me was they were sure there were well in excess of 1,100 people who would have been lost at sea. They are the ones that we know about. One can only be open in admiration of the work that those naval and related Army personnel do in protecting our borders but also in offering assistance to those who used to come. They were stressed out because of increased workload. The vessels were certainly stressed out because of increased workload.

But the worst thing of all for them was that recently our national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ran a line that our naval personnel had forced the hands of asylum seekers onto hot engine parts on those vessels. You had better have a clear understanding of their anger and their disappointment that such an allegation would be aired on a publicly funded national broadcasting service. I for one praised the Minister for Defence and others who drew attention to the scandalous allegation that was made and which has never been fully retracted, with a half-hearted apology from the head of the ABC.

Let's reflect on what has happened since Minister Morrison, ably assisted by his assistant minister, Michaelia Cash, took over responsibility for this portfolio. Since December last year—about this time—there has been one people smuggling venture, associated with 157 personnel. Only the one. Prior to that time, as we know, from September 2012 to September 2013—prior to us coming into government—there were no fewer than 401 such ventures, with 26½ thousand people on board.

I want to draw attention to the plight of genuine refugees—those who have gone through the process, those who have been found to actually be eligible for refugee status in this country who have been left floundering and rotting in refugee camps around the world as a result of the previous Labor government's policies. And why were they? Because Australia would accept a certain number per year. For each illegal immigrant—each illegally sourced asylum seeker who came—a genuine refugee then continued to rot with their families in refugee camps. I recall in Perth a young Sri Lankan fellow coming to see me, telling me that what was happening in these refugee camps was that, as a family got to the top of the list to come to Australia, unbeknownst to them, as a result of graft and corruption by management of some of these refugee camps, they never got to find out their names got to the top of the queue. Why? Because somebody came along with the inevitable brown paper bag, paid money, went to the top of the queue, came to Australia and had the deserving family continue to rot in such circumstances.

I was delighted to learn that the minister has indicated that we are now back to the stage of accepting some, I believe, 13,500 genuine refugees each year. On top of that, the people who will be the subject of this legislation are actually additional to those numbers. This is critically important—they are additional. So we will see again the flow of genuine refugees coming to this country under the conditions we have always approved and want to see in this place.

It is not just the direct cost—the $11 billion of cost—that the previous government ran up because they discontinued the policies of the Howard government that they inherited and that were working; it is what they then did when trying to account for some of those costs. The problem was compounded because they cut nearly 700 staff from the Customs service at a time when their duties were being increased as a result of not just illegal boat arrivals but also the burgeoning importation of drugs into this country. Only the other day we saw our border protection, customs, police and related services apprehend some $1.5 billion worth of methamphetamine and other illegal drugs.

We do not for a minute think that we are getting all that is coming into this country, but when you cut the guts out of the customs and immigration service—when you take 700 competent people out—what does that do to the drug cartels? It has been put to me that the drug trade is so lucrative that they say to the drug mules and others in the trade, 'If you get apprehended, we will replace the product free of charge.' Those are the challenges we are facing. The number of sea cargo inspections under the Labor government decreased by 25 per cent and there has been a 75 per cent reduction in air cargo inspections, so the chances now of being apprehended if you bring something in by air are not high. These are some of the spin-offs that occur when you end up squandering $11 billion when you inherited a situation that was under control.

I now come to the circumstance of this legislation directly. Temporary protection visas do exactly as their name suggests. If somebody comes to this country and returning them to their country of origin would put them at risk, they will be provided with a temporary protection visa. Wonderful. Over time, as we know, the conditions that caused them to have to leave their country, if they were the genuine asylum purposes, may change or can be the subject of examination and inspection.

I think one of the fairest components of the legislation we are considering, and the one I urge my colleagues in this place to support, is the capacity for a person during the time they are under a temporary protection visa to be provided access to Medicare and Social Security benefits and allowed to work. A lot of people in our community do not agree with that. We get email traffic that says: 'Why is the Australian taxpayer providing Medicare services for these people? Why are we providing social security benefits?' There are a number of reasons: firstly, we are generous people; secondly, we want to try to minimise the adverse impacts on these people; and, thirdly, we want to give them the dignity that goes with the capacity to work. How terrible it must be, for whatever reason and in whatever circumstances, for a person who comes to this country to be left rotting and not be able to work because they were not processed by the previous government, which had no sense of generosity and no capacity for administration.

As a person from a rural and regional background I support the comments of my colleague Senator Reynolds with regard to work in rural and regional areas. At this very moment where fruit and other crops are being harvested we have a shortage of labour because Australians are unwilling to leave their towns and cities to avail themselves of this work. Fruit is not being picked and is rotting on trees and vines, and grain is not being harvested. Here we have a tremendous opportunity for these people.

The second element of Minister Morrison's legislation is the safe haven enterprise visa. This is a visa for a five-year period. If holders of these visas have worked in regional Australia without requiring income support for 3½ years and if they meet the eligibility requirements, they will be able to apply for other onshore visas—family, skilled, temporary skilled and student visas. What a fantastic opportunity. We all know from our own experiences how quickly those who came in post the Second World War from Southern Europe—Italians, Greeks and others—assimilated into our communities and how we benefited from their involvement. We then had the later wave during and after the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese who have come to this country have enriched this country with their diligence, their hard work and their desire to study and improve themselves and of course they have changed our cuisine and our outlook on life.

Here under this legislation we are giving those people who will accept and be involved in the safe haven enterprise visa the chance, should they work for 3½ years—which is what they want to do; they do want to do the work that so many Australians do not seem to want to do—of family and skilled visas as well as temporary skilled and student visas. So they can set themselves up with sets of skills that indeed at the conclusion of that time they may well be able to take back to their country of origin, if indeed that is where they return, so that of course their lives and the lives of their children are enhanced into the future.

The legislation certainly requires a circumstance that people do make sure that they comply with Australia's rules and regulations. Perfectly, the Australian community would expect, that if a person on whatever form of these or whatever form of activity in this country, if they cannot comply with the rules of this country, if they cannot comply with reasonable legislation in this country, then they should be denied their right to continue here. I think that is an entirely reasonable circumstance.

Just in the last few minutes I do want to go back to the humanitarian activity and I do want to return to the topic briefly associated with our own military personnel. It is and has been an enormous burden. When we were in Darwin they actually asked us to put the clothing on that the personnel wear when they get into the rubber duckies to actually go to the vessel that they will be intercepting, remembering what temperatures would be like and humidity is like this time of the year. They will be in that equipment for six to eight hours, apprehensive, tentative, not knowing what they are going to meet when they arrive at the vessel. This is a pressure that they endure day after day. I for one want to say how pleased and proud I am of those people. I also want to say that this type of legislation will limit even more quickly and even more severely those who attempt—people smugglers—to bring people to this country illegally.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's migration policies have always had a long and vexed history. They have been, and rightfully so, open to significant scrutiny from international and domestic courts, independent experts, interest groups and the electorate. It has and will continue to be a passionate debate about a wicked and vexed issue. For me it is always important, always, to remember that we are dealing with legislation that relates to people, our fellow human beings. They are not numbers; they are not the myriad of labels that have been applied to them by all sides of the debate; and they are not political inconveniences, punching bags or props. They are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends, neighbours and acquaintances. They are, in short, people just like you and me who have found themselves in extraordinarily difficult circumstances—some, unimaginable circumstances. So I would like to approach this debate with respect, with compassion and with dignity.

This has not been an easy process for me. On one side this bill does contain a number of measures that I am not comfortable with. But on the other side, if we do not act, the 30,000 people currently awaiting processing will continue to be left in limbo. If this bill does not pass there is also the real risk that the government will use a nonstatutory process instead, which will not result in any better outcomes for the people who are currently in Australia. This problem is a true Hobson's choice: we are left to decide between two potentially negative outcomes.

Back in 2012 the former government put up a number of proposals, the so-called Malaysia solution, which was rejected by the then opposition and the Australian Greens. I remember at the time—I remember well—I was in hospital and I asked for my vote to be recorded. There is a saying: 'Not to have the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.' As imperfect as the former government's solution was, it was preferable to doing nothing. We saw more and more drownings, more and more people pass away, and more and more people fall victim to people smugglers and the awful consequences of that.

What is being proposed by the government here is by no means perfect—in fact, it is quite imperfect—but the consequences of not supporting it will mean that asylum seekers will be in a worse position, in my view. It also has to be noted what the immigration minister said a few moments ago. He has agreed, as part of a process of constructive engagement with crossbenchers, to increase the humanitarian intake by 7,500 people—a significant increase. My view is that we should double the humanitarian intake or more. We are a big country with a big heart. But I am trying to deal with the actual political realities here. We have an opportunity to increase significantly the humanitarian and refugee intake by 7,500 people on top of the 30,750 per annum. We have an opportunity to have something like 25,000 people on bridging visas have work rights for the first time. We have an opportunity to significantly improve the lot of those individuals who have been left in limbo. The reality is that under the former government border control, immigration policy, was out of control, and that is something we need to take into account.

I have met with many interest groups and representatives, including Amnesty International and also Paris Aristotle of Foundation House and the former government's expert panel. My view on this issue changed when I saw what Angus Houston, Paris Aristotle and Michael L'Estrange said in that expert panel. I congratulate former Prime Minister Gillard for having the foresight to set up that panel—to actually have a circuit breaker to try to look at this in a different way, because to me it meant that we needed to consider the awful moral dilemmas that we had to deal with. I thought the panel headed by Angus Houston came up with a number of sensible proposals.

In that context, I have approached the government to request changes to the bill and to migration policy to improve the conditions for the men, women and children who are awaiting processing. That doesn't mean that we cannot still advocate for a significant increase in the humanitarian intake. It does not mean that we stop being critical of the government's policies, but if we do nothing, if we do not support this bill, then I believe fervently that what will happen is that asylum seekers will be worse off if this bill is not passed, as imperfect as this bill is. That is the moral dilemma; that is the wicked problem.

I want to make it clear that my vote for this bill is conditional on these changes and those circulated by the Palmer United Party. The government has taken my concerns into account and, I understand, will be circulating amendments to that effect. As such, I will not speak to those amendments in detail, but I would like to take this opportunity to outline the changes that I have proposed. I also want to make it very clear that these proposals do not necessarily represent my ideal outcomes. They do not, but they do make important steps forward—and I do not believe they should be rejected because they are only 'good' rather than 'perfect'.

Firstly, I have proposed changes to allow people holding TPVs or SHEVs to travel outside Australia where the minister is satisfied there are compassionate or compelling circumstances and the minister has approved that travel. That has never occurred before, either under this government or under the previous government, and I think that is an important concession. This would cover circumstances where a TPV or SHEV holder wants to travel to visit family in circumstances such as significant family illness or death. While I would prefer to allow family reunification on these visas, I believe this is an important step in granting these visa holders rights that go some way towards acknowledging the importance of family.

Secondly, I have proposed changes to ensure that, through the use of a disallowable instrument, the fast-track process only applies to the legacy caseload. This will make sure that the use of this fast-track process will be subject to the scrutiny of the Senate. Thirdly, I have proposed changes to the definition of 'manifestly unfair' in relation to the rejection of claims so that it more accurately reflects language used by the UNHCR—and that is important. I think that is a benchmark that we need to look at very carefully.

Fourthly, I have proposed some changes to the fast-track review process to ensure that it is not only efficient and quick but must meet the natural justice provisions already included in the Migration Act. This will help to ensure that decisions take natural justice into account within the confines of the act and so are more balanced and fair. I have also proposed changes to the requirement for the review to take new information into account. My specific intention in this case is to ensure that information that was not provided for personal reasons, including mental health reasons, can be taken into account. One example that has been put to me are the many cases of sexual or other assault, where the victim may not volunteer that information in the first instance. I think all of us can appreciate the reasons behind not sharing that information—the shame and the trauma that may prevent someone from speaking out. My proposal to the government was that this type of information and these circumstances must be taken into account, and I believe these changes will improve the review process in that regard.

Fifthly, I have raised concerns relating to the non-refoulement provisions and how we can be sure that a person being returned to a country is not facing persecution. In this case the government has agreed to use phrasing similar to that of the UNHCR to define both when a person is considered to be part of a particular social group and what effective protection measures should be taken into account when considering if that person should be returned. I believe these definitions will bring Australia more in line with UNHCR best practice in terms of defining and applying these clauses.

Further, I have advocated, as have others, for an increase in Australia's humanitarian intake and to extend work rights to people on bridging visas. I have always been a strong advocate of increasing our humanitarian intake. I believe the government could go further, but I do acknowledge the increase they have proposed will make a real difference—7½ thousand people. That is 7½ thousand people who can be taken in through that humanitarian and refugee intake and who can be part of our community. I do not want to throw that away. That does not mean that my colleagues in the Australian Greens or the opposition cannot say that we should double it—I think we should—or that we should have a much bigger humanitarian intake, a much bigger refugee intake. It could be an issue at the next election. I do not have an issue with that—it ought to be. But I do not want to throw away this opportunity to have 7½ thousand more people come in to this country through that humanitarian and refugee intake process.

Extending work rights to those on bridging visas is also vitally important. Participating in the workforce, even in a small way, makes people a part of our community and society. It gives them, quite simply, a reason to get up in the morning—to feel valued and that they are making a contribution. I do not want to pretend that any of these measures is an ideal outcome or that they represent what I would see happen in the perfect world. But they will make a true difference to the people who are here right now, who are in detention right now, who are waiting to be processed right now. This may not be perfect, but it is good. It is also important to remember that this is not the end of the debate. These measures do not mean that I, as many others, will stop pushing for improvements. They are merely the next step, not the final one, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 makes significant changes to the way asylum seekers in this country are processed. With amendments, the bill is even more complex than without. The bill will do many things, not least of which is the bringing back of TPVs. As I understand it, the government will not back down on their view in support of TPVs, and I have a problem in backing down on my view against them. As such, I think we are, at this point in time, possibly at a stalemate.

But I want people to be crystal clear that I genuinely want to find the solution to the problem of asylum seekers and what they are experiencing. Having visited Villawood and Broadmeadows on a number of occasions, I know that these people wish to have some surety in their lives. I also know that many of them will be found to be genuine refugees and that there will be some who will be found, ultimately, not to be genuine. I personally think the whole debate has become so polarised. I am not casting aspersions on anybody's motivations here but just asking people to remember that we are all going to go home at the end of this week. We are all going to be with our families

We all know where we are going, so to speak. The issue of asylum seekers, the issue of dealing with compassion and dignity, the issue of addressing the concerns of people in the wider Australian community have to be treaty logically and with respect. There are many moving parts to this machine but in the end it is about people and you cannot commodify people. They are not numbers; they are people. At this point, I cannot support the government's legislation as it stands, but I acknowledge the work of Senator Xenophon. There are a lot of people in this place who are looking for a genuine and a just outcome.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the first time in this place I have had the opportunity to speak on any refugee or immigration matters. At the outset, I would like to associate myself with the sentiments put on the record by Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan. We do have a moral obligation to do what we can to accept people who are in unfortunate positions, who do not have the grace and benefit of being born in the safe and democratic nation in which we were born. We try to do the best in the world, as we do in our own lives, to help as many people as we can. I know often I personally fall down in not giving charity to as many fellow Australians as perhaps I should from time to time. Likewise, as a nation I am sure we can do more from time to time, we but we cannot do everything. The problem of refugees or displaced people has existed for as long as human history itself, going right back to biblical times. As a small nation at one end of the Pacific, we simply cannot fix that problem. We can, however, contribute to helping a not insubstantial number of people to relocate to a new nation, to make a new life, and to give them the opportunity to escape from threats to their life and liberty.

Through my own experiences, although I have not had a lot to do with refugee issues, I have from time to time been in contact with the Hazara community in Brisbane. They are great Australians who have come to this nation in the last decade or so, have found work and made themselves a family, and have taken advantage of the great Australian dream which we offer to everyone who is born here. It is a fantastic thing we can also offer to people from all around the world.

We try to take in around 13,500 refugees a year, which is a high proportion of the population relative to other nations' takes. It is something I fully support. In the past few years, that intake has been breached largely through unauthorised arrivals by boat. While I support an open and welcoming refugee policy where we do not control who is coming to this nation, I have great concern that those refugee places are not necessarily going to the people most in need across the world. They go to the people most able to afford to get on a boat or have access to places like Indonesia where they can take advantage of people-smuggling activities.

There certainly needs to be a change in policy and a recalibration of where we are at. This bill deals with the legacy of policies which have contributed to the fact that we have 30,000 people in migration limbo at the moment, people who came here in an unauthorised way, and we have no real system to process those individuals.

As I said, I think we have a moral obligation to help people. We do not have a moral obligation because we have signed international treaties or because other people tell us we should act in that way; we have that obligation because we are human beings, just as these people are human beings and we should try our best to make their lives better if we can. The changes we are making in this bill have the potential to improve the lives of the 30,000 people. I know others in this chamber do not support temporary protection visas, but I think they are a reasonable compromise between ensuring people have asylum from threats which might impact them in their home countries, while recognising that we cannot help everyone in that situation.

Over time, if the temporary protection visa system works well, we could help more people than we could if we were to offer permanent asylum because there is a limit to the number of people we can take. While I believe we have the obligation to provide people with asylum, it does not extend to say that we have to provide them with permanent residence, only that they should be granted asylum in the period when they need asylum. If circumstances change in their home countries, I see no abrogation of our responsibilities if we ask them to return to their home country when the situation improves. In fact, in my view we do the home countries a disservice if we do not encourage people to go home in those circumstances. We have been involved in fighting a long and hard war in Afghanistan. While I see the need for the Hazara to have asylum, hopefully in the long term Afghanistan will find a modicum of peace and security and the Hazara people will be integral to building peace and stability in that nation. If all we do is take the good people out of a nation and provide them with asylum, then those other countries will be denuded of those good people and will struggle to rebuild their own nations and to fight against evil and tyranny that sometimes, unfortunately, temporarily succeeds in other countries.

Providing temporary protection is, to me, quite consistent with our obligations, and a temporary protection visa has always seemed to me to be a reasonable and proportionate response to this very difficult issue. Of course, the policy changes I flagged earlier have made a marked difference in the number of boat arrivals in this country. There has been only one people-smuggling venture that has successfully arrived in Australian waters since 19 December 2013—almost a year ago—and with only 157 people. That compares with the 50,000 or so that arrived here under the former government, and that has meant that we have a backlog of 30,000 people in asylum right now.

The government went to an election last year with a clear policy—indeed it has been to the last two elections with a clear policy—to implement changes to our refugee program. The changes have included a program of turning back boats where it is safe to do so, reopening the facilities on Nauru and Manus Island—which the former government did take steps to do before the election—and, of course, the reintroducing temporary protection visas. I think there was a very clear mandate at the last election and widespread support for those policies, and some components have been successfully implemented by the government and have clearly had an impact. As I said earlier, I recognise the concerns of other senators about temporary protection visas, but it seems to me to be a reasonable compromise in this very fraught debate and I would hope that particularly those senators who come from an independent or crossbench perspective will look closely at this compromise and consider it to be a reasonable alternative.

I want to give credit to some of the crossbench and government senators who have introduced a new element to this program. I think that the safe haven enterprise visa, as it has been called, is an extremely innovative and welcome development. We have other visas in this nation which are very beneficial to rural and regional areas; indeed, some of our farms, meatworks and agricultural enterprises would not survive without 457 visas or 417 visas, the holiday visa program. These are essential to providing a workforce for industries in so many areas where unemployment is high. Unfortunately, many Australians do not want to go and pick fruit at a farm, pick grapes in St George or cut down 14-kilogram banana trunks in Innisfail or Tully, and we do rely on getting people from other nations to sustain those industries and farming activities. The enterprise visa will add another menu item to those visas which I think would be quite beneficial. People among those 30,000 who are in that backlog who want to gain access to work can move to an area of need—although I recognise that any area can be designated a region, my understanding is that the government will seek to ensure that those regions are in need of employment and are designated accordingly. People could apply to get a safe haven enterprise visa and move to these areas to add a new source of dynamism and diversity to regions of Australia which need workers, and it would allow these people to get on with their lives and earn some money for their families so that they can afford all the things that we in this chamber, I am sure, are very lucky to be able to afford.

The safe haven enterprise visas would be temporary in nature but my understanding is that after 3½ years on those visas people would be able to apply to be granted other onshore visas, including family-related visas which would not normally be allowed under TPVs generally. This will provide those people in this queue with hope for a better life. If we pass this bill today, it will provide 30,000 people who are somewhere on our territory, or territory that we have contracted for in Pacific nations, to have a hope for a better life. They can get some form of visa right now. They can apply for rights to work and to provide for their families, and if they prove themselves to tick all the right boxes while undertaking those activities, working and paying taxes, they will be able to become fully-fledged Australians. I think that is a great thing, and I am surprised that it is all that controversial in this place. Why wouldn't we want to give some portion of these 30,000 people hope for a better life? That is what this bill will do.

The government is of a view that a one size fits all approach is not appropriate to this problem because it limits our ability to address and remove unmeritorious claims and diverts resources away from individuals who have more complex claims. This bill will introduce a fast-track assessment process that will efficiently and effectively respond to claims that are deemed to have no merit and will replace access to the Refugee Review Tribunal with a new model of review—the immigration assessment authority, known as the IAA. These changes are consistent with the other issues that have been raised with respect to the surge in boat arrivals that have occurred in the last few years that has, in my view, given priority to people who perhaps are not as much in need as those who are waiting in camps—those who are in a queue, so to speak—waiting to get to a nation of asylum, whether it be Australia or another country.

Our review processes likewise have been blocked and unnecessarily diverted from dealing with claims that are of more merit by those that would seek to abuse processes. However, I completely understand why people might want to do that. I must say, if my family were living in Iran or another nation, I would try to do everything I could to get my family out and to a better life. As I said at the start, we cannot do everything. That does not mean we do nothing but we need to do something that we can do, and we need to do it in the best possible we can, given the scarce resources and the constraints that we have as a nation, and it needs to be consistent with our obligations in this place. This bill does that. It gives people better opportunities and it should be supported by this chamber.