James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to discuss the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Regrettably the coalition is not in a position to support this bill as it is currently drafted. I want to start by saying, and really emphasising, the coalition of course supports efforts to engage more with our Pacific neighbours. We understand how important it is that we engage constructively in our region in a way that lifts up the people of the Pacific. It's why we put in place successive strategies to make sure we are engaging in the right way with our Pacific neighbours, and it's why the coalition invested record amounts in the Pacific when we were in government. We support the concept of a Pacific engagement visa. However, we do not support the awarding of visas being done by a lottery or ballot. The coalition supports a well-structured, well-planned immigration policy, and we are willing to work with the government on a model for a fairer Pacific engagement visa that delivers better outcomes for Australia and our Pacific neighbours.

Permanent residency that ultimately leads to Australian citizenship is too important, in our view, to be decided by chance. These two bills will, for the first time, create a ballot process for the issuing of Australian visas. This is not something that we have done as a country before. The first bill establishes the lottery scheme, while the second bill establishes how you enter the lottery scheme—namely, by paying a dollar amount to enable you to go into the lottery. The process to obtain a visa, to obtain permanent residency and ultimately to embark on the pathway to citizenship should not, in our view, depend on luck or chance. This is a significant departure from the way in which Australia has conducted its immigration process over many decades. While I'm sure this is not intended by the proponents, we believe it has the effect of devaluing the worth of each applicant by not taking into account their personal merits or circumstances. The bill will create a precedent that can be used not just for the Pacific engagement visa but for any future visa that the government of the day may decide to introduce. This has the potential to turn Australia's immigration system on its head. Instead of our current immigration policy, which is based on attracting skilled migrants who contribute to the economy, the government proposes to introduce a lottery to decide who can become a permanent resident, and that is not a system that the coalition can support.

There are a number of unanswered questions about how the scheme would work in practice. While the government has stated that the eligibility criteria for the visa will include age, English language, health and character requirements, as well as requiring a job offer for the primary applicant, it appears the visa will not have skill level or occupation requirements. The visa would therefore not be aligned with the skilled stream of Australia's migration program, which targets young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country as well as temporary migrants who make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages. We are concerned that there is no requirement for prior work experience in Australia, under the government's proposed approach, which will increase the risks of visa recipients and their families experiencing difficulties in their settlement in Australia.

I understand that some of our Pacific neighbours are strongly supportive of this Pacific engagement visa and that they will be disappointed by our decision not to support the government's proposed approach today, but I want to reassure them that the coalition are strongly committed to providing employment opportunities in Australia for citizens of Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. It was the previous coalition government which delivered on this commitment through the PALM scheme, which has been enormously successful. We remain very strongly supportive of mechanisms which provide employment opportunities and pathways to permanent residency for citizens of Pacific islands and Timor-Leste. Importantly, we are supportive of the principle of the Pacific engagement visa; we just don't think that a lottery is the right approach. We have consistently expressed our willingness to work with the government and Pacific nations to develop a sustainable Pacific engagement visa which provides a pathway to permanent residency, particularly for those who've demonstrated a work capacity in Australia. We believe that the PALM scheme could provide a suitable vehicle through which to develop a Pacific engagement visa. Through the PALM, we have a Pacific employment scheme that is working incredibly well.

PALM has provided many of the benefits sought by all parties, including Australia and Pacific islands nations as well as employers, individual workers and their families and communities, who benefit greatly from the remittances which are sent home. PALM already has a strong support system in place to assist new workers to settle into life and work in Australia, and we consider this aspect fundamental to the long-term sustainability of any new policy approach. We believe that a period of proven successful work participation in Australia under PALM should create a qualification for a potential Pacific engagement visa. This would avoid the need for a lottery and ensure that the visa recipient was better placed to successfully take up permanent residency in Australia. We would of course be prepared to sit down with the government and discuss options for how the PALM scheme could provide a pathway for Pacific islanders to access the Pacific engagement visa, but we will not entertain the idea of introducing a lottery which you pay a fee to enter. This approach will only serve to diminish the integrity of our visa system.

Australia has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support for our nearest neighbours in the Pacific and Timor-Leste, and we want to see that continue. I very sincerely reiterate that we'd be able to support a Pacific engagement visa and we're willing to work with the government to find a workable model. I hope that the government is able to support the second reading amendment that I will be circulating in the chamber shortly, which rejects the lottery and proposes the coalition's alternative approach. I hope the government will see fit to sit down with the coalition and work through this issue. If they don't then sadly we'll be unable to support the legislation, because we think that they're putting in place a principle which fundamentally undermines the immigration system of this country and are missing an opportunity to develop a fairer Pacific engagement visa that delivers better outcomes for Australia and our Pacific neighbours.

I should say we, of course, understand the broader context of this proposed legislation. We understand that the government is trying to bring all tools of statecraft to bear on the challenges that we face in the Pacific, and we stand with the government in being willing to facilitate all of those. But we have an in-principle difference with the government when it comes to the process of allocating these visas which we have clearly articulated throughout this process: through the debate in the House of Representatives many months ago and through our negotiations and meetings with the government consistently. Without any changes to that fundamental stumbling block, we are not going to be able to support the bill in its current form.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Paterson has, I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to provide for a visa pre-application process in the form of a ballot. Despite the title of this amendment bill, it does not explicitly or exclusively provide for the proposed Pacific engagement visa. Instead, the amendment bill provides the power to regulate, through disallowable instruments, which visa subclasses the ballot can be used for, who will be eligible to participate in the ballot and the arrangements for the conduct of the ballot.

I want to be really clear about the elements of this legislation that relate to Australia's foreign policy and to our relationships in the Pacific region. The first thing to say is this: if the government were serious about being a good neighbour to our friends in the South Pacific, the first thing the government would do is stop approving new coal and gas mines. Anything else that this government does, other than stopping approving new coal and gas mines, is simply fluttering around at the margins. Climate change is an existential threat for many South Pacific nations. They literally risk disappearing off the face of the earth. What's this government's policy response? While on one hand they continue to open new coal and gas mines, on the other hand they go to our friends in the South Pacific and say, 'Boy, have we got a visa scheme for you!'

Let's be really clear about this. If this government genuinely wanted to do the most significant and meaningful thing possible, if this government genuinely wanted to be a good neighbour and a good leader in the context of the South Pacific, it would stop approving new coal and gas mines. But, of course, the government's not going to do that, because the coal and gas corporations have got their hooks into the Labor Party just as deeply as they have their hooks into the Liberal Party. The institutionalised bribery of political donations is what is forcing this government to continue to approve new coal and gas mines. That is what is enabling the continued destruction of the future of so many Pacific island nations. So let's be very clear about what this bill doesn't do. It doesn't, of itself, take the strong stance that Australia should be taking against new coal and gas projects, and I remind folks in this chamber that that is what South Pacific nations are asking for—no new coal and gas—because climate change is such an existential threat to so many nations in the South Pacific area. Instead of, or perhaps as well as, providing a visa scheme for folks from the South Pacific, the Albanese government should ensure that it stops approving new coal and gas mines.

As an aside, I urge the government and the minister for immigration to think about what the global movement of people is going to be and specifically what the movement of people in the South Pacific is going to be as climate change rolls along over the coming years and decades. As some South Pacific nations literally disappear off the face of the earth, we will need to ensure that we step up and provide an opportunity for safe haven for those people who are displaced. It will take a lot more than what has been proposed in this legislation for us to be able to meet that aspiration.

The Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 provides for a fee to be charged to people registering in a pre-application process as provided by the amendment bill. The charge bill doesn't prescribe an amount to be charged. Again, this will be provided for in regulations. However, for the purposes of the Pacific engagement visa, the minister's second reading speech for the charge bill states the charge for the pre-application process will be $25.

I want to be really clear: there are good arguments for use of ballots in certain migration programs. The use of a ballot is certainly not groundbreaking or unique in the global context. Ballots are used in migration systems around the world, including in the US and in New Zealand. There are also arguments—we have heard some through the Senate inquiry process—against the use of ballots in the migration system. One argument in favour of ballots in a migration system is that it takes the patronage out of a migration system. It provides for a genuine fair go for all. It doesn't matter what your job is; it doesn't matter what your social background is; if it's a ballot everyone gets an equal opportunity. The Greens think that is a very strong argument in favour of a ballot.

So the Greens are not opposed to the introduction of a ballot process into Australia's immigration system. As the minister said in his second reading speech on this bill in the other place, ballots promote equitable and fair access to Australia's temporary and permanent migration programs.

I want to be clear that Australia's temporary and permanent migration programs are absolutely not equitable and fair at the moment. We still discriminate against people based on their mode of arrival in this country. If you arrive in Australia by boat to claim asylum, off you go to Nauru under the joint policy settings of the major parties in this place. That is neither equitable nor fair. It is also a flagrant breach of our obligations under the Refugee Convention.

Australia's immigration system is also not equitable or affair in regard to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 that are exempt from the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The exemption provided to the Migration Act means that the treatment of disability in most of our migrant programs does not satisfy Australia's obligations under article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities regarding equality and nondiscrimination. Let's be very clear and name it for what it is: this is ableism. Australia's migration system is an ableist migration system. It discriminates against people with disabilities. I note that, if this bill succeeded in passage through this place, the people covered by this bill would also be discriminated against if they were disabled people. Let's be very clear about this. Our migration system allows for discrimination against disabled people. That is shameful and it needs to end. We should not be running an ableist migration system in this country. We should be running an equitable and fair migration system in this country, one that is compliant with article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

There have been numerous calls over many years for the removal of the exemption to the Migration Act provided by the Disability Discrimination Act. These have included calls from the United Nations as recently as 2019, from a Labor-chaired Joint Standing Committee on Migration inquiry into the migration treatment of disability, and from the current Welcoming Disability campaign, which is supported by over 100 disability and human rights organisations and experts.

Because of this government-sanctioned discrimination against disabled people in our migration system we are seeing many migrant families on temporary visas—many of whom have lived for many years in our community, including many who are on a pathway to permanent residency—at risk of deportation from this country simply because they have developed or incurred a disability or because a family member has a disability. They include families with disabled children, even when those disabled children were born in Australia. Let that sink in for a minute. A family can come here on a temporary visa; they can live and work in this country and pay their taxes in this country for many years, but if they have a child and that child has a disability it's: 'Thank you very much. Off you go.' That's what our current system provides for. That is the risk right now. A child born in Australia to parents on temporary visas can be expelled, and in that case of course the parents are going to go with the child. The effect is that the whole family is expelled from this country because the parents gave birth to a child with a disability or because one of their children born in Australia incurred a disability through an accident of some kind or through any other means. That is a disgrace and it is shameful. It needs to end, and it needs and now. It is blatant and it is unconscionable.

I want to bring to the chamber's attention Labor's policy, which says: 'People with disability have the same rights as all Australians.' Unfortunately, they don't in our migration system, because this Labor government is ignoring its own party platform. The Greens absolutely support the Labor Party platform. What we don't support is the Labor government's policy in this area.

The bill's explanatory memorandum makes it clear that to be eligible for one of the proposed Pacific engagement visas it is envisaged that a person will need to be a citizen of a participating country, meet age requirements, have a written offer of employment in Australia and meet standard public interest criteria, including criteria relating to health and character. As I said, the exemption provided to the Migration Act by the Disability Discrimination Act harks back to the bad old days when people with disabilities were regarded as burdens on society and, effectively, as second-class citizens. Many Australians believe that we have moved past those days. Unfortunately, the Migration Act exemption from the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act makes it clear that we have not totally moved past those bad old days.

I won't get a chance to put all the Greens' views on this on the record during my second reading contribution, because time will get the better of me, but I will place on the record some further aspects of our position on some of the provisions of this bill during the committee stage. Again, the government, by failing to remove the ableism from our migration system, has passed up an opportunity here to make meaningful reform to our migration system. Secondly, and critically, if we really want to be a good neighbour to our South Pacific friends, stop approving new coal and gas mines. That is the single most critical, most important way we could show we're good neighbours to our region.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave, for the clarity of the chamber, to move the second reading amendment that I alluded to in my speech.

Leave granted.

I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute ", whilst welcoming moves to establish a Pacific Engagement Visa, the bills be withdrawn and the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) permanent residency and citizenship of Australia should not be decided by a lottery,

(ii) Australia's immigration system should be nation-building with a key focus on the economic contribution immigrants make to our country; and

(b) calls on the Government to develop a new approach to implement the Pacific Engagement Visa".

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. As chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I joined with my colleagues to inquire into these bills earlier this year, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the submitters and the witnesses who appeared at our inquiry. I'm proud of the work undertaken by the Albanese Labor government to deliver this new application pathway to be used for the Pacific engagement visa.

The migration visa pre-application process legislation inserts a new section 46C into the Migration Act. Section 46C will provide the relevant minister with the power to conduct a ballot or pre-application process in relation to one or more visas, with a small charge on individuals who register to take part. It creates two new functions to assist the minister in managing selected visa programs where appropriate: a ballot and a charge.

The creation of the pre-application process is modelled on the New Zealand Pacific access category resident visa. Through the inquiry into this legislation, we heard that this visa category was effective and welcome for both host countries and potential applicant countries. New Zealand's legislation ensures balance between the number of visas granted and government capacity and resources by requiring that potential applicants have successfully drawn a place from a pre-application process before being able to make a visa application. It means more efficient visa processing and more effective management of departmental resources.

The migration visa pre-application process legislation that we are considering today in the Senate assists the department to manage the high rate of visa applications received. The intention of this legislation is to avoid long and unrealistic visa-processing queues or disappointing visa refusals where the annual cap is already met. It also means equitable and fair access to temporary and permanent migration programs, which are regularly oversubscribed. While the bill is currently coupled with a particular visa category, this does not prevent the ballot being used through regulation. There will be more information available.

The visa pre-application process bill deals with these matters in a number of ways. In addition to the ballot, the amendments impose a charge on participants registering in the ballot. This sensible safeguard is intended to act as a deterrent to non-genuine entries or bulk attempts to manipulate the process. It is capped at $100 in recognition that an overly prohibitive fee would defeat the purpose of any visa categories. While the legislation will initially be used only for Pacific engagement visas, it could be used for a range of other categories. Essentially, it is designed to make sure there is equitable and efficient access where visa demand exceeds the places available. The pre-application amendment will be used for the first time on the new category of visa which is considered by this suite of amendments.

The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill creates a new pathway for up to 3,000 eligible citizens of Timor-Leste and Pacific nations, our closest neighbours. It delivers on the commitment that the Albanese Labor government made in last year's October budget to create a new Pacific engagement visa. This new visa category will strengthen the Pacific relationship here in Australia, growing people-to-people ties across our Pacific family. It is an important feature of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to lasting and meaningful engagement in our region. The PEV program will randomly select eligible citizens of participating Pacific countries who have registered to participate in a visa pre-application process. This is what is otherwise known as a ballot. People who are not selected through the ballot are then able to apply for the new PEV. The ballot charge, in the case of the PEV program, would be $25. This new category is in addition to Australia's current permanent migration program.

Prior to drafting, consultation with Pacific governments, the Pacific diaspora and community organisations was undertaken through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Giving evidence on the legislation, the department emphasised the cooperation throughout the consultation and how that would carry through to the operation of the program. This is significant. We have consulted with our neighbours, and they have told us that this is something they want us to progress. Importantly, partner countries can opt in or out of the program as needs change to ensure the program delivers on shared aspirations.

As chair of the inquiry into the legislation, I was encouraged by the quality of submissions and the debate that we had through the hearing held in Canberra on 13 April this year. I want to expressly thank again all of the witnesses, who took the time to share their views on the amendment bill. It was really helpful to hear various concerns about the ballot style process or the granting of PEVs. Some witnesses did raise concerns about the pre-application process—about the lack of criteria—and they put forward views about the process and asked genuine questions, which the department was able to answer. Ultimately, however, the proposal is the most appropriate, fair and effective way forward, on the balance of evidence the committee received.

Evidence from Mrs Ema Vueti, of the Pacific Islands Council of Queensland, was particularly compelling when the committee considered getting the balance right. She said she welcomed the ballot system because it 'would assist in reducing the chances for brain drain in their countries'. The reason for this, she went on to explain, is that the ballot actually negates the use of a merit- or skills-based selection process for the granting of PEVs, which may risk skills and labour shortages within participating countries. This was a significant theme that came through the inquiry and the submissions: a real concern that concentrating only on skills and labour visas would create a brain drain in the Pacific, something that we have to be mindful of in the way that we progress these visa programs.

The PEV will work in conjunction with other programs, such as PALM. It's important that we understand how the PALM program will work in conjunction with this new type of visa. The inquiry process was really useful in confirming that this new visa category is separate and has no bearing on places available for skilled migrants through existing programs, like PALM. I want to acknowledge the variety of views from witnesses on the interaction of the PEV and the existing PALM program. Many put forward views about finding ways in which we could prioritise existing PALM visa holders within this category. Their arguments seemed to be underpinned by a genuine appreciation of the contribution made by PALM visa holders to communities and local economies. This is a sentiment I share, being a senator based in regional Queensland, where many PALM visa holders contribute to the local economy. However, on the balance evidence, the committee found that linking the Pacific engagement visa to the PALM scheme would create heightened concerns that participating countries have about brain drain. It is really important that we get this right. As such, the committee determined that giving an advantage to current or former PALM visa holders would be contrary to the objectives of the Pacific engagement visa. Of course, PALM visa holders have the right to access the PEV scheme on the same terms as other eligible applicants. They can apply; they're not prevented from doing so.

The new PEV program is part of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to build stronger relationships with Australia's Pacific neighbours. At present, Australia does not have a dedicated permanent residency pathway for nationals of Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. This is despite Australia and its Pacific neighbours sharing many crucial diplomatic, foreign policy and national security interests. This amendment bill rectifies that. The PEV program provides opportunities for skill exchange and the growth of a healthy Pacific diaspora in Australia and supports wider mobility within the region in response to climate change pressures. It means more country-to-country ties in our region. That's incredibly important within our region, given the national security interests, the foreign policy concerns and the fact that, from a regional security point of view, we have a gap when it comes to working with our Pacific neighbours. What this leads to, in a broader policy context, is a stronger Pacific family into the future. I commend this legislation to the chamber, and I look forward to welcoming Australia's newest permanent residents very soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They go on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the preceding senators for their contributions so far, and I join with Senator Scarr in considering this legislation. I, too, have been reflecting upon comments that have been made to me by Pacific island nations representatives as they have come to Canberra over the last couple of years. I've had the great pleasure of taking the opportunity to speak to many delegations about the issues that matter most to them and what they want to see Australia doing. I particularly want to reflect on that in the context of this bill being framed as necessary, important and responsive to Australia's need to engage more thoroughly with our region.

When I reflect on those conversations, what is absolutely undeniable—you just cannot get away from it—is the reality that Pacific island nations leaders have come again and again to Australia with a very clear message: please stop burning coal, oil and gas, because our homes and our sacred sites—so intimately linked to our sense of individual and national identity—are literally going below the surface of the water, driven by climate change. They have come to Canberra over and over again, telling their stories and giving their time and energy. They've often done so alongside Australians who have brought to this place the ashes which are all that remain of their homes, burnt to the ground by climate driven firestorms. Yet the government putting this legislation forward and the opposition making its contribution to this debate are on a unity ticket when it comes to opening up new coal, oil and gas.

In my own state of Western Australia, the federal government is teaming up with the state Labor government to support the Scarborough gas hub. This is a project which, on its own, would obliterate all of the efforts being made not only by Australia but by so many nations around the world to tackle the climate crisis—wiping those efforts out in one fell swoop—and yet the response of the federal and state governments is not to take heed of the science and not to focus on the needs of Pacific island neighbours, or the needs of Australian community members, suffering right now on the front lines of the climate crisis. The response of the major parties is to demonise members of the Western Australian community who take non-violent direct action to bring public attention to the reality of the impact of what is being done on the Burrup.

While I join with Senator Scarr in centring this debate upon the needs of Pacific island neighbours, and while I deeply acknowledge that more needs to be done to strengthen the relationship between Australia and our Pacific island neighbours, I would go on to observe that, if we want to engage in that work with any semblance of integrity or authenticity, the very least we could do is to stop pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis, to stop bailing water into their boats as they are trying to survive.

I would also turn to the material of this legislation. As my colleague Senator McKim has observed, Australia's migration laws are deeply ableist in nature. That has to be named and called out as we dealing with this migration bill. Our migration laws are ableist. They actively discriminate against disabled people, in violation of Australia's obligations under international law and in violation of any basic sense of human compassion and a commitment to a shared human dignity. We need to change these rules and recognise the positive contribution that disabled people make to our society.

The current rules, to get into the specifics, are exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act. I do wonder whether the person or government that put forward that particular amendment had a particularly bad day that led them to believe, as they wrote that piece of legislation, 'I am exempting a piece of Australian law from the Disability Discrimination Act. That's okay. That's something a government should do.' And yet I am immediately disabused of that idea because of the fact that both sides of politics have upheld this discriminatory exemption for decades and still defend it to this day. To this day they still waste opportunities to rectify it.

The impact of this, what this practically leads to, is the unjust deportation of disabled children born in Australia, denying them opportunities, and denying the opportunity of disabled people to migrate to Australia. This is wrong. This is deeply wrong. Anybody that can still reach within themselves that basic compassion and sense of humanity will feel and know that it is wrong.

The Greens are committed to amending the Disability Discrimination Act removing the migration exemption and putting an end to this blatant discrimination. By doing so, Australia will further fulfil its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I am proud to co-sponsor amendments to achieve this very goal to this legislation alongside my colleague Senator McKim, who in the course of our deliberation on this legislation and our collective work together has demonstrated the true nature of allyship in the disability space. I thank him and his team for that. Allyship becomes material, allyship becomes meaningful, when it is put into action. That is what Senator McKim and his team have demonstrated during this legislative consideration period.

The amendments we will move together will go some way to reforming our immigration system. We will move to ensure that families will not be deported if they have a disabled child once they have come to Australia. The amendment we will put forward during the course of the debate would end the ability of the Australian government to deport Australian children born in Australia when their families are here on temporary visas. It's such a basic request. Can you imagine what it feels like to have gone through all of the steps, often paid all of the money, and all the bureaucracy of getting a temporary protection visa? And then the joy of knowing you are going to bring a new life into the world and expand your family. Often the fear and uncertainty when you find out the child you are bringing into the world might be a disabled child, because you are so often told by the medical system that that is something to be afraid of, something to be ashamed of. Imagine going through all that, and then you find out that just because your kid's autistic or has a learning difference, because they have an intellectual disability, your child will be deported by the Australian government. Can you imagine how that feels? For years we have seen reported in the news the high number of high-profile cases of families who have had to appeal to stay in Australia. Some families have been a part of our communities for decades. The law discriminates against many, including those with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and autism and young people who are non-verbal.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order, debate is interrupted.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave for the current debate to continue for an additional 15 minutes.

Leave granted.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the law discriminates against so many in the disability community, including those with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and autism and people who are non-verbal. For many of these people, in recent years there has, after a long and gruelling battle with the system, been ultimately good news—that the processes that they have been through have ended up in them being able to stay in Australia. But nothing—no stroke of a ministerial pen finally putting an end to such an ordeal—makes up for the stress, the worry, the pain that is caused by that ordeal, a pain and stress and worry which we can lift off the shoulders of so many by passing this amendment. The fate of a family should no longer be left to the minister of the day's discretionary powers allowing them to grant or deny a visa on a case-by-case basis.

There is also a need for an inquiry in this space. While our amendments go some way to address the ableism in the migration system, we know that there is much more that needs to be done. It's not lost on me today that this day is the first sitting day since the handing down of the final report and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. They have recommended clearly, in recommendation 4.31, changing the law in relation to disability discrimination and a need for an inquiry into this space. I quote directly:

a. The Australian Government should initiate a review of the operation of section 52 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), insofar as it authorises discrimination against people with disability seeking to enter Australia temporarily or permanently. The review should consider changes to the legislation and migration practices to eliminate or minimise the discrimination.

b. The review should be conducted with particular reference to the rights recognised by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities …

Our amendment would allow the chamber to implement recommendation 4.31 of the commission today. Let us act with urgency in relation to this issue. Our amendment would establish a statutory review of the migration health requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act, the Migration Act, the Migration Regulations 1994 and related matters. It is imperative that this review is conducted with public consultation and that it commences before 1 July 2024.

The review will be key in amending the public interest criteria. These criteria are built on a series of ableist assumptions, treating disabled people as a burden on society. In this country, we have criteria for immigration that treat disabled people as a burden. The continuing existence of these criteria is a shame on the government of the day. The criteria require children born in Australia or disabled people wanting to migrate to stay below a figure threshold based on how much the government thinks they will cost society. The current public interest criteria threshold of $51,000 over 10 years is remarkably low compared to comparable countries such as New Zealand and Canada. It is time to abolish this threshold and the discriminatory assumptions that go into it. It's practically impossible to stay below the threshold when the government assumes that disabled people will exist in publicly-funded segregated settings and makes zero effort to recognise the positive impact that disabled people make in our society.

It is time for the Australian Labor government and Minister Andrew Giles to end ableism, support the existence of disabled people in our community and update the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure the disabled people born here and disabled people who want to come to Australia are able to.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a good opportunity to make a few short contributions about these important pieces of legislation, the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. I have to say that in my capacity as the Assistant Minister for Trade, with a responsibility to engage with Pacific states and particularly economic and trade ministers in the Pacific, I know how important these pieces of legislation and the web of other bits of legislation and government action are to Pacific island states in terms of migration—temporary and permanent. This is very important work.

When you talk to the Pacific states, whether it's through formal PACER Plus meetings, formal meetings of the Pacific Islands Forum, bilateral engagements or a much less formal level, it is very clear to me that, whether it's the PALM scheme or this scheme—which has been called for for some time—these issues are very important to both Australia and the rest of the Pacific. It's important that this chamber appreciate the importance of these issues and that, given the kind of histrionics and politicisation of these issues that we saw from Mr Tehan and laterally in the debate from Senator Scarr, the chamber actually take its responsibility seriously here. It needs to: listen to what is being asked for and seriously consider the economic, social and strategic issues that are engaged; listen carefully to the experience of Pacific island countries and understand what the challenges are here and what the experience of temporary workers who come here is and the issues that they confront and that challenge them and their families; and listen to Australian businesses who want to engage these workers and these communities, who need the skills and labour that is offered by these schemes and who have identified the shortcomings that need to be rectified.

We need to make sure that we listen carefully to what the economic and skills requirements of Pacific island countries themselves are—countries who want to ensure, amongst many other things, that these arrangements deliver benefits to them. The demand is very high for these kinds of arrangements. The demand is very high both from Australian employers and Australian communities, particularly from country communities, workers themselves—citizens of Pacific island states who are looking for these opportunities—and the states themselves.

These are complex issues which this government has been attending to in a careful and deliberate way, and these pieces of legislation reflect that and have broad support. I understand that, in the recent Senate inquiry, broadly half of the submissions were in favour of it and half the submissions raised some issues with it.

I can tell you that, if you listen to Pacific leaders, they are demanding to know why this is taking so long to make its way through the Australian parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji Professor Prasad raised concerns about the legislation getting stuck in the Australian parliament. He said that economic ministers in the Pacific Islands Forum want this and that they believe that it will improve and deepen Pacific ties and investment. Professor Stephen Howes at the Australian National University, one of our leading experts on these issues, said:

People have been calling for this kind of initiative for a long time … there will be a massive … demand for it.

He went on to say that it is broadly seen as fair.

No piece of legislation is immune from criticism. This is the place for it. This is the place for amendments. I heard Senator Steele-John's contribution before. This is the place for amendments to be considered. But what on earth is what passes for an opposition doing if the contribution that we just heard from Senator Scarr is going to be the character of their response? He said it was a red-letter day, in a sort of orgy of Trumpian opposition to anything that is put forward by this government. It is a wall of negativity, whether it goes to this issue or any other issue. It is opposition at all costs, without thinking through, of course, their responsibilities in the national interest. To aspire to national leadership, you actually have to act in the national interest. Saying things like, 'This is an awful scheme,' is a disgrace. It's complete histrionics. It's not the kind of behaviour that this side engaged in when confronted with these kinds of issues, where we saw that bipartisanship in foreign policy is an important national asset. What you see from what passes for an opposition these days is complete hyperpartisanship on any question. They try to drag down these kinds of important initiatives, which should not be controversial. These initiatives should be advocated for by the whole parliament, but the opposition try to drag them down.

What that does is damage the Australian national interest. The opposition have got no interest in their responsibilities. They've got no interest in the importance of taking a considered approach, particularly when it comes to the interests of the region in which we live. It is an utterly cavalier approach to these issues. Of course, that is consistent with the approach that they took in government, where it was all slogans and no substance. The slogan was 'the Pacific Step-up' and the rhetoric was 'the Pacific Step-up', but, in fact, there was no follow-through. We have seen what that has delivered in the Australian national interest.

The truth about this scheme is that it will support the introduction of a new Pacific engagement visa. It will allow up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste to migrate to Australia as permanent residents each year. It sits alongside a series of other initiatives that the government has implemented to make sure, for example, that people have the opportunity to bring family members with them and that there is proper oversight. It will build and strengthen Pacific diaspora communities, which already make important contributions to communities around Australia. It will provide benefits to Australian employers. You wouldn't guess that any of that was the case from the character of the contributions of those opposite. It will provide workers with the opportunity to work in Australia, to learn new skills and to send remittances home to their families and communities. They are shared benefits that are in the interests of each of the Pacific states and in the interests of a shared approach to economic development, skills development and industrial capability development right across the region—a region that faces longstanding challenges, economic underdevelopment, geographic isolation, environmental pressures—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ayres. Pursuant to order, debate is interrupted.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave for the current debate to continue for an additional 15 minutes.

Leave granted.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important that the foreshadowed debate happens in a way that is as collaborative as can be. Putting aside the groans of some—actually, if we're going to approach these issues of substance in a substantial way, it is the right approach.

Things have got tougher in some of these Pacific states in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic. Senator Steele-John pointed out the impact of climate change and associated extreme weather events, and there are the security challenges posited by intensified geostrategic competition in the region and what that means for Pacific states, and intensified transnational crime activity and illegal fishing activity, which is done so much to deplete Pacific island fish stocks and damage food security. All these are challenges we share with the region. That means our migration settings are an important part of statecraft in terms of the way in which we approach a shared approach to these issues.

We have strengths in terms of our relationship with the Pacific. We have shared values. We have deep historic connections and deep family connections. We have Pacific communities and Timor-Leste communities all around Australia, particularly in our large capital cities, and we have cultural, sporting and religious links with each of the countries and communities of the Pacific. But it is not enough to rest on our historical strengths. The Albanese government is bringing to the table an ambition for a shared approach to the development of questions that confront the region, to the investment and trade questions that confront the region, to the people-to-people relations that can strengthen the regions capacity and to the migration questions we need to get right—and, as a corollary of all that, a shared approach to issues like the impact of climate change, emissions reduction and related issues, and, of course, a shared approach to Pacific security and to developing resilience in the region. All these things are bound up tightly together. It is not an environment where glib slogans will cut it. It is not an environment where resting on the associations of the past will cut it. And it certainly isn't the environment for hyper-partisan politics in this area—which is all those opposite appear to be capable of, whether it's in foreign policy or any other area of politics.

We have a comprehensive agenda. We've stepped up Australian defence cooperation with the Pacific. The ADF is providing new training opportunities for members of the Pacific defence and security forces. We've doubled funding for aerial surveillance of Pacific countries' exclusive economic zones under the Pacific Maritime Security Program. That will help tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing which costs Pacific countries hundreds of millions of dollars every year. It will also help tackle the security challenges that are posed by the illicit activities of transnational criminal networks. We're taking the challenge of climate change in the Pacific seriously and establishing a new Pacific climate infrastructure financing partnership to support climate adaptation and resilience projects; amplifying Pacific voices in international climate change negotiations and fora, including supporting the Vanuatu government's request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory decision on climate change; and bidding to co-host the UN climate change conference within the Pacific to shine a global spotlight on the impact of climate change on our region.

This piece of legislation fits comfortably and firmly within the government's broader suite of policy options and initiatives for the Pacific in partnership with the Pacific. The Senate ought to support this piece of legislation thoroughly and give confidence more broadly and get this bit of work done.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. These bills amend the Migration Act in a way that would enable the minister to implement a visa pre-application process for the random selection of eligible people who would then be permitted to apply for a relevant visa. The functionality of that ballot system would be similar to the framework for the allocation of green cards in the US, and it replicates how New Zealand allocates a similar Pacific island visa. The accompanying bill would provide for the imposition of a charge, on the registration of a participant, with the actual charge to be set out in future regulations. The purpose here is to provide pathways, but the only undertaking that the government has actually given regarding the use of the ballot system is to allocate up to 3,000 Pacific engagement visas, or PEVs, per year to Pacific islanders and East Timorese across participating countries. Those selected in the ballot would then be able to apply for permanent residence in Australia. Those 3,000 places would be in addition to the current migration program.

We've got three main concerns with this bill, and we have relevant amendments that will seek to address those concerns. The first concern is that, as it is drafted, the amendment bill could be used to allocate humanitarian visas. Clearly, that is a matter of great concern. The potential use of the ballot system, where it pertains to humanitarian visas, has rightfully been condemned by the UNHCR. The Greens recommended quarantining it from the provisions of the amendment bill in our minority report from the Senate inquiry into those bills. That's our first point in relation to these bills. It's absolutely crucial that this ballot system does not apply to humanitarian visas. That would be an abrogation of all of our international obligations, and it's why we'll be moving an amendment to make sure that those humanitarian visas are quarantined from the application of this new proposed ballot system. The bill does not technically rule it out, which is why it's important that we seek to clarify that.

Our other two concerns with this bill relate to the fact that we're ignoring the drivers of much of this migration by continuing to underperform when it comes to climate action. This government has ticked off on five coal and gas proposals since it assumed office, even though our Pacific neighbours are begging us in every possible forum to stop approving new coal, oil and gas. We already know that the food producing areas of the Torres Strait and of our Pacific island neighbours are facing saltwater incursion in a way that directly threatens their food security. We know that already the sea level rises and worsening extreme weather events are threatening the very existence of some of those low-lying nations in our Pacific region. Whilst this government is proposing a ballot for 3,000 permanent residents, it's continuing to tick off on new coal and gas that is directly threatening the homes, the safety and the livelihoods of our Pacific island neighbours. It is like a bait and switch. It's not good enough.

This is exactly why we have called for there to be no new coal, oil and gas. It's not just for the safety of our Pacific neighbours and their ongoing ability to live and provide food for themselves but also for our own safety. My home state of Queensland has bushfires burning now, in October. Last year the fires began in September. We are seeing worse climate impacts, and they are happening now. They are affecting our biodiversity, they are affecting our human settlements and they are affecting our very way of life. This government, which promised to be so different from the last, continues to approve new coal, oil and gas. Now they have the audacity to say to the Pacific—not that we're going to listen to them on the climate and stop approving new coal and gas—that we're going to have a ballot for permanent residency.

I'm afraid you can't ignore the elephant in the room, which is your continued approval of coal and gas projects. Of course we look at the donations made by the fossil fuel industry, which are made indiscriminately to both the major parties in this place. We look at the lobbyist jobs that the gas industry, the coal industry and the oil industry offer to politicians when they leave this place. All sorts of financial and personal incentives are offered. Yet we see the climate scientists and the reality of what's happening with the impacts of the climate crisis on nature, our homes, our communities and our emotional and physical wellbeing. It is long past time we stopped approving new coal, oil and gas. It's a little bit rich that, in the context of the pleas from the Pacific island nations that we stop approving new coal and gas, the response of the government is this legislation.

The third issue that we have with this legislation is that it furthers discriminates against people with a disability. This is actually horrific. I had to read that twice, to be honest. It beggars belief that the exemptions provided in the Migration Act mean that most of our migration programs do not satisfy Australia's equal protection obligations under article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities regarding equality and nondiscrimination. To put that another way: this law says it's okay in our migration programs to discriminate against people with a disability. I'm sorry—what? Why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of disability in this law when we say in our other domestic laws, as we should, that it's not acceptable to discriminate on the basis of disability?

I might add that this is not the first time this issue has been raised. In 2019 the Labor chaired Joint Standing Committee on Migration also found that that was an unacceptable form of discrimination. I believe even the Labor Party in its party policy calls out this inequitable and unethical discrimination against people with a disability. We have bills where we could fix this, which I hope is an anomaly, but looks more and more like a deliberate decision to discriminate against people with disabilities. We are yet to see a proposed change to rule out that permissible discrimination. That is not beyond fixing, and it certainly should be fixed.

The exemption that is provided in the Migration Act and the regulations from the Disability Discrimination Act harks back to the old days when people with a disability were considered burdens on society and second-class citizens to be segregated, warehoused and institutionalised away from families and communities. When most people living in Australia are rightfully protected by our disability discrimination laws, migrants in Australia or people wishing to migrate can be told to leave or denied entry if they or their child is disabled and deemed by the government to be a burden on the taxpayer. This is regardless of and pays no heed to what the disabled person or their family member could or does actually contribute to this nation.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order, the debate is interrupted. Senator Waters, you will be in continuation when it continues.