Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a brief contribution in committee in relation to this, which is the delivery of an election commitment of the Albanese government to a Pacific engagement visa, to allow up to 3,000 nationals from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste to come to Australia as permanent migrants each year. This will grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora in Australia and will further strengthen our people-to-people connections across the Pacific family, encouraging greater cultural, business and educational exchange.

Colleagues, you don't have to look very far to see the valuable contributions that Pacific peoples have made to this country, as community and faith leaders, as successful businesspeople, as artists and, of course, on the rugby field. We want to strengthen and grow these communities here and across the region. This visa will ensure more of our closest neighbours can call Australia home. It will create new opportunities for the people of the Pacific and Timor-Leste to live, work and be educated in Australia—deepening our bonds and enriching our communities.

I said in a speech to the National Press Club earlier this year that we made a clear decision to focus on repairing and rebuilding our relationships with the countries of the Pacific as soon as we came into government because we see the Pacific as family, because of the shortcomings of the previous government that we needed to remedy and because of who we are as a Labor government. We spent the last 17 months travelling to the Pacific, listening to the Pacific and acting together to build a region where we determine our own destiny. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I've had the privilege of visiting every Pacific Islands Forum member and attending two PIF leaders summits. We've heard the calls for better integration and access to our labour markets through a dedicated migration intake. We've consulted with Pacific partners on the design and implementation of this scheme, and we are pleased the scheme has been welcomed by governments across the region. The bills are a first step to deliver this important visa.

As has been discussed during second reading speeches, there will be a two-stage process to apply for this visa. These bills enable the administration of this visa through an initial ballot process. In the first stage, interested persons will register in a ballot. The ballot will then randomly select people to proceed to the second stage of applying for a visa, so it is a demand management mechanism. The ballot will only serve as an invitation to apply for the visa. To be granted a visa, applicants will need to meet eligibility criteria—a job offer in Australia, and English language, health and character requirements. The ballot will be open to eligible nationals of participating countries and Timor-Leste, including Pacific nationals already here in Australia on a valid temporary visa, such as those working on the PALM scheme. A ballot system will ensure equal and transparent access to the visa pathway. We know that demand for this visa is expected to exceed the number of visas available by a very large margin. That's why the ballot system is the best way to manage the application process and to guarantee equitable access for people to apply, regardless of skill level. The use of a ballot is based on Pacific migration schemes that have operated successfully in New Zealand for decades. The United States also uses a ballot process for its green card migration scheme.

This process will also help avoid some of the brain drain concerns that so many Pacific governments hold, and it is the basis on which Pacific partners have said they will participate in the scheme. The Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji, the Hon. Biman Prasad, said recently:

It seems that the proposed lottery mechanism has become the sticking point in Australia. However, this is the mechanism used by New Zealand and widely accepted in the Pacific as fair. Any other approach used by Australia would raise suspicion in the region.

The ballot will also reduce the processing time and cost to applicants.

There have been some valid questions raised about why we can't simply give engagement visas to current PALM workers. PALM workers make an immense contribution to the agricultural and services sectors, filling labour shortages and providing vital incomes back home. We have delivered the most PALM workers in the scheme's history, with nearly 38,000 workers currently living and working in Australia on a temporary basis. But it is important to note that we have agreements with Pacific governments, who have signed up to this scheme on the basis that it is temporary. These workers come to Australia to generate skills and income, and, crucially, they return home. Simply converting PALM workers to Pacific engagement visas, as the Liberals and Nationals insist, would pull the rug out from under our Pacific partners. It also demonstrates they've learnt nothing from their failures in government about listening to the Pacific. It would increase brain drain and skew the spread of engagement visa holders to those countries that participate in PALM, instead of the broader Pacific family.

These are serious policy considerations, and I wish to thank those on the crossbench in this place who have engaged in this discussion thoughtfully and constructively. I wish that the opposition had done so. It is very disappointing that on this issue those opposite have refused to support it. It is consistent with nine long years of disrespect to the Pacific family. Who can forget Mr Dutton joking about water lapping at the door? In government, those opposite dropped the ball in the Pacific and failed to ensure Australian remained a partner of choice. They know that competition in the region intensifies and they know that, as that competition intensifies, our natural advantages lie in our people and our communities, in access to the Australian labour market and in stronger cultural and business connections. Yet, they still refuse to listen—to listen to the Pacific family and to the national interest imperatives. And what beggars belief is they say it's because they don't like ballots but it was actually their idea.

Last year, a Liberal chaired committee recommended a dedicated Pacific migration intake modelled on the New Zealand ballot. Senator Fawcett was on this committee. They recommended a ballot in government, and now they're saying no in opposition. Even when it comes to our abiding national interests, like strengthening Australia's relationship with the Pacific, even when Australia's interests are being challenged by others, those opposite are putting politics first. When this is an important issue to promote unity for the national interest, they promote mistrust to serve their own political interest. It is Mr Dutton's game plan. If those opposite were serious about ensuring Australia remains the partner of choice in a more contested region, then they would stop playing politics.

The countries of the region are navigating the twin challenges of the climate crisis and escalating strategic competition, all while grappling with the economic aftershocks of the pandemic. It has never been more important for Australia to build a peaceful, stable and prosperous region and to do so with others, a region where the forum family is responsible for our collective security and is equipped to face our shared challenges together. This is only becoming more challenging, especially when countries seek to undermine this regional approach.

Colleagues, we know things will not go back to how they were before. We should expect Australia's regional interests to continue being challenged for years to come. We know that as a result of the previous government's approach Australia lost a decade in the Pacific. We know that the opportunity to be the only partner of choice has been lost by the previous government.

Now, our priority must be to remain a partner of choice. That means we have to work harder than ever, and it should be a national effort. I call on the opposition to put politics aside and be part of that effort. In delivering this new visa, we want to make a uniquely Australian contribution to building a stronger and more united Pacific family. We can't achieve the future we want alone, and neither can other members of the family. All of us are counting on each other because we share an ocean and we share a future.

The Pacific engagement visa will expand and strengthen the diaspora communities that call Australia home. It will contribute to the economic development of our partners through enhanced remittances and more opportunities for skills exchange and investment, and Australia, as a nation, will be stronger for it.

I thank, again, the Greens and the independent members of the crossbench for the mature and constructive way they have engaged on this issue, and I regret that the alternative government did not have the maturity to do so.

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

I am very pleased to be able to rise in this place and indicate the Greens's support for this legislation, and I want to thank both Senator Wong and the minister for immigration, Mr Giles, for their very constructive engagement with the Greens, over a relatively long period of time, which has facilitated our support for this legislation. I'm very pleased that the minister for immigration has confirmed, by a letter to me dated yesterday, that the government will implement a review into some of the ableism that is entrenched in Australia's migration system.

The part of the ableism which the government has confirmed will be reviewed is the significant cost threshold. The significant cost threshold is a mechanism that allows for the deportation from Australia of people on temporary visas who the government, through the mechanism of the significant cost threshold, forms a view will be too burdensome for the Australian community to support. This overwhelmingly captures disabled people. But it's not just about the deportation of disabled people—this mechanism is actually used to refuse visas for people who apply to come to Australia on a temporary basis if they exceed the significant cost threshold. This is a matter that the Australian Greens have been fighting to address for many years—in fact, for well over a decade. Whilst this review ultimately doesn't commit the government to implementing any particular policy outcome, it does crack open the issue of ableism in Australia's migration system. Importantly, it allows—and this has been committed to by Minister Giles—public consultation so that people, and groups that represent people, impacted by this ableist part of Australia's migration system can make submissions to the review. Critically, that review, which will commence as soon as is practicable, will ultimately be made public after a period of time for the government to consider the outcomes and the report that is generated by the Chief Medical Officer. At the moment, there is a mechanism in Australia's migration system that allows the government to deport disabled people or refuse a visa to disabled people. That will now be reviewed, and it will be incumbent on the government to address this ableism. Australia's migration system should be a non-discriminatory migration system. Unfortunately, it is a long, long way from being non-discriminatory.

We know that our migration system discriminates against people based on their mode of arrival into this country. If you arrive by plane to claim asylum in this country, that claim will be accepted and processed. If you arrive on a boat to claim asylum in this country it's: 'Off to offshore detention in Nauru with you. You don't get to stay in Australia and make a claim for asylum.' That is absolutely discriminatory and it is racist, because I guarantee you now that if a group of white folks arrived here by boat they would not be sent to Nauru. They would never have been sent to Manus Island to endure the deprivations that the men on Manus Island faced for so many years. They would never be sent to Nauru to endure the deprivations that innocent women and children on Nauru faced for so many years. We discriminate based on mode of arrival, and it is contrary to our obligations under the Refugee Convention.

We also discriminate against people with health conditions and disabled people via the mechanism of the significant cost threshold. That will now be reviewed. This is a significant step towards reducing and, hopefully, one day ending the ableism that is entrenched within Australia's migration system. So I do want to thank Senator Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr Giles, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, for a number of discussions I've had with them both in recent times and to indicate how grateful we are for Minister Giles indicating to me by letter yesterday that this review would be commenced.

The one element that the government absolutely has to address through this review is the capacity for the significant cost threshold to be used to deport disabled children who are born in this country. We should have a right to citizenship for everyone born in Australia. So many other countries around the world have that; we should have that in Australia. Leaving that aside for a moment, it is an absolute disgrace that parents come to Australia—invited in as our guests on temporary visas—live here, work here, pay taxes here and give birth to a child who has a disability, and then that disability is used by the Australian government as a mechanism to deport the child and, therefore, deport the family. That is disgrace. I acknowledge that Minister Giles has positively intervened in all such cases that have come before him seeking ministerial intervention. I thank him for those interventions from the bottom of my heart, but the simple fact is that those families still have to go through lengthy quasi-judicial and judicial processes before they can apply to the minister for the minister's intervention. They are time consuming, they are anxiety inducing and it takes a lot of money to go through those processes. They create massive amounts of stress and uncertainty in people's lives. The government needs to respond to this review by ensuring that no child born in Australia to temporary visa holders is deported by the use of the significant-cost threshold mechanism. I want to place on the record that that is the absolute minimum the Greens expect the government to do from this review.

The government also needs to respond to this review by massively increasing the significant-cost threshold so that fewer people are caught by this inhumane, bureaucratic instrument. The government also needs to be abundantly clear about how these thresholds are set, why they are set where they are and what the process for setting these thresholds is. The government also needs to make sure that, when the costs are calculated, they are calculated in a real-world way but also in a fair way. For example, the inclusion of the cost of special education in the calculation of these costs needs to end. We will work together with the disability community to make sure that they are fully informed about their capacity to feed into this review and that they keep the pressure on for equitable and just outcomes from this review.

I want to end by acknowledging my friend and colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John. Senator Steele-John is an amazing advocate for disabled people in this place. He has come into this parliament and almost single-handedly delivered the disability royal commission. He has worked very, very closely with me and a range of other senators right across the political spectrum to make sure that we understand the challenges faced by disabled people in this country and that we work together to respond to those challenges. I want to say on a personal level that I have a far greater appreciation for and understanding of the challenges faced by disabled people thanks to my friendship and my professional relationship with Senator Steele-John. I just want to thank him for educating me and allowing me to understand those things. We will proudly support this legislation, and we commend the bill to the chamber.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a few questions, actually. I'm just wondering why—I'm assuming that you want six months after the royal assent once this bill goes through. Sorry, you're doing this, Senator Watt—is that correct?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I was a bit confused. I'm assuming that, because of all the stages, it's going to take about six months for you to get this set up. Is this why there is a delay in the time from royal assent during which we can't decide on bringing these people in immediately?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Lambie. This is obviously relevant to your amendment. It's certainly the government's intention to progress these reforms as quickly as possible. There's obviously a lot of interest in the Pacific in taking up these visas. There's a lot of interest in Australia in having people able to take up those visas. It'll take a little bit of time to be able to implement it, but we certainly want to get it happening as quickly as we can.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to add to that, as you're probably aware, Senator Lambie, and as I understand it, under the bill that we're putting forward, commencement would be on proclamation of the legislation. So that wouldn't be a terribly long period of time.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that, I withdraw amendment (1) on sheet 2137. But I do have some questions. I'm just wondering whether the government has considered doing this because of the state of our defence forces and considered actually moving it over and giving maybe 3,000 to 5,000 of them the option to come in on the proviso that they join our defence forces. Right now, we are in a state of disarray in our defence forces. Nobody is joining, and people are leaving. That is where we're at. I'm asking you whether your government has been in discussions about maybe looking at doing this with our Pacific islanders.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for withdrawing that amendment, Senator Lambie. I think the government certainly acknowledges some of the issues around our defence forces that you've raised, and we do have a range of strategies underway to deal with that. However, our view is that there are a range of different occupations that these new visas can make a big contribution towards—rather than restricting them in the way that you're putting forward.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asking that because your strategies are not working and they're not going to work. I've heard your strategies; that's rubbish. I'm asking you if you'll look at this as an option further on down the line and asking, whilst you are getting this disorganised over the next six months, that you look at this as a new category to happen within the next six to 12 months, specific to those who want to join the Australian Defence Force and come here to live and be part of the nation. That's what I'm asking you for. If you want to advise me to go and set up a committee to look at that, that's fine—then advise me. If it's not something the government is interested in looking at, let me know so that I can move forward and find another option or another way forward on this.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has just been drawn to my attention that your second reading amendment, which the government has supported, does allow for the people issued with these visas to take up or to address Labor shortages in industries including defence. So that option is available. I guess where there might not yet be agreement is on the number, but I'm sure that we'd be happy to have some discussions with you about that. Of course, it's worth remembering that one of the objectives of this bill and this new visa is to provide those who take up the visas with a streamlined pathway towards citizenship in Australia as well. I'm sure we'd be happy to have some further discussions with you about your views on the need for the use of this in the defence forces.

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

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

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

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

(a) protection visas;

(b) temporary safe haven visas;

(c) visas classified by the regulations as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I indicate the Australian Greens will be supporting Senator David Pocock's amendment. The Australian Greens have a very similar amendment on the books to the one Senator David Pocock has just moved. I note that during the Senate inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recommended:

… statutory safeguards be introduced in the Bill to expressly exclude the application of the ballot to visas that respond to Australia's international refugee and human rights obligations to those seeking protection. This would include refugee and humanitarian visas and especially where the right to family unity exists.

That is one of the reasons why the Greens recommended, in our minority report to the Senate inquiry, that the bill be amended to explicitly prohibit the use of powers provided in the bill for any visa subclasses within Australia's refugee and humanitarian program.

I hope this amendment passes through the Senate today because it is critical that the ballot process not be used in regard to refugee and humanitarian visas. There are well-established processes that the Australian government engages in to determine priority for filling our quotas under the refugee and humanitarian visa program, and those processes, although not always perfect, have endured and provide at least a modicum of fairness in prioritising those who have the highest need. A ballot system, of course, would be completely inappropriate for humanitarian and refugee visas.

I acknowledge the points made by Senator Wong in her contribution earlier today when she spoke about the fact that many of our Pacific island neighbours and friends support a ballot system for this particular visa class—just to be clear, not for refugee and humanitarian visas but for Pacific engagement visas. We obviously, having supported this legislation, accept the proposition that a ballot should be used in regard to this specific class. I want to be very clear though: the government will have to bring in disallowable regulations in order to be able to use the ballot process for any particular visa class, and the Australian Greens absolutely reserve the right to examine that on a case-by-case basis and to vote to disallow any of those instruments if we determine that it would not be in the public interest or in the best interests of people engaging with our visa process for those regulations to be created. So I want to place very clearly on the record that we reserve our right in regard to all such instruments.

I also want to say that one thing about the ballot process is that it removes either the reality or the perception that somehow patronage or status can be used in order to leverage visa outcomes. A ballot is a ballot, and hopefully—I have no reason to doubt it—the ballot will be run fairly. What that does is make sure that, no matter what your status in society is, no matter how much money you have, no matter who you know and no matter what your connections or your patronage lines are, it will be a fair process for all, and the Australian Greens absolutely believe in fairness of process.

The last thing I want to say in this contribution is this. Minister Wong has made a lot of comments today and publicly about Australia's engagement with Pacific nations and with our Pacific family, and fair enough too. I understand why she's said those things as foreign minister, and it is true that our engagement with the Pacific region is now conducted in a more mature and engaging way than it was under the previous government. I have no doubt about that, and I thank and congratulate Minister Wong and everyone who is involved in that engagement. But there is an elephant in the room with regard to our engagement with Pacific nations, and that is this government's addiction to coal and gas and its absolute refusal to stand up to its corporate donors and stop approving new coal and gas projects.

Our Pacific neighbours are desperate for the Australian government to stop approving new coal and gas projects. They have said so publicly time after time. They have begged this government to stop approving new coal and gas mines, and the reason they are begging, imploring and asking time after time after time for this government to stop approving new coal and gas mines is that their countries are literally disappearing under the surface of the ocean thanks to sea level rise driven by climate change caused to a very large degree by burning fossil fuels, including coal and gas. Yet this government, entirely predictably, is refusing to heed the requests of our Pacific island friends and is instead doing the behest of the big coal and gas corporations in this country. What a surprise! It's because the big coal and gas corporations in this country are massive political donors to the Australian Labor Party.

The big coal and gas companies in this country are repositories for tired, old Labor senators and members of the other place and their senior staffers. They roll out of this building into cushy jobs on the boards and into senior executive positions of coal, oil and gas companies—big fossil fuel companies—and the PR companies that advise them. There are a litany of former Labor and, for that matter, Liberal senators and MPs who are now comfortably entrenched and making massive profits out of being involved with fossil fuels. The patronage here and the revolving door out of this parliament into corporate boardrooms are obscene, corrupt and need to end.

The people paying for it are the Australians who lose their lives in bushfires. The people paying for it are the Australians who lose their lives in floods. The people paying for it are our Pacific island neighbours, who this government calls friends. They are watching their countries disappear underwater. It's a disgrace and it is massive hypocrisy. It's obvious to anyone who wants to see it the prioritisation of the interests of fossil fuel companies over the interests of people that this government calls our friends and neighbours in the Pacific.

I say to Senator Wong, Senator Watt, the rest of this government and everyone in the opposition—and they are not without culpability here too, because big fossil fuel companies have their hooks into the opposition just as deeply as they have in the Labor government—until you stop approving new coal and gas mines, you should stop pretending our Pacific island neighbours are actually our friends, because you're not treating them as true friends would treat them. You are treating them with contempt. You are treating them with arrogance. You are dismissive of their extremely valid, real-life concerns about losing their homes—the places their ancestors grew up in, were born in, lived in and died in. They are watching those homes disappear and you are turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to their pleas for help. You have to be better than this and you must be better than this. Until you're better than this, stop pretending that you really care for their futures.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise that the government will be supporting these amendments of Senator David Pocock.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John, move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1891 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:

Note: The provisions of the Migration Regulations 1994 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 (see subsection 13(5) of the Legislation Act 2003). However, see item 9 of Schedule 2 to this Act which provides that certain legislative instruments do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.

(3) Page 7 (after line 31), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Disability discrimination

Part 1 — Amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Disability Discrimination Act 1992

1 Section 52

Repeal the section.

Part 2 — Amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994

Migration Regulations 1994

2 Subregulation 2.25A(1)

Omit "4005(1)(c), 4007(1)(a), 4007(1)(b) or 4007(1)(c)", substitute "4007(1)(a) or 4007(1)(b)".

3 Paragraph 602.212(8)(d) of Schedule 2

Omit ", other than paragraph 4005(1)(c)".

4 Paragraph 4005(1)(c) of Schedule 4

Repeal the paragraph.

5 Subclauses 4005(2) and (3) of Schedule 4

Repeal the subclauses.

6 Paragraph 4007(1)(c) of Schedule 4

Repeal the paragraph.

7 Subclauses 4007(1A) to (2) of Schedule 4

Repeal the subclauses.

Part 3 — Other provisions

8 Application of amendments

(1) The amendment made by Part 1 of this Schedule applies in relation to a provision in the Migration Act 1958, or a provision in a legislative instrument made under that Act, that was made before, on or after the commencement of this Schedule.

(2) The amendments made by Parts 1 and 2 of this Schedule apply in relation to a visa application under the Migration Act 1958:

(a) made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of this Schedule; or

(b) made on or after that commencement.

(3) The amendments made by Parts 1 and 2 of this Schedule apply in relation to any visa in effect on or after the commencement of this Schedule, whether the visa was granted before, on or after that commencement.

9 Transitional provision

(1) This item applies if:

(a) a person who is a non-citizen was refused a visa, or held a visa that was cancelled, before the commencement of this Schedule; and

(b) the refusal or cancellation was wholly or partly on the basis that the person failed to satisfy, or to continue to satisfy, the requirements of paragraph 4005(1)(c) or 4007(1)(c) of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 as in force before the commencement of this Schedule.

(2) Despite section 48 of the Migration Act 1958, or any other provision of that Act or regulations made under that Act, the refusal or cancellation is to be disregarded in determining whether the person may:

(a) apply for a visa of any class; or

(b) have such an application made on the person's behalf.

10 Affirmative resolution

(1) This item applies to regulations made under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 that:

(a) are made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and

(b) have the effect of amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, the amendments of the Migration Regulations 1994 made by this Schedule.

(2) The regulations do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.

These amendments will remove the ableism entrenched in Australia's migration system by repealing section 52 of the Disability Discrimination Act, along with public interest criteria and related provisions in schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994. These are the elements in the statutes that allow for the ableism in Australia's migration system that I've spoken about repeatedly in this place, and particularly over the last two or three days.

I make note that recommendation 4.31 of the recently published report by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability called for a review of section 52 of the DDA, with a view to inform reforms that would eliminate or minimise discrimination in our migration system and reflect our international human rights obligations. I note that this was also a recommendation of the 2010 Enabling Australia: inquiry into the migration treatment of disability report by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, from an inquiry which was chaired by then Labor MP the Hon. Michael Danby, and it has been a recommendation of countless folks with disability, groups, NGOs and other stakeholders in the civil society over many years.

The Welcoming Disability campaign, which is supported by over 100 disability and human rights organisations and experts, has said it is deeply concerned that successive federal governments have failed to act on many of the Enabling Australia report's fundamental recommendations and have called on Labor to end this government discrimination by removing the ableism in Australia's migration system.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting these amendments. As Senator McKim advised in an earlier contribution, he has reached agreement with Minister Giles about a review process for a number of the issues that he has raised. We think the appropriate course of action is for that review to be conducted rather than taking the step of amending the legislation at this point in time.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting these amendments.

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

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1891 be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

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

I seek leave to cancel this division.

Leave granted.

Question negatived.

I would ask that the Greens position of supporting these amendments be recorded in the Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That will be recorded in the Hansard. I alert the chamber that the amendments were negatived.

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2124 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:

Note: The provisions of the Migration Regulations 1994 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 (see subsection 13(5) of the Legislation Act 2003). However, see item 5 of Schedule 3 to this Act which provides that certain legislative instruments do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.

(3) Page 7 (after line 31), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Health waivers for children

Part 1 — Amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994

Migration Regulations 1994

1 At the end of clause 4005 of Schedule 4

Add:

(4) The Minister must waive the requirements of paragraph (1)(c) for the grant of the visa if the applicant is a child born in Australia to a temporary visa holder.

(5) The Minister must waive the requirements of paragraph (1)(c) for the grant of the visa if both of the following apply:

(a) the applicant is a temporary visa holder; and

(b) the applicant has a child born in Australia who fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1)(c).

2 At the end of clause 4007 of Schedule 4

Add:

(3) Despite subclause (2), the Minister must waive the requirements of paragraph (1)(c) for the grant of the visa if the applicant is a child born in Australia to a temporary visa holder.

(4) Despite subclause (2), the Minister must waive the requirements of paragraph (1)(c) for the grant of the visa if both of the following apply:

(a) the applicant is a temporary visa holder; and

(b) the applicant has a child born in Australia who fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1)(c).

Part 2 — Other provisions

3 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a visa application under the Migration Act 1958:

(a) made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of this Schedule; or

(b) made on or after that commencement.

4 Transitional provision

(1) This item applies if:

(a) a person who is a non-citizen was refused a visa, or held a visa that was cancelled, before the commencement of this Schedule; and

(b) the refusal or cancellation was wholly or partly on the basis that the person failed to satisfy, or to continue to satisfy, the requirements of paragraph 4005(1)(c) or 4007(1)(c) of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 as in force before the commencement of this Schedule.

(2) Despite section 48 of the Migration Act 1958, or any other provision of that Act or regulations made under that Act, the refusal or cancellation is to be disregarded in determining whether the person may:

(a) apply for a visa of any class; or

(b) have such an application made on the person's behalf.

5 Affirmative resolution

(1) This item applies to regulations made under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 that:

(a) are made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and

(b) have the effect of amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, the amendments of the Migration Regulations 1994 made by this Schedule.

(2) The regulations do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.

I will speak extremely briefly to these amendments. If these amendments are successful, it would mean that there would be automatic waivers for children who are born in Australia to parents who are temporary residents in Australia. That would mean that the disgraceful practice of deporting disabled children that are born in Australia to holders of temporary visas would no longer occur. As I have said repeatedly during this debate, it is archaic, it is barbaric, it is unfair, it is discriminatory and it is ablest and it needs to end—and it needs to end now.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will also be opposing these amendments, for similar reasons. As I explained previously, the issue of children will also be subject to this review that Minister Giles has agreed to. We think that should occur before any further amendments are considered.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be opposing these amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2124 standing in the name of Senator McKim be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

I make the same request that our support for these amendments be entered into the Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It will be entered into the Hansard. I alert honourable senators that the amendments were negatived.

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, as amended, agreed to; Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 agreed to.

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 reported with amendments; Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 reported without amendments; report adopted.