Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

The Rudd Labor government comprehensively failed to grasp the power of the pull factors when it dismantled the coalition’s asylum seeker and humanitarian program. When we looked at the government’s budget, delivered the other night, we saw that it reinforced the government’s failure to grasp the complexity of, and the very significant need for, properly delivered services when it comes to looking after our nation’s interests. Our immigration program must be delivered in an orderly way and the government must remain in control of who comes into this country and, indeed, the numbers. Quite simply, the Rudd budget has failed to put roadblocks in front of people smugglers. Instead, the government has couched its messages into the region in such a way that the flood is back and asylum seekers’ lives are again imperilled.

The majority of the budget in the area of border integrity—some $654 million was allocated to combat people smuggling—is basically being spent on improving the capacity of Australian officials to guide the boats organised by people smugglers to safe harbour at Christmas Island. The Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, has a standard set of words he puts out after each boat arrival. There have been more than 20 boats since last August, so he has had many chances to repeat this message and it is beginning to amuse the media more than a little. He proudly announces that his officials have managed to locate and intercept yet another smuggler’s boat. We are apparently to applaud this cleverness is locating and intercepting. The point is, of course, that the people smugglers are paid to put their boats in the way of Australian officials. The asylum seekers pay to be delivered into the hands of Australian officials who will then, they hope, tow them or guide them to Christmas Island where the processing of their asylum seeker claims can begin. Unfortunately, this government does not seem to understand that basic point—or they think we, the public, are too stupid to understand exactly what is going on.

Last August, the Rudd government softened border protection by abolishing temporary protection visas. Senator Chris Evans, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, proudly announced that it did not matter from that date how you got into Australia you would be on exactly the same visa, even if you had spent nine years living securely in Indonesia since originally leaving a dangerous zone in Afghanistan or Iraq, for example, or if you had come down into Australia once before via the people smugglers. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, stated in question time in the Senate on 12 May that there had been no softening of border security measures under this government:

… we retained all of the Howard government’s border security measures—every one of them …

Clearly, again, he thought the Australian public was stupid or he himself had forgotten about their abolition of temporary protection visas, about Manus Island and Nauru Island being closed, the more limited appeal processes than were once in place and, of course, the soft messaging that has gone out into the region, reinforcing all of those new removals from what was before a very strong policy.

Most recently, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration recommended that asylum seekers move out of detention as quickly as possible. In fact, before their security, health and identify checks are completed, they should move into the Australian community where they should be able to work—they would be given work permits—and they would get access to Medicare, supported accommodation and furniture; all the assistance needed that can be supplied by the taxpayer in Australia. You can imagine what sort of message that gives out to the region again, to the people smugglers who hardly need any more good, positive messages to give to their clients. But here is another set for them to add to the mix.

The joint standing committee also recommended that, if you have an adverse decision in your application for asylum, you can move straight out of detention into the community, where you would have work rights and those other taxpayer funded support measures. Imagine again how comforting that must be when you are being asked to shell out US$12,000, US$15,000 or US$18,000 for your spot on the boat. The budget introduces measures that can only be interpreted as a further softening of the integrity of our borders and providing even greater good news for the people smugglers. Good news for people smugglers leads to death and injury, and I think that should be abhorred.

New measures in the budget also include the introduction of so-called complementary protection visas. These, no doubt, will increase the potential for even more non-refugee protection applications by those who seek the residency associated with asylum seeking. Complementary protection visas can be applied for when you do not qualify for refugee status under the UNHCR criteria. From what we can tell by the budget announcements—we have not been given much detail—these new categories of visa holders will have permanent residency with all of the taxpayer funded trimmings or, if they are rejected, they will get the full appeal rights with work permits and the like while they wait. Why wouldn’t you apply and appeal?

The government will also abolish the 45-day rule, we are told, which means that, for example, an international student could complete their studies in Australia, after several years perhaps, and then apply for a protection visa. Currently, you have to apply for asylum within 45 days of your arrival in this country. We believe that within 45 days you should be able to get your act together sufficiently, even if very traumatised, to apply for asylum, but, of course, if you were unable to do so there was a mechanism to appeal to the minister to use his discretion to allow you to apply later than 45 days. But now this 45-day rule is to be abolished. You can imagine the vexatious claims, the months and years of appeals and the cost to the community with the abolition of the 45-day rule. On the other hand, you can imagine the lovely new message going out to the people smugglers: ‘They’ve even removed the 45-day rule. You can see just how good it’s getting to come through the back door to Australia.’

Combined with the staff cuts of over 600 in the past two budgets for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, there is a further cut of $120.6 million to the department over the next four years. With these new visa categories I have referred to and the extra softening of the measures which are supposed to maintain the integrity of our migration policy, you can imagine the extraordinary additional pressure that is now on Department of Immigration and Citizenship officials. We are told that they are also to have their consultancy budgets contracted. This will invariably lead to integrity and compliance failures as we see increased waiting times for individuals as they wait for visa processing offshore or onshore. There is already a 10-year wait for a parent visa and a wait of several years if you contribute to the cost of your parents’ upkeep when you are applying for them to come to Australia. You can imagine the frustration of someone in Kabul or Iraq or Thailand going to an Australian embassy or commission to find fewer officials and more locally employed staff bringing to that office their local ethnic prejudices and their own enculturation. This is not where Australia should be when we once had world-best migration policy and practice.

Yesterday in estimates the Federal Police conceded that they had, with the help of the Indonesians, stopped another 887 boat people attempting to leave Indonesia on their way through the back door to Australia. Considering more than 800 did successfully get past the Indonesians, you would think this budget would have given some special support to those involved in border protection and migration policy processing. But, no, we saw the reverse. In fact, we have seen another 220 staff cut from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, 35 from the Australian Crime Commission, 18 from the Australian Federal Police, four from the Federal Court of Australia and 132 from the Federal Magistrates Court. I mention those courts because there are over 900 outstanding migration cases stacked up in our courts as I speak. It looks like those queues are going to get longer too. I think it is a shame.

Just before this budget, we also had the long awaited announcement that there is to be a cut in the migration program, which had been the biggest on record, reducing the skills component by more than 20 per cent but increasing the family component by five per cent. This was an unusual move. Of course, we all love our families and know the sadness when a new settler family leaves behind loved ones—cousins, parents, adult siblings and so on—but we also know that, when the country and the economy are in extraordinarily difficult times, migration other than by highly skilled workers who can fill critical skills needs, for example, by family members, is a great drain on national resources. This has been highlighted in a number of recent studies. We have a 20 per cent reduction in the skilled component, with the family component increased by five per cent—a fairly extraordinary move indeed. We know from extensive research that Australia’s migration program delivers economic benefits to the entire community only if the skilled portion remains at around two-thirds of the entire program. That is what the coalition did in 1996: it redressed the imbalance and brought the skilled component up to about 70 per cent of the entire intake.

The government also announced an increase of 250 places in the humanitarian program. At first blush, I thought that was a compassionate move, but then I understood that the number of UNHCR mandated refugees that we accept from the hell holes in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have not been increased; they remain steady at just 6,000. I think it is imperative to look at that mix and to see that those most in need should have perhaps had the additional 250 places. But no, the number of UNHCR mandated refugees is to remain the same.

This budget is an extraordinary disappointment, too, in that once you have settled in our country you expect and should receive support for English language learning. You cannot get a job if you cannot speak English. Unfortunately, we have seen a slash in funding for the English language program. How extraordinary. In the 2008-09 budget, the government set aside $49.2 million over four years for the Adult Migrant English Program. The allocation for financial year 2009-10 was $13.3 million, with $14.8 million and $15.9 million for 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. However, in this year’s budget, the allocation is only for $1.1 million, with a reduction of $3.7 million in 2010. Further reductions of $8.7 million and $9.1 million are targeted for 2011, making a total reduction of $20.4 million to English language teaching over four years. I say: shame.

I have spent a lot of time visiting electorates around Australia where our new arrivals have particularly settled. I have spoken to single mothers in electorates like Stirling who have come from African nations—from Sierra Leone and from the Sudan—and they are desperate to learn English. They need more support, not less, as they look for child care to be added to their English language training and as they look for a more flexible program so that they can perhaps combine part-time work with English language learning. However, this government has slashed English language training for new settlers.

See this speech in context