Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 35), after section 84E, insert:

84EA Issue of additional humanitarian visas

(1) Each year, the Minister must issue an additional number of humanitarian visas that is equal to the number of visas affected by an arrival control determination in the previous year.

(2) In this section, humanitarian visa means:

(a) a global special humanitarian visa (subclass 202); or

(b) a refugee visa (subclass 200, 201, 203 or 204).

Here we are again, debating an urgent bill that this government wants to introduce and pass through this place the day after introducing it. This government's track record on ramming migration amendments through parliament with no proper debate and no parliamentary scrutiny is very disappointing. It's true that sometimes there are circumstances which require urgent action. This is not one of them. Passing legislation in haste with no consultation, a curtailment of debate and a complete lack of committee scrutiny makes a mockery of our parliamentary, and therefore our democratic, processes.

My amendment to this bill does something very simple. It responds to the basic intent of the bill, which is to suspend temporary visas already issued to people from certain identified inconvenient locations. My amendment requires that, once the immigration minister takes that step, the same number of additional humanitarian visas be issued the following year as the number cancelled the previous year—that is, humanitarian visas additional to the usual number issued annually in a number corresponding to the number suspended under this bill. For this purpose, in my amendment, 'humanitarian visa' means a global special humanitarian visa, subclass 202, or a refugee visa, subclass 200, 201, 203 or 204.

Since 1947, in the aftermath of World War II, Australia has a mostly proud history of accepting refugees in times of crisis. It would behove this government to reflect on the achievement of the Chifley Labor government after World War I when, over two years, we welcomed 82,532 refugees—and that at a time when our population was a mere 7.5 million people. Compare that to the average intake in the decade prior to 2022 of 18,000 a year. Numbers of humanitarian arrivals also increased substantially after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Warsaw Pact countries' invasion of then-Czechoslovakia in 1968.

In the two decades following the Vietnam War, Australia resettled more than 100,000 Vietnamese refugees from various Asian countries—for the Hansard, I'm giving a nod right now to the member for Fowler in recognition of that. Following the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, Prime Minister Bob Hawke effectively gave 25,000 people—students who were already here, along with their spouses and dependents—permanent residency in Australia. That was on top of any humanitarian intake.

But these are just numbers. There is absolutely no doubt that the one million refugees that we have welcomed to this country since the end of World War II have made an enormous positive contribution. If you think hard enough about it, it's probably true to say that almost every Australian would know, has gone to school with, has worked with or is neighbours with a refugee. We know from experience that they are hardworking, kind, loyal, decent, wonderful contributors to this country. We are all better for knowing them, and Australia is a better place for having welcomed them.

But this government this week—the same week that it has announced that Australia will join the war by sending an E-7A Wedgetail aircraft, medium-range air-to-air missiles and 85 precious souls to the UAE—has introduced to this place not legislation to help people impacted by the illegal war in the Middle East but legislation to block people coming here who have already been granted a temporary visa to this country. The changes that the government is making today are allegedly intended not to manage national security but to safeguard the humanitarian program. But there's another way of sorting that out, and it doesn't have to be a demand response; it can be a supply one. Make no change to those who currently have temporary visas to enter Australian territories, and then, still within the law, allow these people to apply for protections as they would if they found themselves unable to return to their place of origin. In this time, more than likely, that will be Iran or other targeted places.

If we are going to stop people already approved to come to Australia from making that trip, we should make a corresponding increase to the number of humanitarian visas we offer and approve. There is a geopolitical and humanitarian crisis facing the world, and Australia must respond commensurate with the challenge that that is. I know many in my electorate of Bradfield would feel pride in our nation for standing unwaveringly alongside the people of Iran, who are vulnerable to an oppressive regime. Australia needs to play its fair share in this.

See this speech in context