Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Minister Giles for introducing these bills: 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 support the introduction of a new Pacific engagement visa, allowing up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste to come to Australia as permanent migrants each year. The new Pacific engagement visa is a groundbreaking signature initiative of the government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family. It is designed to grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora here in Australia. It reflects Australia's special relationship with the Pacific and Timor-Leste, and reflects the importance that Australia places on this relationship and our commitment to strengthening ties with the Pacific family.

Importantly, the visa program will address the under-representation of some of Australia's closest neighbours in our permanent Migration Program. In 2021-22, less than 1,000 permanent migrants came from Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. That's a mere 0.7 per cent of the total migration program of 143,556 from that year. As Minister for International Development and the Pacific, I'm especially proud of this new visa program and the potential it offers to both the Pacific family and Australia. The Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora already make an incredible contribution to Australian communities and have done so for many years.

I acknowledge the contribution of the Papua New Guinean, Fijian, Samoan, Tongan and the other Pasifika migrant communities in my own electorate of Shortland, and I know members value the contributions of Pacific migrants in their communities, particularly in electorates like Chifley, Werriwa, Rankin, Macarthur, Oxley and Greenway, amongst others, which have vibrant Pacific diasporas. Our government wants to grow and support Pacific diaspora communities in Australia as part of our wider agenda for strengthening Australia's relationships with countries of the Pacific and Timor-Leste.

The new visa will create new opportunities for people of the Pacific and Timor-Leste to live, work and be educated in Australia. This will deepen our bonds as people and enrich our communities and countries. Since coming into office last year, the government has been consulting with Pacific partners and Timor-Leste. These discussions have been invaluable, and we have adjusted the design of the program in response to their feedback. Let me repeat that: we have designed this program based on feedback from these countries.

These bills are the first steps in enabling implementation of the visa. The Pacific engagement visa will establish a permanent resident visa program, commencing in July 2023, for participating countries across the Pacific and Timor-Leste. Up to 3,000 visas, inclusive of partners and dependent children, will be allocated annually through a ballot process. The ballot system will ensure equal and transparent access to the visa pathway. The ballot will be open to eligible nationals of participating Pacific countries and Timor-Leste. This will include Pacific nationals who are already in Australia on a valid temporary visa, such as those working here under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme.

Eligible participants aged 18 to 45 will register in a ballot. Participants randomly selected through the ballot can then apply for the visa and include their partner and dependent children in their application. To be granted a visa, they'll need to have a formal full-time job offer in Australia and meet basic English language, health and character requirements. To maximise the prospects of successful ballot entrants finding work and taking up visas, we will be providing additional support to secure employment. An offshore service provider will work directly with successful ballot entrants to connect them with employers in Australia, providing access to a variety of roles at a range of skills levels. The service provider will also guide successful entrants through the visa application process, deliver culturally and linguistically relevant program outreach, and help prepare visa holders for life in Australia. As permanent residents, Pacific engagement visa holders will have the choice to live and work where they prefer, and they can change employers like any Australian citizen or other permanent resident.

While finding employment in Australia will be an important first step, we know the success of this initiative will ultimately depend on the growth of a healthy and engaged Pacific diaspora and a positive settlement experience for each individual or family. That's why we are extending supports and services to Pacific engagement visa holders beyond the usual supports provided to permanent residents upon arrival in Australia. In addition to access to Australia's universal healthcare and public schooling systems, participants will be eligible for post-arrival settlement support through the Settlement Engagement and Transition Support program. They will also have access to the Adult Migrant English Program.

We are committed to growing a vibrant and engaged diaspora through the visa. As such, it's important that participants are assured basic levels of economic security. Subject to the introduction and passage of further legislation, we will be providing early access to a range of benefits to support the cost of raising a family and ease the financial burden of education and training. This will include access to family tax benefit A and eligibility for healthcare card and rent assistance. To promote opportunities for education, career development and economic mobility, participants will have immediate access to the Higher Education Loan Program, VET student loans and Austudy and youth allowance payments. Access to education and training will broaden the scope of participation across a range of skill levels and experiences, addressing concerns in our region around brain drain.

My friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs has outlined the bills in his second reading speech, but I want to add to his remarks by explaining how the bills will support the Pacific engagement visa. The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will create a legislative framework for the ballot process which is used to randomly select entrants to apply for the new visa. The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to allow the minister to implement a visa pre-application process. This visa pre-application process, a ballot, will involve the random selection of eligible persons. Selection via ballot process will be a legal requirement to apply for a visa where this is specified as a requirement in the Migration Regulations.

Specifically, the bill inserts a new section 46C in the Migration Act providing legislative authority for the minister to arrange a visa pre-application process to be conducted in relation to one or more visas. It allows the minister to make a determination setting out details of eligibility to participate in a visa pre-application process and arrangements for the conduct of the process. It amends section 46 of the Migration Act to clarify that regulations specifying the criteria for making a valid visa application can include a requirement that the visa applicant have been selected in a visa pre-application process.

The Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 applies a charge on persons who register as participants in a visa pre-application process. The charge bill provides that the amount of the charge cannot be more than $100, indexed in line with the consumer price index. The government, importantly, intends to apply a fee of $25 for registering to enter the Pacific engagement visa.

The Pacific engagement visa is part of a wider package of policies to deepen Australia's ties with the Pacific and build a stronger and more united Pacific family. In the 2022-23 budget, the government announced several new measures to strengthen the Pacific family and meet our election commitments. These measures build on and expand the former government's Pacific Step-up policies. They include an additional $900 million in official development assistance over four years to increase support to the Pacific family's development and resilience, including in education and health; new investments to advance Pacific security and engagement priorities; strengthening the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, including through the establishment of the Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership; and a new Indo-Pacific broadcasting strategy to provide better tailored broadcasting services and support for a diverse, independent and professional regional media sector.

We've already delivered on our commitment to expand the Pacific Australia Labor Mobility scheme, and we'll continue to work to improve the program in consultation with participants and partner governments. More than 35,000 Pacific and Timor-Leste workers are already making an incredible contribution to Australia's regional communities in critical fields like agriculture and aged care under this temporary migration program. The new Pacific engagement visa will help improve the balance between permanent and temporary migrants from the Pacific and Timor-Leste. As a proud member of the Pacific family, Australia is committed to working with all countries in the Pacific to achieve our shared aspirations and address our shared challenges. Pacific and Timor-Leste views of been central to the design of this visa. The government has consulted extensively to ensure that the Pacific engagement visa meets the shared needs and priorities of our Pacific and Timor-Leste partners.

We have consulted and listened to the governments of all 13 countries in scope for the program since August 2022. We've consulted with Pacific employer, business and training organisations. We've also had close engagement with stakeholders in Australia, including non-government organisations, expert researchers, diaspora communities, churches, PALM scheme employers and workers, and Australian employers. The foreign minister and I have also had extensive engagements across the region with leaders and counterparts. Between the two of us, we have visited each Pacific island country and Timor-Leste since June last year. This includes the resumption of the important bipartisan visit to the Pacific. The introduction of this bill does not mark an end to consultations. We will continue to listen to and incorporate Pacific and Timor-Leste views through the visa's implementation and operation. We will continue to monitor, evaluate, adjust and refine the program to ensure that this groundbreaking initiative is delivering for all engaged. Participating countries will decide on the extent and nature of their participation in the program.

In establishing this visa, we want to make a uniquely Australian contribution to the Pacific family by being reliable, turning up, showing respect, listening and being transparent and open. Pacific people are rightly proud of their culture and traditions, and will want to maintain close links through family, church, support and businesses. So the Pacific engagement visa will encourage free-flowing movement of participants between their home countries and Australia. The program will contribute to the economic development of Pacific countries through remittances, opportunities for skills exchange, and investment. We are particularly conscious of the need to ensure that, in establishing this visa, we do not deprive Pacific countries of skills and talent. That's why we're putting in place measures to help successful ballot entrants find employment in Australia that matches their experience and capabilities, ensuring that this program is accessible to participants from a range of backgrounds, trades and professions.

That's why the ballot part of this visa is critical, and that's why I was so distressed when I saw the statement by the shadow immigration minister yesterday, saying that the opposition will oppose this bill based on the ballot. They fundamentally misunderstand the nature and operation of this visa and are undermining this complete operation. If you do not have a ballot, you do not ensure that you address the brain drain concerns of the Pacific. That is the fundamental point of this, and that is why it's been based on a highly successful New Zealand visa model.

This initiative has been welcomed by Pacific governments and leaders, stakeholders, policy experts and respected development agencies. For example, in the fourth PNG-Australia Annual Leaders' Dialogue joint statement, PNG's Prime Minister, Prime Minister Marape, 'welcomed Australia's commitment to provide in-country support for Pacific engagement visa applicants to connect with employers in Australia'.

Importantly, the program responds to expert recommendations that Australia learn from the New Zealand experience of Pacific migration, by introducing a dedicated permanent pathway to complement our existing temporary labour schemes. This was a recommendation by a parliamentary committee chaired by the opposition when they were in government that they are now walking away from. A 2017 World Bank report highlighted the effectiveness of New Zealand's Pacific access category and Samoan quota visa programs, and recommended that Australia consider a similar program. These views have also been supported by eminent Australian experts such as Professor Stephen Howes from the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.

In summary, the Pacific engagement visa is a revolutionary change to our permanent migration system. Over time, it will strengthen our links with the Pacific family and deepen our ties to the region that's our home and critical to our future. Boosting Pacific permanent migration to Australia is an essential part of the government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family. This is necessary, and those who stand in opposition to this stand in opposition to Australia's engagement in the Pacific. They are undermining our position and continuing the incompetence that they showed when they were in government. That's why they need to change their position, and that's why I commend these bills to the chamber.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) 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. I acknowledge the vital importance of Australia's role in the Pacific and our relationship with our great family of nations.

When I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in the previous parliament, I was part of a group that received a delegation of the missions of all of the Pacific island nations. They came into the parliament, and we engaged with them in a meaningful way. One thing that they told us loud and clear is that they are very thankful for the work that we do with the Pacific island nation countries—our friends and our family. That is the nature of the relationship that we have; it is one of friendship and it is one of family. It is not one of dominance. We engage with our friends in the Pacific. We don't tell them what we want them to do or how to do things. That's what any good, responsible government should try and do—it should engage with its neighbours as peers, not as some party or country that sees itself as dominant in a particular region. This government needs to tread a very, very careful line when it comes to this migration program, and I'll unpack that over the next 13 minutes or so.

Locally, the Sunshine Coast has a long and enduring connection to the Pacific islands, spanning some 150 years. Today, through the University of the Sunshine Coast's Australian Centre for Pacific Islands Research, we're working with and learning from Pacific islanders about marine protection, coastal adaptation and sustainable fisheries. In twinning with the Western Pacific University, UniSC is offering a collaborative, academic and cultural exchange for academic leaders. Through the Centre for International Development, Social Entrepreneurship and Leadership, the Sunshine Coast plays host to Indo-Pacific leaders for training and postgraduate research. These people-to-people links are about empowering Pacific island partners to build their communities, to grow their economies and to strengthen their national institutions for the long term. These ideals should be at the centre of Australia's national approach to engaging with our Pacific partners.

It was Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies who said, just before World War II:

… in the Pacific, Australia must regard herself as a principal …

Our relationship has moved beyond that of a principal. We see ourselves as a partner with our Pacific colleagues. In World War II, Australian men and women held back the tide of aggression which reached not only our shores but also those of our Pacific island neighbours. When the war was won, we didn't abandon the Pacific; we stayed to rebuild.

Again, in the throes of the Vietnam War, Liberal Prime Minister William McMahon said:

We share a common purpose for peace, security and progress in the South Pacific Region and our destinies are permanently linked in many ways.

In the 50-odd years since he made that declaration, the bond between Australia and the Pacific islands has deepened beyond neighbouring nations into a family of nations. By and large, this has been on the coalition's watch: through multilateral bodies like the Commonwealth of Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum; through overseas development assistance, with 43 percent of our 2021-22 aid budget directly targeting PNG and the Pacific; through trade and exchange programs, like the New Colombo Plan, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership; and through the defence and security ties like AUSMIN, the Quad and now AUKUS. It's those defence and security ties which are of the greatest importance to us in performing our primary role as parliamentarians—that is, to protect Australians and their interests.

China, under its communist regime, is set on dominating our Pacific region. Make no mistake: they want to seek a permanent military presence in the Pacific. They want access to the Pacific's natural resources. They want to control critical trade routes. In the Chinese Communist Party's quest to become a global superpower and to quash Western democratic order, communist China will stop at nothing. They make bold promises. They seek to corrupt national governments. They build shiny new infrastructure, and, in the end, they entrap whole nations in economic, defence and diplomatic bonds. We've seen this even on our local shores, where they have sought to entrap Victoria through the Belt and Road Initiative. But it's not just the Belt and Road Initiative and debt-trap diplomacy. The Chinese Communist Party poses a threat to every element of Australia's security and the security of the Pacific region.

As to the Chinese Communist Party—or the PLA, the People's Liberation Army—their land, air, sea, cyber and space defence postures are formidable. Their naval power and maritime militia have grown exponentially. That's why, in government, the coalition's Pacific Maritime Security Program supported 12 Pacific island nations with patrol boats.

The Chinese Communist Party's cyber capabilities, and the PLA's cyber capabilities—in particular, their ability to procure data through seemingly innocent means—are, thankfully, but concerningly, becoming clearer by the day. It was only last year that Chinese attackers bombarded government agency employees with phishing emails containing a link to a fake news site, to steal information relating to the South China Sea. TikTok is the perfect example of how they gather intelligence en masse and from unknowing victims. With an international submarine cable, connecting Australia with Guam, just outside of my electorate, running along Australia's Pacific coast, the protection of our critical infrastructure—and, particularly, digital infrastructure—has never been more imperative.

Ensuring that Australia nourishes our great family of nations is vital. It was the previous coalition government which led the Pacific step-up, to take an even more active role in protecting and shaping the future of this region. As part of this, we took steps to encourage more permanent migration from Pacific island nations. We launched the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, program, by streamlining the Pacific Labour Scheme, the PLS, and Seasonal Worker Program, the SWP, to ensure a more efficient and safer scheme. Thanks to our decision in government, the program has grown from 12,500 people to 35,000 workers. We encourage this federal Labor government to maintain the program and to set their eyes on even more ambitious targets. In doing so, they would have our support.

Labor claims that the Pacific engagement visa will grow Australia's Pacific and Timor-Leste resident populations, enhance soft-power links and boost economic relations. Now, these are admirable goals. Under the previous coalition government they were real outcomes. Under this government, they are nothing but a pipe dream.

These bills provide for a visa pre-application process which does not currently exist in the Migration Act. For the first time, this Labor government wants to create a ballot process that will be able to be used not just for the Pacific engagement visa, but for any future visa that the government of the day may decide to introduce.

Permanent residency that ultimately leads to citizenship in Australia is far too important to be decided by having your name pulled out of a hat. This has the potential to turn Australia's immigration system on its head. Our migration system, as it stands, is built on an ambition to attract skilled migrants who contribute to our economy and our community. Instead, this Labor government want to sign applicants up to some ludicrous visa style lottery. They want to take their chances instead of thinking, consulting and legislating commonsense immigration policies. That is what Labor have done time and again for the last 12 months. They make bold promises and realise they can't deliver on those promises, so they come up with a half-baked idea, throw it to the parliament and hope to flesh it out with some oratorical flourishes. It is policy on the run once again from an incompetent Labor government.

One has to ask why our Pacific island partners would want to sign up for the program. Under these bills, they would risk haemorrhaging skilled workers as 3,000 working-age citizens—indeed, whole families—leave the region each year. They would lose the direct financial contributions through remittances, as Labor's plan will see families pack up shop and move to Australia, removing the incentive for remittance or reinvestment in their countries of origin. As it turns out, we don't have to ask why Pacific island partners would sign up for the program; they don't want to. Just a couple of months ago, Samoa's Acting Prime Minister told their parliament the Australian government made the announcement on new visas without consulting the Samoan government. He said this would hurt the Samoan labour workforce and lead to the loss of more skilled workers and their families to Australia permanently and would further drain Samoa's already strained workforce.

When we were in government—and I took a very active role in this part, particularly when I was Speaker—I invited heads of mission from across the Pacific into the parliament, and I did my absolute level best to engage with the heads of those missions as partners—not as master and servant, with us telling them what they want. It's incredibly important that we engage with them as partners to talk with them, not to create some sort of a brain drain from the Pacific. That is what these bills will do. It is fundamentally immoral for us as a wealthy country to effectively draw upon what may be some of the best and brightest of our Pacific island countries—their own people, of working age, and their families. Just think about what sort of an impact that could have on small communities.

Whilst we support sensible measures in the Pacific, we don't believe that these bills, holistically, will provide the sensible outcomes we saw when we were in government. The relationship between Australia and the Pacific is an enduring one. It is so incredibly important, not just because these are our Pacific friends and family but because we have an enduring tie, as I hope I've outlined over the last little while, from a defence perspective. Our defence, the defence of Australia, is tied to the defence of the Pacific and every country within it. If we start adopting approaches which undermine the relationships we built up over the last nine years when we were in government, if we start telling Pacific island nations what's best for them, that undermines critical relationships and undermines both our national security and the national security of our Pacific family.

So, if I, as a member of the opposition, may be so bold as to say it: these bills need to be rethought. The government needs to go back and consult more broadly with those who would be impacted the most heavily by these bills. This is not a time for policy on the run. This is a time for working with our Pacific partners, who are friends and family.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I will just start by commending the member for Fisher for his contribution and, somewhat lazily, attach myself to all of the excellent points that he made, just so that I can use my time to expand on some other points. But I do commend the tenor of exactly what he has said, and I think he's captured very appropriately the concerns that we in the coalition have around this policy approach. Frankly, it is something very important to push back against at the first opportunity. Not only do the principles of this policy approach, specifically, worry me, but, potentially, if this approach to pathways through our migration program started to become more common from this government, then we would have some very concerning issues to confront as to the principles around migration policy.

I worked for a number of years in the textile industry with some excellent companies in Fiji. Fiji has a number of economic industries to be proud of, some of which, such as tourism, are more well-known. But the textile industry and the apparel and garment industry are very significant ones in Fiji. They have done an excellent job of working with Australian businesses and the market in Australia to create a really impressive supply chain capability in Fiji, competing against bigger nations, bigger economies, in that sector in Asia. Their niche, of course, is that they have better and closer links to Australian businesses and, equally, have the ability to have a much more rapid supply chain response capability, and to be able to do smaller quantities, which is a relative term in textiles—rather than quantities of millions, they do quantities in the tens of thousands, which most of us would consider to be significant, but which, in apparel, is a small production run. So I learnt a lot and had some great experiences. I have some excellent ongoing connections with people in that industry in Fiji. I say that because it's an excellent example of the economic opportunity that we should be supporting throughout the Pacific, as a nation that has the largest economy in the Oceanic region, and has a significant history—and both positive and negative things in our relationship—with the various nations in the Pacific sphere.

Important points have been made by other speakers, not just about our past but about our future in the area and the important national security elements and developmental opportunities that we have to support all of our very good friends in the Pacific family, for them to achieve the destiny that they want. I don't believe that it's the ambition of the communities of the Pacific to leave the Pacific and to come to countries like Australia. I'm very confident—having had my direct personal connections with people throughout the Pacific—that they want their future to be in the Pacific. Their governments also want their future to be in the Pacific. They want to grow their economies. They want to establish existing and new industries that give the people who live in the Pacific a hope and confidence and an ambition for their future to be exactly where they are, which is their home.

This policy is, effectively, encouraging the absolute opposite of that. It's saying that we want to offer people some kind of lottery opportunity to leave their community, to leave their economy, and to make their future in Australia. We very proudly welcome people who want to make their future in this country. We have two elements to our migration program: the economic skill side and the humanitarian refugee side. I want to see us enhance that program to have that program doing exactly what it is meant to.

The principles in this bill should be an anathema to what we're seeking to do when it comes to both elements of our migration program. We do not want to be flippantly conducting lotteries for people to come to our country and we don't want to encourage people who have the ability to be the future of their own country to leave that country, unless they're in situations—and this is not the case amongst our Pacific nation friends—where they need a humanitarian pathway away from where they currently are to our nation.

Essentially what we're saying here is that we want to go to our Pacific neighbours and say to their population, 'Enter a lottery to leave your country and come and make your future in our country.' It would surprise me if the governments, leaders, communities and societies amongst the Pacific nations view that as being something that a good neighbour like Australia should be doing to their communities.

We have a very good, strong tradition of great economic partnerships with Pacific nations. There are economic opportunities. The PALM scheme is one that everyone would be aware of. It provides employment opportunities on a seasonal basis in our nation. In agricultural communities this is absolutely vital. The PALM scheme provides seasonal labour in places in this country with great shortages in and great demand for seasonal labour.

Obviously the PALM scheme provides a pathway for people from Pacific nations to come to Australia on a seasonal basis to earn a significant income here in this country—compared to the income that they might earn on an ongoing basis in their own nation—and to remit their earnings, net of the costs that they have living here whilst they are on that visa. That provides an enormous economic injection into the economies from where they come and also provides them with the capacity to use that as a way of building their economic future in their own country.

A lot of anecdotal stories have been shared by colleagues who represent electorates where this scheme provides a lot of labour and where people have come. Through the PALM scheme people might come to the Leichardt electorate for a couple of seasons and earn an income that supports their family and that they invest in their country of origin to build their economic future there.

This policy effectively says that, instead of that being the focus of opportunities for people in the Pacific in this country, which works very well for both economies, we want people in Pacific nations to participate in a lottery indiscriminately to leave those nations permanently and come to Australia. We have a skilled migration program, which is important, and we do have significant skilled labour shortages in this country. The way in which we undertake that can always be improved. I have looked very closely at, and am very interested in, migration reform opportunities that are demand driven and led by businesses, where employer sponsorship is at the heart of filling shortages in labour, both at the skilled level and at the geographic level.

We in this country are not as good as we need to be at ensuring that people who come through the skilled migration channels are in fact honouring the principle of why we want them through the skilled stream to come here. That's really a geographic issue. There are a lot of people who come into the country through the scheme that is trying to address labour shortages in regional Australia, and even in my home city of Adelaide, which some might not consider regional. At times we have been designated as regional under the migration system, because, regrettably for someone who is not from Melbourne, Sydney or South-East Queensland, we find that those regions are a magnet for people coming into the country, and, while people might be coming under the pretence of helping to address a skill shortage in somewhere like my home state of South Australia, they are free to ultimately end up in the suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne. So looking at and considering regional rules and geographic rules around skilled migration is something that I would commend to all of us as policymakers.

Of course, having that employer sponsorship as a focus means that people are coming here to fill major shortages in jobs that exist that can't be filled by Australians, after we've demonstrated that that business has exhausted all avenues to try and fill that job with an Australian first. Certainly, when I work with employers on these challenges, I've never come across a business whose preference isn't to employ an Australian first and foremost. It is an enormous cost and an enormous risk to sponsor someone to come into this country on a visa and employ them rather than employing an Australian. There is no benefit or the like from not having an Australian first and foremost, but there are significant issues around skills shortages et cetera that can be addressed through that channel. Equally we've got our humanitarian responsibilities, which we take very seriously, and we participate through the international frameworks that are in place for us to have our fair share of humanitarian intake. That's what the focus of our migration policies and the migration schemes that we operate needs to be.

This is none of that. This doesn't do any of that. What this is doing, as I say, is seeking to cannibalise, potentially, some of the people who could make an enormous contribution in the countries that they currently live in and entice them away from contributing to their nation and their economy by giving them this lottery system to come to Australia. We are now deciding that we will have some randomised lottery process doling out Australian residency and Australian citizenship. We have a government that has such a low regard for the standards that we should have and the control that we should have around people coming into this country that we're now going to have some kind of randomised ballot system to select people to come into our country. I think it is paternalistic and, frankly, morally bankrupt. It is essentially saying that we don't believe that there is any way of determining what the priority is for who we select to have the great honour and opportunity of a pathway to residency in this country in their future. We're almost encouraging people not on the basis of the economic need in this country or their humanitarian circumstance, where they might need to have a future in a nation like Australia over where they are, and instead we're saying, 'Enter this random lottery system to come to Australia and leave behind the life that you've got in the nation that you're in.' I and all of us in the coalition very much reject that approach to our migration system. We reject the paternalism of that. This is the sort of thing I thought was left in the 19th century, frankly. Whilst I am not reflecting on all the good things that were done by the British Empire, these sorts of paternalistic policies remind us of an era that we thought we would not see in the year 2023. Nonetheless, the Albanese government are proposing it here before us today, and that is why I urge the House not to support the passage of this bill.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 1 5 : 59

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad to continue my speech in support of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the related bill. The bill implements an important commitment of the government and does some important work in relation to a group of nations that are among our most important friends. Indeed, we consider ourselves a member of the Pacific family, which is a perfect way of encapsulating the kind of relationship we have and which we hope to continue to have and strengthen with those island nations. I include in that Timor-Leste, which is covered by this bill.

Australia has a strong and deep connection to the Pacific and to Pacific island nations. It's a precious part of our identity to be able to consider ourselves a member of the Pacific family. We don't—and we shouldn't—take for granted the connections, the affinity, the shared wellbeing and shared challenges that bind Pacific nations, including Australia, and of course, as I said before, that same affinity and some of those same challenges exist between Australia and Timor-Leste. That position of respect, affection and, to some considerable degree, shared identity is fundamentally multipartisan. I know that, notwithstanding the views that various people have about these particular bills, that commitment is something that everyone in this parliament takes very seriously.

These bills are about strengthening the people-to-people links between Australia, Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste, and they're consistent with the approach that the Albanese Labor government has taken over the first short nine months of its administration to date. This is a government that delivers on its election commitments. This is something we took to the election last May. It indicates again how ministers across the full range of government responsibility—in this case the Minister for International Development and the Pacific—are wasting no time in making positive change and delivering on things that we said we would do to improve the circumstances that Australia finds itself in and to pursue Australia's national interest. It's a perfect example of the way in which we understand our engagement with the world needs to occur—that is, in a thoughtful, concerted, coordinated fashion through all the avenues of external affairs: diplomacy, development assistance, defence, trade and our migration arrangements.

When it comes to permanent migration, which has been such a key feature of our multicultural diversity and strength here in Australia, it's true that the Pacific has been significantly under-represented. To some degree, through the creation of the Pacific engagement visa, these bills respond to something that hasn't been in its right proportion for a considerable period of time. The statistic from 2021-22 tells you everything you need to know. In that year, when 143,500-odd people became permanent migrants to this country, only 999—fewer than a thousand—were from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. That's 0.7 per cent. That's just not right when you consider the proximity of those countries and when you consider the significance of our relationship with them and the things that we share as regional neighbours and members of the Pacific family.

These bills are partly aimed at addressing that shortcoming, and I'll come back to this again later, but it should be noted at the very outset that what we are proposing to do with these bills is exactly what was recommended by a committee during the 46th Parliament which had a majority of coalition members and which was chaired by a coalition member of the former government. So the idea that Australia should put something new in place that facilitates greater permanent migration from Pacific island nations is, I think, a matter of common sense and it clearly was a parliamentary recommendation in the previous parliament, made by a committee chaired by a coalition member and with a majority of coalition members.

I'll start by saying that, under this government, without question, there has been a surge in activity in practical and person-to-person engagement and funding support and in all of the ways in which we seek to partner with Pacific island nations to a new and reinvigorated degree. The fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific have visited Pacific island nations in what seems like literally every week of the last nine months is one indication of that.

I'm someone who comes from the far other side of this island continent, and I can't say that I have had a really extensive experience of the Pacific. I was fortunate enough to be in Fiji late last year with you, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, as part of a parliamentary delegation that went as election observers to help with the good conduct and integrity of that election. I was briefly the chair of the delegation, a role that you ably undertook when circumstances meant that I had to come back here. Australia has, over a number of elections, served as effectively one of three co-chairs of the Multinational Observer Group, a 90-member group that helps with the conduct of elections. Deputy Speaker, you filled that position very ably, through what was a significant election because it was a change of government through proper democratic process in Fiji. Prior to that, I was in Dili, in Timor-Leste, in 2015 as part of the second Asian Electoral Stakeholder Forum, and I was very privileged to be in Honiara in 2013 for the 10th anniversary of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. So, while I haven't been into the Pacific or to Timor-Leste very often, I've really enjoyed the times that I've been able to visit, and I hope I can do that more in the time ahead.

What these bills do is lay the groundwork for the creation of a Pacific engagement visa. At the same time we are expanding the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme visa program. They are both very important, and they both do different things. But this visa program, the Pacific engagement visa, will facilitate up to 3,000 permanent migrants from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste each year. It will occur through a ballot process that is modelled on the Pacific access category resident visa that New Zealand operates on.

It's become apparent in recent days that the coalition doesn't support these bills. There was a period of time in which that wasn't clear. You would have thought, as I said earlier, that, when a parliamentary committee in the 46th Parliament, which they chaired and had the majority of, made this recommendation, they would have every reason for seeing the merit in this proposal. I think there are all of the other reasons for it, like the fact that people from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste make up such a disproportionately low number of permanent migrants within our program. But I will look very briefly at a couple of the other issues that the shadow minister has advanced as reasons why the coalition won't support it.

One of them is that that there's a potential through this program for there to be some kind of brain drain. That is a legitimate concern. That phenomenon would be a legitimate concern. We don't want to have programs that, effectively, focus on people who have particular expertise and skills in Pacific island nations and result in them coming to Australia in a way that means they don't get to apply those skills and that expertise in their own countries. That's why this program doesn't have that kind of points system or skills basis. It's not targeted at some sort of talent scouting outcome. It's done by a ballot, and it's non-discriminatory in that sense. There will be people who might be old or young and there will be people who might have skills or might be relatively unskilled who will be able to apply under this program. To the extent that that's one of the reasons the shadow minister for immigration has identified as to why these bills are insupportable, that just doesn't hold any water.

Another reason that has been advanced has been that people who come here from Pacific island nations or from Timor-Leste and are therefore permanent in Australia might not make remittances to their home countries and to their families. Those remittances are a significant form of income support that occurs when people from the Pacific are in Australia. There's just no evidence from all of the organisations—NGOs and other monitoring bodies that look at this kind of program where it happens elsewhere; New Zealand has one, and the United States has a similar program. There is no evidence whatsoever that it leads to a decrease in remittances to the extent that that is something the coalition would be concerned about.

So it's very hard to actually put your finger on the reason why the coalition doesn't support these measures. It doesn't conflict with the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility visa program. That's an important program; we're expanding it. It doesn't and can't create a brain drain in the way that the shadow minister has advanced. It won't affect remittances in the way the shadow minister has advanced. There's no evidence to support that. It would be hard for anyone hearing those arguments and knowing the facts not to conclude that these are just things being plucked out of the air. I don't think that that's a responsible way to conduct consideration and form a position on a policy like this that, as I've said before, was taken to the election and is a commitment by the government that was made clear in advance of the election.

It's hard not to see the position that the shadow minister has announced in relation to these bills as anything other than, essentially, being consistent with a broad based policy of just saying no—of negativity for negativity's sake. We have seen 'no' to responsible climate action. We have seen 'no' to energy price relief. We've seen 'no' to secure jobs and better pay. And now we see 'no' to a program that simply tries to ensure that people from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste are able to become permanent migrants in Australia—in the same way that people from lots of other countries do—and, in fact, to that program existing in what would be a fair, proper and appropriate proportion, considering the significance of the region and its proximity to this country.

It's hard to accept that there can be a good argument for not supporting the bills and not going forward with the program. Today has been a day when the shadow minister—though it's not directly related to this topic—expressed some concern about the flag that flies from the building, and that's fair enough; that flag should be good condition. We've heard explanations as to why it hasn't been changed—because of danger and high wind conditions. But it again begs the question about the basis and foundation of the positions that the shadow minister and other members of the coalition frontbench are reaching. I'd be surprised, knowing people in this room and their interest in the Pacific, if the view that the shadow minister has put is really a widely held one, because it really doesn't make any sense.

I think that what this will inevitably deliver is stronger person-to-person ties between Australia and Pacific island nations, and between Australia and Timor-Leste. We absolutely need that. It's right because of our membership of the Pacific family. It's right as a matter of our identity and values. It's right as a feature of our concern for the broader wellbeing of all the communities in the Pacific, and it goes hand in hand with the additional $900 million of development assistance that this government will provide over the next four years. After you are motivated by all of those things, which, frankly, should be at the top of your motivational list, it is also significant in advancing our national interest in building ties to a stable, prosperous and peaceful Pacific region.

When you neglect diplomacy, development assistance and people-to-people links through a program like this, you weaken Australia's position to be the kind of supportive, consultative partner of Pacific island nations that we should be. Our capacity to do that did fall away in the last several years. In the last year or so of the previous government, we saw some of the geostrategic consequences of that, and I think those opposite should reflect on those outcomes when they jump out of the box and say no to something like this, which is a policy that they themselves were in favour of only 10 months ago. I'm very supportive of this. I thank the minister for all his work, and I look forward to welcoming more permanent migrants from the Pacific to Australia.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and the coalition, support efforts to engage more with our Pacific neighbours. You only have to visit the Mildura, Robinvale and Swan Hill regions, along the northern border of my electorate of Mallee, to see how migrants from the Pacific islands contribute to our industries and communities by working on farming properties and in other labourer roles. Mallee is home to approximately 74 per cent of Australia's almond production, 70 per cent of table grape production, 57 per cent of nectarine production and 19 per cent of orange production, with most grown in the north of the electorate.

For years, growers from these areas have been dealing with workforce shortages which continue to create anxiety and uncertainty for farmers at harvest time. If workers cannot be found, harvest is at risk of falling to the ground, resulting in losses into the billions of dollars. REMPLAN now estimates Mallee's gross regional product at $9.92 billion, with an annual economic output of more than $14 billion—a large part of that is built on the horticultural industry. The Pacific islander workforce contributes heavily to that industry in particular, not just in Mallee but around Australia.

Currently, under the coalition-introduced Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme, employers in the horticultural sector have access to a reliable workforce when there is not enough local Australian labour to meet the seasonal demand. It's also an opportunity for workers from partnering countries to earn good wages and learn new skills. The money they earn is often spent on their children's education and family medical bills, or it's even used to build a house or start a small business in their home country. This is sound policy that supports our growers and the workers and their families back home.

Now the Labor government is seeking to make their own mark on our immigration system, by introducing two pieces of legislation that will see a new Pacific engagement visa developed. To be fair, aspects of this concept have merit. Our Pacific neighbours are welcome in Australia. We can agree on that. However, Labor's new PEV will allow, per year, up to 3,000 nationals from Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste to be drawn from a ballot and migrate to Australia, effectively as permanent residents. This is significantly new territory, moving away from Australia's current immigration policy. There is no precedent for this process in Australia or under the Migration Act 1958—just because a process is new doesn't mean it's right.

Labor wants to turn our immigration system on its head, which may lead to perverse outcomes. Instead of creating policy based on attracting skilled migrants who contribute to the economy, this government wants to pull names out of a hat for a chance to become a permanent resident in Australia. What's more, their families will be brought in without satisfying any eligibility requirements, and they'll be well on the road to Australian citizenship. Once they have permanent residency, they will be eligible for Medicare and other social security benefits, unlike many other visa holders who have worked and contributed to this country before they had a pathway to permanency. The information on DFAT's website is that the expected cost to enter a ballot will be about $25 for each time a person puts an entry in. It is permanent residency awarded at random.

I, and my colleagues in the coalition, support well-structured and well-planned immigration policy. We have a proud history in this country of depending on migration to build our workforce and enrich our nation. But a ballot system brings risk that is unacceptable. It sees employers take chances on workers who have limited exposure to Australian culture and conditions. There is no regional policy in this legislation. There is no guarantee of adding to our workforce, particularly in the regions. Indeed, from day two, people could begin to rely on welfare rather than work, thereby increasing the burden on Australian taxpayers. Labor's policy turns immigration into a game, and Australia is the prize.

This legislation does raise significant questions regarding how it will be implemented, and the government needs to provide detail before we can call it good legislation. From information provided to the opposition by this government, to be successful in gaining a PEV the applicant must simply have an offer of employment in Australia. There's no room for exploitation here, then, is there! We know Australia has a workforce shortage across many sectors. I've already mentioned growers having trouble finding fruit pickers, something the PALM scheme helps to alleviate. But there are many, many sectors desperate for workers.

Earlier today I met with representatives from Clubs Australia. They stressed to me the importance of overseas workers to the club industry's workforce by filling labour and skills shortages. Overseas workers fill skilled occupations such as chefs and cooks, as well as other occupations like food and beverage attendants. In fact, they told of one club that hadn't had an Australian apply for a chef role in years. They simply can't get an Australian person to apply, but overseas workers do.

Hospitality and horticulture are just two examples. But, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, how easy do you think it would be for someone applying for this visa to obtain a job offer for a whole host of industries in this current workforce climate? If they tried hard enough, there would be employers willing or perhaps even desperate enough to take the chance, particularly under the systems this visa would put in place. From the perspective of the employer, this PEV could mean less work to get workers. The worker, as a result, would have a job offer that meant they came to Australia as a permanent resident. Both parties win when you cut out the red tape associated with current visa processes.

At face value, this almost reads like a great plan; it truly does—a nice carrot to get jobs filled and an easy way through the immigration process for willing participants. But once again the devil is in the detail, and this isn't the first time that phrase has been applied to Labor policy. Another springs to mind: the expansion of the distribution priority areas, which has resulted in regional areas bleeding health professionals to major centres. The words 'unintended consequences' describe a lot of Labor policies—the health workforce and now the immigration system.

It appears that, once in Australia, these applicants could quit their job, or be sacked, after a day and be eligible to access the full range of welfare entitlements for them and for their family. One can only imagine there would be unscrupulous individuals out there happy to exploit this loophole.

Australia's migration system is well structured and rigorous for a reason. But this legislation is not. The government have stated they envisage the eligibility criteria for the visa will include being between 18 and 45 years old, having a formal offer of employment in Australia, English language ability, and meeting health and character requirements, although it will not have a skill level or occupational requirement, or a regional requirement. This rings alarm bells as to its capacity to fill any workforce shortages we have. How would an employer know that the person they were getting would be suited to the role they are applying for? The short answer is they wouldn't truly know until this person showed up to work.

This new visa would move away from the skilled stream of Australia's migration program. This program targets young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country, and temporary migrants who can make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages. These are key cornerstones for any migration program in Australia. We need to ensure we have the right people coming in to fill jobs and contribute to Australia's economy.

It is also a concern that this visa has no requirement for prior work experience in Australia, increasing the risk of visa recipients and their families having unsuccessful settlement experiences in Australia, and that is a risk that puts a lot more pressure on diasporas to support new immigrants.

Going into the last federal election, this government had a policy of a strong Pacific family. After all, the Pacific islands are our closest neighbours and it's important that we in this part of the world remain united. But how is this unstructured ballot that offers a new country to families from their home nation and brings them to Australia going to make the Pacific family stronger? It seems it would do the opposite; it would weaken the rest of the Pacific, all to address the issues we have here in Australia.

These views are shared by others, not just those on this side of the chamber. In January this year Samoa's Acting Prime Minister told their parliament that the Australian government made the announcement on new visas without consulting the then Samoan government. His worry was that this would hurt the Samoan labour workforce, as it is already strained. Does Australia really want to rob Peter to pay Paul? Is this what entails being part of a strong Pacific family? Under the current PALM scheme, the worker in Australia sends remittance back to their families in the Pacific islands. This in turn plays a part in stimulating their economic prosperity. Under this Labor policy, our Pacific neighbours are potentially worse off—another unintended consequence. If this visa is a test of Labor's foreign relation and economic policy to make a stronger Pacific family, then the signs are not looking good.

The coalition is strongly committed to providing employment opportunities in Australia for citizens of the Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. We extend our hand to our neighbours and are glad to work with them, not to take from them but to offer opportunities for their people that would in turn help their countries. This was the aim of the PALM scheme, which I know growers around the northern part of Mallee have been thankful for. I'm sure there are many other communities relying on Pacific island labour around Australia in the ag industry, in abattoirs and in numerous other sectors. We will remain strongly in support of mechanisms that provide employment opportunities for citizens of the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste, along with pathways to permanent residency in a sustainable manner. But this legislation is not going to do that.

As I said at the start of this speech, the PEV has some merit and I would be willing to work with the government and the Pacific nations for the development of a sustainable PEV, knowing what it means to Mallee in terms of our workforce issues. A pathway for permanent residency is valid, particularly for those who have shown the capacity to work in Australia. That is something I support and will continue to support. What I can't support is the legislation in its current form. The PALM scheme itself could be a suitable vehicle to develop a PEV if, under the current system, PALM scheme participants are able to enter a ballot. PALM scheme participants have proven their suitability to work in Australia because they are already here working under a temporary visa. They would be ideal for a more concrete PEV. We know that, under the PALM scheme, there have been mutual benefits for all parties, including Australia, Pacific island nations and individual workers, employers and even families and communities of workers back in the Pacific islands. This Labor government should look at the PALM scheme and its participants more closely and, in effect, make the PALM scheme a step on the way to a PEV. This would ensure any PEV recipient is better placed to successfully take up Australian permanent residency rather than creating a whole new game. Wouldn't this be a solution in line with the country's current migration program that would avoid the need for a lottery and the risks it poses? I would think so.

Australia as a nation has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support for our nearest neighbours in the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste, and we want to see that continue. Let's find solutions we can agree on.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on these bills, the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, that purport to introduce a permanent Pacific engagement visa through changes to the Migration Act that will allow the minister to issue visas through changes to the migration regulation. I oppose these bills, which propose changes to introduce a ballot system to conduct what is being called a visa pre-application process. It is in fact nothing more than a ballot through which certain registered people may be randomly selected to then apply for a visa. This marks a dramatic overhaul of the process of visa applications in Australia.

This new framework is against the Labor government's own policy platform on engaging with the Pacific because at the same time it's setting up a lottery system for around 3,000 of our Pacific island neighbours. It is also grossly insulting to Pacific island people. It says nothing more than: 'You can enter a lottery to leave your own country.' And an unintended consequence of these bills will be, potentially, a draining of our Pacific island nations' skilled workers.

The idea of a visa ballot system is used in some other countries. The proposal has been compared to the United States's green card lottery which allows certain nationalities to enter a ballot for a diversity immigrant program, then leading to permanent residency. However, the model proposed by the Labor government is more closely modelled on New Zealand's Pacific access category visa ballot.

Having looked at the explanatory memorandum for these bills, I see that it states that a ballot system will be a fair method of selecting eligible applicants for visas where demand exceeds available places. It is therefore well intended to manage efficiency in visa processing and avoid long processing wait times for applicants. While the stated primary policy objective of the Pacific engagement visa is to support Australia's engagement with Pacific island countries, this is not the way to do it.

It is stated that the visa would build the number of Pacific islanders resident in Australia, which is intended to strengthen people-to-people and country-to-country links; provide more options for mobility in the region, including, potentially, to respond to climate change pressures; and boost economic, cultural and social exchange. However, it is not primarily intended, therefore, to respond to skills gaps in the Australian labour market or as a driver of economic benefit. This has always been the underlying intent of the granting of visa applications in Australia.

The Pacific engagement visa initiative is in addition to existing, dedicated temporary visa programs for Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. The current visa program is known as the Pacific Island Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme. The procedure that is now proposed by Labor is that, in addition to the visa ballot, there are other features that would be new to the Australian system. I mention these merely for context, because, as noted above, the visa would be introduced into the migration regulations rather than the Migration Act and is therefore separate from the provisions of these bills.

Few visas, particularly permanent visas, are targeted at specific nationalities—the New Zealand and Hong Kong streams of the skilled independent visa being obvious exceptions. The Pacific engagement visa will be open to only certain Pacific island countries and to Timor-Leste. It's stated that there will be 3,000 places set annually for the visa. And, while the migration program sets annual planning levels for permanent visas, the minister's second reading speech states that these places will be in addition to the places allocated already under the Migration Program. It is therefore, from the minister's explanatory memorandum, intended that a certain number of places each year will be allocated to each country and a ballot run for each. Currently, only certain countries in the working holiday-maker program, a temporary visa program, have specific country caps. When the cap is reached for a given year, no further applications are accepted. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has actually been quoted as stating that the government would prioritise countries with limited permanent migration opportunities for Australia, and that the number of visas available for each Pacific island was still being determined. So, while the government has stated that it is envisaged that the eligibility criteria for the visa will include age, English language, health and character requirements—and, for the primary applicant, a job offer—it appears that the visa will not in fact have skill-level or occupational requirements. This is a glaring error and the visa would therefore not help to address the current skills shortage we have within our country, because it is not aligned with the skilled stream of the Migration Program.

Initial details of the Pacific engagement visa initiatives were outlined in the Labor Party's election policy on PALM. The policy was confirmed by the new government following the election, including by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. However, further details were then provided in last year's budget, and there was a notable difference from the initial commitment, in that the 3,000 places would now be in addition to the permanent migration program, not from within it. The budget, therefore, has had to allocate extra costs, $175 million over four years, to support this proposed policy.

It needs to be emphasised as well that, after the required passage of the bills, subsequent amendment to the Migration Regulations to introduce the visa itself can be made by disallowable legislative instrument. In other words, the minister will be able to, at any stage, simply change the requirements for the visa. We do not know at this stage, therefore, what exactly the eligibility criteria will be for people to enter the ballot system. The government has indicated that participants will need to be aged somewhere between 18 and 45, have a formal offer for a full-time job in Australia and meet basic English, health and other character requirements. However, once the primary applicant is successful in gaining a Pacific engagement visa, the recipient and their family will enter Australia as permanent residents and be eligible for Medicare, all the various social security benefits and, ultimately, citizenship.

While these bills purport to be addressing Pacific island engagement, which is something that those on our side obviously support, the bills have unintended consequences, and that is the reason that my side cannot support these bills. One of the unintended consequences could be to drain the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste of some of their skilled workers, which is not the intention of good engagement with our Pacific neighbours. For all of the reasons mentioned, I oppose these bills.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not be supporting 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 concur with the amendment that the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Wannon, has put forward and totally support his views on this important matter. He is quite correct when he points out that this is basically pulling a name out of a hat, a visa lottery for Pacific workers. That sort of system has not been in operation in Australia before. Once a lottery is established, it may well be expanded. This is not the sort of situation that we've had previously. We've had a bipartisan, non-discriminatory immigration program in place for decades. That is why I support the amendment but do not, cannot and will not support the bill as put forward.

In question time today, unfortunately, the gloves come off a bit, with the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the member for Shortland, making comments about the coalition's record in the Pacific. So much is made of what the coalition did and didn't do during our three terms in government. It is a shame that those opposite never, ever acknowledge or recognise that there was a worldwide pandemic, that it is ongoing, that it cost a lot of money to ensure that people remained in jobs and, moreover, that people were able to stay alive. In February 2020—even before James Kwan in Perth became the first fatality in Australia from COVID-19 on 1 March 2020—we as a government were already acting to make sure that we kept people alive and that we kept people in work.

Migration has always been an important economic policy. It is not just a policy to ensure that people can come to this country, settle here, work here and enjoy the lifestyle we have here. We also make sure that we do it in a humanitarian and compassionate way. We also are cognisant of the fact that the people we were taking are doing it because they want or need to be here and also of not taking away the vital workers and citizens of other countries and leaving them poorer because people decide to resettle in Australia.

I'm glad that the member for Wannon has joined me in the Federation Chamber because he, quite correctly, made these comments to James Massola of the Sydney Morning Herald just yesterday:

Australian citizenship is too important to be decided by pulling a name out of a hat. Migrants to this nation should be incentivised to come for work, not to access the full range of social security benefits and Medicare.

He also said:

Australia's immigration policy should target young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country and temporary migrants who make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages.

He and I share pretty similar electorates inasmuch as agriculture is large, manufacturing is prominent and vacancies are one of the biggest things communities are facing at the moment. There are any number of workforce shortages throughout regional Australia. You only have to go down the main street of any country town or regional centre to see the notices and posters in the windows of shopfronts imploring people to come inside and apply for the vacancies to fill those workforce shortages. Even when I was driving home the other day there was an 'electricians wanted' sign on the highway as I entered Wagga Wagga. I've rarely seen those sorts of things previously. As the Regional Australia Institute identifies, there are 80,000 jobs needed to be filled in regional Australia at the moment.

Interestingly, in the second paragraph of Mr Massola's article he said that the plan was unveiled in February. I heard—if I am correct in hearing—a member opposite mention that this was somehow part of the agenda going forward prior to the last election. No, it was not. This is the first time this lottery-style system has come up. Yes, getting more migrants into Australia was something that those opposite pushed as part of their election platform, but so did we.

The member for Wannon and I know just how important it is to fill those vacancies. As others, including the member for Mallee, have quite correctly pointed out, many of those who come to this country are quite happy to do the jobs that we cannot do and that no government of any political persuasion has been able to get Australian homegrown workers to do, and more is the pity. But, irrespective of what it says on my Wikipedia page, these are not just jobs picking fruit. That's a complete misnomer. It was in answer to a question about energy, climate change and a lot more.

One of the big things that are important for the Pacific island workers—they come here and pick our fruit, yes, but they also work in our universities, our aged-care sector and many other areas of endeavour, skilled and unskilled—is that the remittance, the money that's sent home, forms a large part of their own island nation's gross domestic product. It enables their families, their loved ones, to advance themselves, to better themselves, in their own societies and their own communities, to the point where, as the member for Mallee pointed out, it even helps them to buy a block of land and sometimes, the following year, buy the house to put on it. It's something that they otherwise would not be able to do.

It's not paternalistic to say that they come here and pick our fruit; it's just the fact of the matter. But they do so many other things as well, and we thank them for it. We could not do without the energy, the work, the endeavour, the commitment and the spirit with which Pacific islanders come to our shores and help out. It is a two-way street. We get benefit from it because many of the jobs they do would not otherwise be done, and they get benefit from it because of the money they earn that they usually send back home.

But what we don't want to do, as the member for Hughes quite correctly pointed out, is cause a brain drain. What she meant by that, and it's the coalition's position, is that as good friends and neighbours we need to remember—as I said before, it's a two-way street. Those countries want their best and, in some cases, their brightest and their hardest working people to gain experience, to earn money and to upgrade their skills. But also, in many cases, they want them to stay in their own countries and benefit their own communities, not remove themselves from their own countries and settle here in Australia. We can't be seen as the paternalistic nation that takes the best and brightest and hardest working from our Pacific island friends and doesn't give them back, so to speak. I mean that in the nicest and most respectful way possible.

I've been to Vanuatu twice in recent times. I've been to Papua New Guinea. I've been to the Federated States of Micronesia. When I spoke to civic leaders in those communities, they expressed the concern that, while they thought it was a good thing that their people came over here to gain experience, to gain money and to improve their skills, they didn't want to lose them as citizens of their own nations.

That is why this lottery type of system for applications for permanent residency here in Australia does disturb me. It does worry me. That is the reason why the member for Wannon has put forward his very sensible, practical, measured and responsible amendment to this bill before the House.

The government's two bills seek to establish a ballot system for the introduction of the proposed Pacific engagement visa. The government has stated that the visa would provide permanent residency for up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste each year—each year. That is a big drain on those Pacific nation islands and Timor-Leste.

We as a coalition are strongly committed to providing employment opportunities. That's why we initiated the Pacific Australia Labor Mobility scheme. It's been tremendously successful. Yes, it did expand on and enhance those schemes put forward under the Gillard government and under the Turnbull government as well, and I acknowledge that. We also wish to see more pathways to permanent residency and we support the intent of this visa arrangement, but, having carefully considered the government's bills, the way they are currently drafted does not sit well with us, the opposition. Our decision in no way diminishes our strong and continued support for nations in our region, despite what the minister, the member for Shortland, said in question time today. We remain strongly in support of mechanisms which do provide employment opportunities for citizens of the Pacific and Timor-Leste, as well as pathways to permanent residency—of course we do. But a particular concern of ours is the idea of a ballot for places. It would be the first time such a mechanism was used, and I know it has been put forward that it would cost around $25. We don't want it to be seen to be like Willy Wonka's golden ticket. I mean, Roald Dahl has been very much in the news, with cancel culture rife at the moment, but we don't want to see it become something like that. We're concerned that the absence of any requirements for prior work experience in Australia will, potentially, increase the risks of these recipients and their families having unsuccessful settlement experiences in our country.

We do, however, remain supportive of the principle of the visa, and we're willing to work with the government and the key stakeholders. I do hope that the government genuinely—and I note the immigration minister in the chamber—consider our sensible amendments.

We're mindful, in developing proposals which build on the government's proposal, that we don't want to be creating new problems by, as the member for Mallee said, creating any unintended consequences. We consider that the PALM scheme could be a suitable vehicle in which to develop a visa arrangement similar to what the government's intent is, without a lottery system as such. Whilst not without its challenges—and any labour scheme is always going to have its challenges—PALM is genuinely well regarded. It is genuinely well regarded by Pacific nation leaders and by Pacific nation workers. Certainly, by the horticultural and agricultural farming endeavours and industries here, it's very well considered, because it fills roles and jobs that would otherwise not be done by locals, and, no matter how hard farmers try, they just can't fill those jobs. Unfortunately, without those Pacific islanders, fruit would be left to rot on the ground; fruit in vineyards would wither, literally, on the vine. Now, PALM is already a strong support system in place to assist new workers to settle into life and work in Australia, and that's the mechanism by which I believe this visa arrangement could be reconsidered.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those members who have contributed to this debate, and I acknowledge, in particular, Minister Conroy's contribution. I was very pleased to be in the chamber for the contribution of the member for Mayo, and I acknowledge the thoughtful contribution that she has made and look forward to discussing those issues with her and with other members.

Together, the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 will provide the government with the necessary legislative framework to operate a visa pre-application ballot process and to levy a charge in respect of this ballot to support the creation of a new permanent Pacific engagement visa. This is an important commitment. It will boost permanent migration from the Pacific and Timor-Leste, creating new opportunities for people to live, work and pursue their studies in Australia. It will deepen bonds between Australia and the region and enrich our communities.

The Pacific engagement visa is being designed in close consultation with Pacific partners in support of a more peaceful, prosperous and resilient Pacific. Indeed, it has been warmly welcomed by many Pacific governments and we will ensure it meets our shared needs. We want to strengthen our Pacific diaspora. Providing the Pacific family greater access to our labour markets, communities and economy is a natural advantage for Australia. The Pacific engagement visa will address the under-representation of some of our closest neighbours in Australia's permanent migration program. The visa will allocate up to 3,000 visas inclusive of partners and dependant children each year. These permanent visas are additional to existing, skilled and family visas.

It's disappointing those opposite are not supporting these bills, more so because their rationale is incoherent. Those opposite say they support a permanent visa but not for Pacific citizens to come permanently. Similarly, they say to select application based on skills but don't want Pacific countries to experience brain drain. It was not always like this. As recently as March 2022, a Liberal chaired parliamentary committee recommended Australia introduce a Pacific visa using a ballot. The facts are as follows: a ballot provides fair and equitable access where the number of people applying far exceeds the number of places available. We know ballots have been successful elsewhere—particularly in New Zealand, on whom this approach has been modelled. We also know that, by deliberately not selecting on skills, the Pacific engagement visa in fact mitigates against brain drain, proven by New Zealand's successful scheme. We are confident that remittances will be further supported by the Pacific engagement visa. Evidence suggests long-term migrants continue to remit income, and permanent residency enables this to occur over a long period of time.

Those opposite instinctively reach to reject reform—in this case, to reject a closer bond for our Pacific family, saying no reflexively instead of thinking about the incredibly important consequences of their actions. This story is all too familiar, including on climate. Instead of joking about people's livelihoods, we are getting on with the job. Instead of putting forward incoherent objections, we are introducing a visa which has been welcomed by our Pacific family and which reflects considered policy development. I urge those opposite to get serious about our relationship in the Pacific and support these bills and the national interest they serve. I welcome any constructive engagement with any member or senator. The government remains willing to work through, in good faith, any issues related to the implementation of these bills.

The bills support Australia's long-held values of fairness and equal opportunity, and support the creation of a new migration path to grow and support Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora communities in Australia. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. These bills deserve support, and I commend them to the Chamber.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.