Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas) Regulation 2013, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 234 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.

It is with both thankfulness and sadness in this place that this motion has had to be moved today. I am thankful that the Senate is able to stop terrible pieces of legislation when indeed it needs to, and that in the case of a piece of regulation it is still the parliament that has the opportunity to view regulations and make a decision as to whether they are indeed in the best interests of the Australian public or in the best public policy interest at all. It is with sadness, though, that this regulation was ever tabled by the government. We know that the disastrous effects of temporary protection visas on genuine refugees are real. The reason we know that is that we have seen the dramatic, harmful and dangerous effects firsthand. We have had temporary protection visas before in this country and they were incredibly cruel, incredibly dangerous and created incredible suffering for the people they were imposed upon.

The cruelty of this particular government's approach to refugees is nothing more than an attack on Australia's generous heart. It is no better exemplified than in the use of temporary protection visas. Temporary protection visas under this government are for punishment's sake only. They are only being given to people who have already arrived in Australia. They have waited for years in immigration detention and then waited more years perhaps on a bridging visa or in community detention only to finally have their application for asylum assessed, be found to be genuine refugees and then be slapped with a temporary protection visa.

I am pleased to say standing here tonight that the result of this motion will mean that we will rid the statute books of the use of these cruel visas which keep refugees—men, women and children—in limbo for three years with the fear always hanging over them of being deported back to the places they had to flee because of war, torture and persecution. No longer will these refugees have to continue to live in limbo. By scrapping the Abbott government's attack on vulnerable refugees, this motion will enable these people to be reunited with their family members, live a life free of fear and start putting their lives back together again—free of uncertainty.

Australia is a compassionate nation and the support for this motion tonight reflects the values that we hold dear. We are the country of a fair go. We are a country that says if you deserve help, you go through the process and we offer you that protection. Temporary protection visas of course leave those who are most deserving living a life in limbo. By passing this motion we are indeed upholding our reputation as a caring nation. Under this particular policy, Prime Minister Abbott is once again favouring punishment over protection. When it comes to the most genuine refugees, that is indeed the cruellest and harshest response we could take.

Temporary protection visas are cruel. They are inhuman and their harmful effects on refugees and their families can exist for a lifetime. We know that under the Howard government, when temporary protection visas were used, they never worked as a deterrent. I want to go to a couple of key reasons why we know that is the case. In 1999, when temporary protection visas were first introduced, they did not stop the flow of asylum seekers coming here by boat; in fact they had the reverse effect. In the two years prior to temporary protection visas being introduced, 1,078 people arrived by boat. In the two years after temporary protection visas were introduced, that number went to over 8,000—eight times as many people came by boat after the Howard government introduced temporary protection visas. That is a 700 per cent increase.

These visas never worked as a deterrent. All they did was punish the most vulnerable, the most genuine, the most deserving refugees simply for having dared seek protection for their families. Refugees on temporary protection visas often refer to living in fear of being returned home, once their visas expire, to face the dangers they fled in the first place. Of course their fear extends to the family members that they have had to leave behind and they are not able to be reunited with under the temporary protection visa rules. This constant fear, this constant uncertainty, this constant limbo leaves very capable people with nothing. It is very hard as a refugee to start putting your life back together while you are being told the entire time by the government of the day that you may be sent back to the hands of the Taliban. How are you meant to hold down a job if, in that three-year period, you may be turned around and sent home? How can you develop a proper connection with your community and start contributing positively to society if you are worried the entire time about the treatment at the hands of the Taliban of your family back home, who are never able to come to Australia while you remain in this limbo.

Of the 11,206 temporary protection visas that were granted between 1999 and 2008 when the Labor Party—and kudos where kudos is due—removed temporary protection visas the first time around, only five per cent of those people were not given permanent protection in Australia. Let me say that again: 11,206 temporary protection visa holders, and 95 per cent of them were then able to stay in Australia permanently after we had put them through the turmoil, the torture and the uncertainty of having to live in limbo, with the fear of being sent back to the hands of their persecutors. These people deserve the permanent protection of our borders, not a life of uncertainty and continued oppression.

It is crucial that we understand the negative impact that this is going to have on the women and children in refugee families. We know that, when family reunion was denied, more women and children were forced to take perilous boat journeys. The very real human impact of that was no better exemplified than by the SIEVX tragedy. In the SIEVX disaster in October 2001, when 353 asylum seekers drowned on their way to Australia, the majority of those people—288 of them—were women and children who were there because they could not come on a family reunion visa.

This policy is dangerous, it is risky and it does nothing to deter people from taking those dangerous journeys. It is impractical, it is ineffective and it issues punishment for punishment's sake. Of the arrivals of people who came to Australia once temporary protection visas were first introduced, the numbers of women and children increased substantially. Women went from comprising seven per cent of arrivals in the two years prior to temporary protection visas to 20 per cent in the two years after. Children went from comprising seven per cent in the two years prior to temporary protection visas to becoming almost a quarter of all boat arrivals in the years following the introduction of temporary protection visas. The facts are clear. Temporary protection visas risk people's lives. By taking away family reunion the government is creating a greater incentive for the people smugglers to take advantage of people's vulnerability.

Temporary protection visas leave open the possibility of returning vulnerable refugees to their homelands, as I have already said. We cannot let this government's cruelty continue to spread beyond not just their political rhetoric, but right into the lives and hearts of genuine refugees who have been through so much in order to get here. These TPVs are in many ways being used retrospectively, because they are only being given to people who have already arrived here in Australia. Many, as I have already said, have spent many years in immigration detention. They have had their cases checked, they have been kept from their families for this long, they have been through the suffering of indefinite and long-term detention, only now to get out the other end, being recognised as people who had to flee the tortures and brutalities of war and persecution, and then be slapped again by the Australia government, who say, 'While we think you're a refugee and we accept that you are, we'll only pretend that that is the case for maybe three years or so.' That is not how a responsible, a compassionate, or even practical country deals with the issues relating to refugees in our region.

We have to get past this idea that the domestic politics of the day should dominate. This is about people's lives. There is no better example of cruel policy for its own sake than the reintroduction of temporary protection visas, which failed to protect, failed to care for and, in fact, risked the lives of people and cost the lives of many women and children along the way. It is irresponsible. It is dangerous. And I am thankful tonight, standing here, that this Senate may very well make the right decision to rid the statute books of temporary protection visas and put us on a path of coming up with ways of managing the needs of refugees by looking through a humanitarian lens and not just through the nasty gutter politics of the day-to-day election polls.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To set the factual background for my contribution to this debate on the disallowance motion, I advise the Senate as follows. Operation Sovereign Borders is being successfully implemented. Despite the best effort of the Greens and those on the opposition benches it is achieving its stated goals. To date, we have seen an 80 per cent reduction in illegal boat arrivals coming into this country, and that is in but the first 72 days of the operation of Operation Sovereign Borders. This, of course, is in part due to the reintroduction of temporary protection visas.

This evening the Australian Labor Party will be making it clear to all Australians where they stand on the issue of border protection. They will be given a clear choice: the choice of whether to stand firm with the government, which is implementing policies which are effective and are going towards achieving their stated goal, which is to stop the boats, or they can side with their alleged former alliance partners, the Australian Greens, and remove a central plank of the government's border protection policies, being temporary protection visas. In other words, those that are now in opposition can show the Australian people that they either stand for something, which is strong border protection policies, or, if they decide to side with the Australian Greens, confirm to the Australian people that (a) they learnt nothing from the result of the 7 September election and (b) they stand for nothing more and nothing less than promulgating the people smugglers' business model.

Let us remind ourselves of what occurred when the former government wound back the Howard government's proven border protection policies, which included temporary protection visas. As a result of that deliberate decision by the former government, we saw over 50,000 people arrive illegally in Australia, we saw a budget blow-out of in excess of $11 billion, we saw the confirmed tragic loss of over 1,100 lives at sea and we saw over 8,000 children placed in detention. The choice for the opposition is therefore very clear: more of the same disastrous policies if they side with the Greens and support the disallowance motion, or they can send a very clear message to Australians and to the people smugglers that the opposition want to stop the boats.

After a catastrophic five years of the former government, this government has now reintroduced temporary protection visas. In 2007, when the former Howard government lost office, there were but four people in immigration detention and none of them were children. Contrast that with the over 8,000 children that were placed in detention by the former government. In August 2008 the then Labor government and former senator Chris Evans, who was the relevant minister at the time, made the decision to wind back the proven border protection policies of the former Howard government, abolishing the Pacific solution, which included temporary protection visas. I have already outlined for the Senate the cost of Labor's border protection policies, a cost which the Australian people acknowledged when they cast their votes on 7 September. After almost six years of failed policies from those that are now in opposition, the Australian people elected the Abbott coalition government with a very clear mandate to clean up Labor's mess and to make a difference from day one, which is exactly what this government has done, and the statistics bear witness to that. This government has introduced a strong arsenal of measures to combat the people smugglers. This includes the restoration of temporary protection visas.

Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind tonight, as they cast their vote on the disallowance motion, as to whether or not temporary protection visas work, because they do. In the short time since temporary protection visas have been reintroduced, 181 asylum seekers who were in the community on bridging visas have made their own decision to return home. That is because they were offered a temporary protection visa, and that was not what they wanted when they came to this country. The number of people arriving illegally by boat in but the first eight weeks of Operation Sovereign Borders has declined by almost 80 per cent compared to the number in the eight weeks prior to the introduction of Operation Sovereign Borders. If your goal as a government is to implement a policy that is to eventually stop the boats and stop people risking their lives to make the perilous journey by sea to Australia, the statistics stand up for the fact that Operation Sovereign Borders is doing just that.

November, as senators would be aware, is traditionally a high-volume month for boat arrivals to Australia, particularly as the monsoon season approaches. Last November there were 2,443 illegal arrivals to Australia on 41 boats. This November, subsequent to the commencement of Operation Sovereign Borders, we have seen a total of 207 people arrive on five boats. You might ask yourself why. The answer to that question is very easy. This government has the resolve that the former Rudd government and the former Gillard government and then the former Rudd government failed to have. We said to the Australian people we would implement policies that would stop the boats. This included temporary protection visas. That is exactly what we have done, and the end result is an 80 per cent reduction in boat arrivals in the eight weeks in which Operation Sovereign Borders has been in place. The positive progress of Operation Sovereign Borders is, as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has said on several occasions, not due to any single measure or any single relationship or any single partner. All of the measures work together to give us a successful suite of policies, just as they did before under the former Howard government's Pacific solution.

When we assumed office on 7 September we were well and truly aware of the former government's legacy caseload in relation to their failed border protection policies. The former government—and those on the other side do not like to admit to it—have left a Labor legacy caseload of in excess of 32,000 people who had arrived in this country and they had not commenced processing them, and more than 20,000 of those people are living in the community and are now on bridging visas. To say that it will be a significant task to clean up Labor's mess in this regard is possibly the understatement of the year. But again this government has the resolve to clean up the mess that the Labor Party left us. Central to this approach, as Australians know, is the reintroduction of temporary protection visas. For those who arrived before 19 July and are subject to offshore processing, under a coalition government they will not get permanent residence in Australia as they would have if the Labor Party had been left in office. They will not be given family reunion under the Abbott coalition government. They will not be allowed to leave Australia and then return and they will be required to satisfy mutual obligation requirements in return for welfare payments. They will face a much tougher assessment process, not the tick-and-flick approach that was adopted by the former government, and they will do all of this without the largess of taxpayer funded lawyers to run their multiple appeals.

Under this government those arriving in Australia illegally by boat will also not take the place of offshore applicants under our refugee and humanitarian program. The days when a person who came here illegally by boat and displaced a person who had been sitting in a camp, as I have said before, not for five years, not for 10 years, not for 15 years but in some cases for 20 and in excess of 20 years—that is not going to occur under this government. We have been very clear that we are going to break the nexus between what the current and former government did and we will expose the fraud in relation to their alleged increase of the humanitarian program to 20,000 places. It is a fact, though those on the other side do not appear to like to admit this, that 7,000 of those alleged 20,000 places were going to be granted to people who came here illegally by boat. In other words, all the former government did was increase the number of places so that they could in part hide the number of people that were coming to Australia. That will not occur under this government. Under this government the 13,750 humanitarian visas will go to people who are in a camp. A humanitarian visa will not go to a person who has arrived here illegally by boat and is given a temporary protection visa. There are no two ways about it. The former government's 20,000 places in Australia's humanitarian settlement program were nothing more and nothing less than a con to the Australian people, quite frankly a con potentially to the most vulnerable in society who believed that if they did the right thing and went to a camp they may have got a place here. That was never going to happen under the former government.

That is why this government has taken what are very tough decisions in relation to border protection policy and that is why we have reintroduced temporary protection visas. Anyone who came here before 19 July and who engages Australia's protection obligations will not receive permanent residency under the coalition government. They will receive a temporary protection visa and they will not displace someone who has been sitting patiently in a camp for many years.

As I have stated, the choice for those opposite is very clear. They can side with the Greens and send a very clear message to the people smugglers that they support the people smugglers' business model and they do not want to take the strong steps that are required to eventually stop the boats. Alternatively, they can support the government in doing what is right by our borders and taking the steps that this country needs to clean up Labor's mess and make the difference that we have from day one. I remind those opposite when they are casting their vote later on this evening of the words of former senator Bob Carr who in a speech to Labor's right faction only six weeks ago offered but one piece of advice. This is what he said:

… there should be not a bit of daylight between Tony Abbott and Labor on irregular migration. [If you] embrace the Greens-Left-Fairfax-ABC position, you are going to go backwards at the next election.

That is a former Labor senator, a former minister for foreign affairs, telling those in his party that they should not side with the Greens, that they should not take the approach they took while they were in government, which led to an absolutely disastrous legacy, and that they should close the gap between the policies of the former Labor government and the policies of the current Abbott government.

Again I remind the senators: Operation Sovereign Borders, which includes the reintroduction of temporary protection visas, is having an effect. You cannot deny that, based on the statistics. For the first time in five years the Australian government has the upper hand when it comes to strong border protection policies. When those opposite were in government, they said time and time again—albeit I think they were misleading the Australian taxpayers every time they said it—that the purpose of their policies was to stop the boats. We all know what actually occurred: they had 11 different policies, and not one of those policies stopped the boats. However, if they are true to their word and they do want to support policies that stop the boats, then they should vote with the government tonight and ensure that temporary protection visas are available as part of the suite of measures that this government has implemented, which, based on the statistics, are doing exactly what we said they would do—that is, stopping the boats. As I have stated: since the introduction of temporary protection visas, 181 asylum seekers who have been on bridging visas in the community have been returned home. That is because they were not offered permanent residency; they were only offered temporary protection. That proves that temporary protection visas work. The Australian Greens may not like that fact, but the fact of the matter is the visas do work.

If you want to be part of a government that has strong border protection policies, if you want to be part of a government that does not encourage people to get on boats and risk their lives, if you want to be part of a government that does not want to see pregnant women and children in detention, if you want to be part of a government that effectively spends taxpayers' money when it comes to protecting the borders, then there is only one decision for you tonight—that is, to vote with the government. (Time expired)

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

TPVs, as the minister would know, were first introduced by the Howard government in 1999. They limited the type of protection available to genuine refugees by providing only temporary protection. Under the circumstances, these remained temporary so long as a refugee claim was unresolved. There were no rights of family reunification; if a TPV holder left Australia, then there was no right of return. The Rudd Labor government abolished TPVs in 2008 and, as we have just heard, the Abbott government has reintroduced TPVs through the Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas Regulation) 2013, which came into effect on 18 October this year.

The new regulations do not allow TPV holders to apply for or be granted permanent protection at any point in the future. Under the Howard government, upon the expiry of a TPV, its holder was entitled to apply for permanent protection. TPVs will also apply to asylum seekers who have already lodged protection visa applications under the previous scheme but who have not had those applications finalised prior to October 2013. In this sense, this regulation carries with it an element of retrospectivity.

The explanatory memorandum to the regulation states that the purpose of TPVs is to deter people from taking the dangerous boat journey to Australia. On 19 July 2013 the Labor government introduced the PNG regional resettlement arrangement. Under this arrangement, every person who arrives by boat is transferred from Australia. If such a person is found to be a genuine refugee, then that person will be resettled in PNG. This arrangement has effectively taken Australia off the table; this arrangement is working. And contrary to what the minister has actually said tonight, this arrangement is the principal reason why there has been such a significant reduction in the flow of boats from Indonesia and Sri Lanka. This is the reason there has been such a significant change in the movement of boats—this reason, announced on 19 July 2013, and not the farce that the minister has been speaking of—her secret arrangement. But what, in fact, has she done, other than to hide the boats? She has done very little. This arrangement, as I said, is the principal reason why there has been such a significant reduction in the flow of boats from Indonesia and Sri Lanka.

With the PNG regional settlement arrangement in place, the Abbott government's stated rationale for TPVs is of course redundant. I think this is an important principle. The TPVs will not apply to any new arrivals in Australia because these arrivals are being resettled in PNG. The TPVs cannot act as a disincentive; they will only apply to a cohort of people who are already in Australia.

However, the policy of the coalition does contemplate resettlement in Australia using TPVs as a measure of last resort. This intent of the regulation will undermine—I repeat, it will undermine—the PNG arrangement which is currently working so effectively. The government needs to be honest. Minister, you need to be honest about the intention and about how the PNG arrangement and TPVs are going to work together. TPVs do not allow for any method of family reunion. Additionally, TPV holders who leave Australia are not permitted to return. For this reason, TPVs act as a magnet to women and children seeking reunification with their loved ones.

This was exemplified under the Howard government and it was reflected in the number of boat arrivals—in particular, the number of women and children who were on those boats. Look at this in terms of the two years following the introduction of TPVs: in the two years immediately prior to the introduction of TPVs—that is, from November 1997 to October 1999—a total of 1,953 persons arrived by boat, of which seven per cent were minors and seven per cent were women. In the two years immediately after the introduction of TPVs—that is, from November 1999 through to October 2001—a total of 10,217 persons arrived by boat, of which 24 per cent were children and 20 per cent were women. Given these figures, it was always only a matter of time until a tragedy of the proportions of SIEVX occurred. I remind the Senate that was the occasion when 353 people, mostly women and children, were drowned trying to reach their families. TPVs only encourage this type of tragedy to occur, such is the desperation of people to be reunited with their loved ones and left no other option but to seek reunification by seeking such a dangerous boat journey.

I am sure it would not take much to remind all of us here in the Senate of the numerous reports and studies on the impact of TPVs on the mental and physical health and wellbeing of asylum seekers. Forced separations of families cause significant mental health and medical problems for refugees. The three-year period of a TPV prolongs the uncertainty of an asylum seeker's situation. This causes stress and anxiety and often compounds pre-existing conditions due to experiences of persecution in home countries. TPVs also prevent inclusiveness in the Australian community and promote a disinclination to participate in education and build up relations in this country. The retrospective nature of the current regulation does not afford procedural fairness to asylum seekers, who will be waiting for their claims to be processed and will now find they are only able to apply for temporary protection.

The regime introduced by the Abbott government, in the form of the Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas) Regulation 2013, is even harsher than the policy introduced under the Howard government. Under the Howard government, TPV holders were entitled to apply for a permanent protection visa upon the expiry of their TPV. Under the current regulations no such right exists. This means anyone on a TPV will never have any prospect of obtaining a permanent protection visa. On the expiry of the TPV, holders will have to reapply for another TPV. They cannot apply for permanent protection at any stage. It is at present unclear what services TPV holders will have access to under the current regulations. This could mean TPV holders are not entitled to access basic health services, Medicare, Centrelink, housing, resettlement services or counselling. For all these reasons Labor will support this disallowance.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.