Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I seek leave to move amendments on sheet MY124 together.

Leave granted.

I move amendments (1) to (2) on sheet MY124 together:

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

(2) Schedule 1, item 39, page 8 (before line 13), before paragraph 140HA(2A) (a), insert:

(aa) paying prescribed medical, hospital, aged care or other health-related expenses incurred by a visa holder or a former visa holder;

The government also opposes items 41 and 58 of schedule 1 in the following terms:

(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 8 (lines 27 and 28), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, item 58, page 10 (lines 10 and 11), to be opposed.

I make the following observations. On 21 June 2016, the government made a commitment to introduce a new sponsored temporary visa for parents of Australian children. This new visa arrangement will allow parents to visit their Australian children without imposing an additional burden on Australia's healthcare system. In order to implement this new sponsored visa, there needs to be an assessable sponsorship framework for family sponsored visas. The Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 will amend the Migration Act 1958 to introduce this framework. When the bill was first introduced, the framework was intended to apply to the partner program first and the rest of the family program later. The sponsorship arrangements for the new parent visa will now be introduced first. To ensure that the sponsorship framework covers the requirements for the new parent visa, as well as all family sponsored visas, the bill requires government amendments.

To ensure that the new parent visa does not place any additional burden on Australia's healthcare system, the Australian child will be a financial guarantor for their parents' health costs. This amendment will allow a legal bond arrangement for approved family sponsors so that the obligation of liability for outstanding public health costs can be enforceable by a relevant health service provider. These providers will typically be state or territory government organisations but may also include aged-care facilities. The sponsored parent will be required to cover all of their own health debts incurred whilst onshore. They will also be required to hold adequate health insurance from an Australian health provider. If the sponsored parent does not cover their own health costs while they are in Australia, the sponsoring Australian child will be liable for the outstanding debt. Importantly, these debt recovery functions are currently only intended to apply to sponsors of parent visa holders and are unlikely to be extended to sponsors of partner or child visa holders.

The new sponsorship framework is designed to separate the sponsorship application from the visa application. This means that the sponsor will need to be approved as a family sponsor prior to lodgement of a family visa application. If there is information known that would indicate a possibility that a sponsored person will be subject to family violence, the sponsorship application can be refused.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Labor Party will oppose the government's amendments. It appears that the amendments to assign financial responsibility for health costs go far beyond the government's stated objective in applying to temporary sponsored parent visas. If we just look at the explanatory memorandum itself, it says:

These debt recovery functions are currently only intended to apply to sponsors of parent visa holders and are unlikely to be extended to sponsors of partner or child visa holders.

Given the hour, I won't go into the full detail of our objections, but the fact remains that while this was an election commitment—or the government claims it was an election commitment—it is two years since that election and, when you look at the detail of what the government is proposing, it is not consistent logically or practically in terms of how these measures will actually work. For those reasons, these measures would be unfair and unreasonable to migrant communities. Given the lack of consultation with migrant communities about these matters, the Labor Party won't be able to support them.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet MY124 be agreed to.