Mr BILLSON(11.02 a.m.) —The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1996 is probably one of the simpler bills to come before the House. It seeks to amend part 3 of the Migration Act to extend the migration agents registration scheme for a further year, until 21 September 1997. The scheme was established in September 1992 to replace the regulatory schemes which had proved ineffective in stopping incompetent and unscrupulous migration advisers. The scheme requires the registration of persons providing migration advice.

The provisions of the scheme basically involve the registration of migration agents and qualifications for such registration. There are also principal components relating to a migration agents registration board, requirements and procedures for registration of migration agents, a code of conduct for migration agents, investigatory and disciplinary procedures, and the sunset clause which planned to terminate the scheme had this legislation not been brought forward.

Another central feature of the scheme is the complaints mechanism. Members will be aware that the May 1995 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Protecting the vulnerable?: the Migration Agents Registration Scheme, recommended that the scheme be extended. This proposed extension of a year will give the government time to further examine the scheme and consider the recommendations of the report.

Perhaps more than any other nation, Australia requires migration agents because of the great appeal of our nation. There are many candidates for migration wishing to see how they could enter our country. Potential migrants are keenly aware that our sandy shores, tolerant people, very stable political environment—and it is an enhanced political environment after the recent election—and comparatively high standards of living are something to be longed for. I would suggest they know that to be declined permanent entry into Australia may well stop them from joining friends and colleagues from their communities who have already migrated to this country and perhaps put an end to a dream they have about creating a better life for themselves and their children. The consequences of incorrect and misleading advice are therefore very serious.

Over the past 40 years in my electorate—Dunkley-by-the-bay, as I like to refer to it—we have hosted a wave of immigrants from the United Kingdom and Ireland, as well as people from other nations such as the Netherlands and Greece. And I note for my colleague across the way the importance of the Greek community in our electorate which is also very significant—as my father-in-law constantly reminds me, being of Greek descent himself. I hope that I and my colleague across the way, the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), can do some worthwhile work on the Australia-Greece interparliamentary group.

Because most of the migrants coming to my electorate speak English fairly well, some people might think that having advice available through a migration agent is perhaps not as useful as it may be. However, this is changing, and I think that I need to point out that information I have obtained from the two municipalities in my electorate, the Shire of Mornington Peninsula and Frankston City Council, shows that arrivals from non-English speaking countries are on the increase. Although in the last 12 months just over 300 of Frankston's 440 new citizens were from the UK and just over 20 were from New Zealand, there were more than 10 new citizens from each of Afghanistan, Ireland, the Philippines and India, and five from Fiji, Italy, Poland and Chile.

Many of these people are bilingual but an increasing number may well not be fluent in English. We in the House might think that, while many people wishing to enter the country are fluent in English, we would like to have these migration agents available to ensure that people are getting reliable advice, and that they are able to understand and comprehend the sorts of considerations that our country takes into account, and that they also need to consider, before pursuing a course and becoming part of this great nation.

But in traditional source countries where English is the primary tongue, our discerning migration program, particularly in areas outside the family reunion area, would require some very reliable, informed and comprehensive advice. Potential migrants are paying for that advice under this scheme through agents, in the expectation that the agents' experience with the migration legislation and procedures will, hopefully, improve their prospects for a favourable outcome.

It is probably worth putting on record that since the scheme commenced in 1992, 3,407 applications for registration have been received. Of those, 2,580 have been approved and 416 have been refused. I guess the encouraging thing that I take out of that is that there is a clear understanding that people without the capacity to demonstrate a sound knowledge of our migration law and practice are not being given the opportunity to provide advice that could have very significant consequences for the people paying money to receive that advice. This registration process has excluded over 400 unsuitable applicants, and I think that that picks up on the points that the member for Denison (Mr Kerr) was making, and it underlines the title of the report that the joint committee prepared.

In March 1996, compared with March 1995, immigration on an Australia-wide level was actually up. The biggest jump was from immigrants from north-east Asia, arrivals from the Peoples' Republic of China, which rose from 330 to 1,290, almost a fourfold increase. While there has been a decline in Vietnamese immigrants during the month of March, compared with March 1995, both of these countries are heavy users of migration agents.

Since the migration agents registration scheme was introduced in 1992, the migration advice industry has developed substantially. I think that all members would probably be able to recount many phone calls that we have had with them looking for advice and assistance. Even if, in its examination of the scheme, the government eventually came to favour partial self-regulation, the coalition would remain committed to consumer protection. Industry standards would no doubt be developed, and any changes incorporating new arrangements would be phased in in an orderly fashion.

Many migration agents incorporate their business with other activities—for instance, some are solicitors. Of the registered people under that scheme, that is certainly the group from whom we hear most. Other agents are from voluntary organisations. It is most important that migration agents behave ethically, do not charge unscrupulously and pay strict attention to deadlines imposed by tribunals who review initial decisions about immigration related matters. This further reinforces the need for registered agents to be fully informed and fully au fait with the way the system works and to be very ethical in working with it.

We also need to stamp out sham marriages and other arrangements that effectively allow some individuals to queue jump ahead of the majority of decent, hardworking potential immigrants who pay a $550 fee to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, as well as paying many hundreds of dollars in their own local currency to migration agents.

It should be noted that almost two years have passed since the joint standing committee received submissions on this scheme. By initiating this review, the government was simply speeding up the process of considering possible alternatives to the existing scheme, including a move to self-regulation. This also provided an opportunity to consider what may have occurred in the two years since initial submissions were received to the joint standing committee's work.

At the end of the government's review, I hope a sensible, long-term approach that will benefit potential migrants to Australia will be laid down by my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock). I commend the bill to the House.