Mr KERR(6.18 p.m.) —by leave—The immigration statement of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) clearly reveals that both Labor and the coalition share the common view that we support lower immigration during periods of high unemployment. Labor, however, says that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The government of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has chosen to make families lose out. Labor won't. We think that Mr Ruddock's plan to give preference to a large intake of job competing entrants not matched with labour market shortages over Australian families is madness.

The Howard government's immigration program for 1996-97 actually plans for a big increase in the number of independent migrants. By contrast, Labor delivered two years of lower immigration by making sure we gave first priority to our own. Mr Ruddock knows that all non-government senators—Labor, Democrat, Green and Independent—have not been persuaded to go along with the policy he said in opposition would cause agony.

How could the Senate be persuaded to give more priority to an Indian engineer with no family connections in Australia over an Australian on an overseas working holiday who marries an Indian and wants to bring her home to raise a family? Of course the independent engineer is not needed here. We have more engineers than we could poke a stick at. This year we are expecting some 2,000 engineers to come through on an untargeted immigration program in the independent category. Mr Ruddock has not introduced any matching of the independent intake of Australian labour market skill shortages. If the engineer does get a job, it will be at the expense of an Australian trained engineer. If he or she does not, they will be trying to take any job. We have too many of such people who have not been targeted for labour market needs driving cabs and waiting on tables—jobs school leavers could do.

The ACTU has argued to government for a long time, not against immigration but for giving priority to training Australians to do the jobs we need and against bringing in a large pool of trained people that we have no spare jobs for. Of course, an engineer who comes in under the independent category that Mr Ruddock wishes to increase at the expense of Australian families—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Denison to refer to the minister as the minister, not Mr Ruddock.

Mr KERR —If the engineer meets the points test, that person's husband or wife or family can come with them as part of that application while we all have to queue up, for the minister's pleasure, to issue some more spouse visas. If that independent engineer who came here was not married, he or she would probably want to one day, leading to increased pressure for chain migration. What a silly choice the Minister has made and how totally at odds with what the coalition sensibly said before the last election.

Before the last election the coalition said that "dependents of the family unit must receive priority over annual immigration intakes" and said that the coalition "does not consider that there should be any significant variation of the immigration intake at this time". Mr Howard and Mr Ruddock have since got it wrong. Keeping Australian families separated and bringing in, in preference, people with no ties to Australia to try to take their jobs is not the way to restore confidence in the program.

I turn to some of the statements that are in the ministerial statement because they reveal a complete contrast between what the coalition said immediately preceding the last election and what they are now seeking to do. The Liberal and National Party coalition's immigration policy published on 9 February 1996 is my source document. In the minister's statement today he says:

The coalition government inherited a migration program that was . . . out of control.

The coalition's policy document said:

Immigration has varied considerably from its high levels in the late 80's to its lower levels in the early 90's. Given current circumstances, in particular continued unacceptably high levels of unemployment, the immigration intake, in the near term, should remain at around its current levels. The Coalition does not consider there should be any significant variation in the immigration intake at this time.

Then the minister attacked the Labor Party for what he says is the family stream taking up 70 per cent of the program. What did the coalition say before the election about the family program? They said:

The family unit is the foundation of our society, and must be at the core of immigration (and settlement) policy.

Although the definition of family may differ from one culture to another, for recent settlers the importance of the immediate family unit (husband, wife, dependent children) as the primary organ of support and dependence is paramount.

Our goal, wherever possible, is to reunite dislocated families. Dependants of the family unit must receive priority in our annual immigration intakes.

The minister made allegations that the program was widely rorted. In the coalition's pre-election statements, he said, accurately:

There remain limited instances in the community of the use of spouse sponsorship for other than bona fide relationships.

We have always accepted that. There was a film in the United States about people who sought to abuse the green card system there. It will occur. But we have supported and endorsed every step the minister has put forward to control any fraud in the program. The minister was accurate before the election when he said that there are limited circumstances.

Turning now to humanitarian and refugee programs, the minister is now going to roll the extended families of people who come here in the humanitarian and refugee program into the program itself. On top of a reduction of the program from a baseline of 13,000 to 10,000, this will mean the program will be reduced by another 30 per cent approximately. So, effectively, the coalition government has halved the humanitarian and refugee program. But what did it say before the election in its own manifesto? It said:

The refugee and humanitarian program will continue to be an essential element under a Coalition Government.

It also said:

We reaffirm our commitment not to reduce the refugee component of this program.

In his statement, the minister claims that for 1996-97 he has achieved a smaller and significantly more balanced migration program. The fact is that two of the three years of the Keating government brought in a significantly lower program. The minister knows he can bring in a lower program without the need for the draconian measures he now threatens.

Contrast the minister's claims about what was the state of the migration program before the coalition took office. On the one hand, he says demand was slowed because of the recession. He said:

This recession meant that demand for migration to Australia declined significantly.

Increasing numbers of potential migrants simply did not want to come to Australia because of the state of our economy.

Then, on the other hand, he accuses us on page 6 of his statement when he says:

At this stage, the government also intends to keep the pass mark for the concessional family category at . . . 115 points.

This is needed mainly to deal with the enormous pipeline of applications that the previous government had allowed to build up . . . .

The applications went down, but the pipeline built up. How absurd!

Then we have an attack on language, entirely contrary to their pre-election policy formulation and contrary to the very good speech that former Liberal minister Ian Viner gave in Adelaide just a couple of days ago. Ian Viner said:

For public policy to deny or to devalue the linguistic diversity of the population is not only to deny the value of cultural diversity but to deny to migrants the very freedoms which Australia has invited them to enjoy from the moment that they have been invited to live here.

I think Mr Viner was making some very pointed comments.

Mr Ruddock in his statement also says:

. . . if the government is not supported in passing the capping legislation . . . we could be left with no choice but to use the existing cap and terminate powers that are available to me—

and this is the most self-deceptive, if nothing else, statement of the minister—

and which were introduced by the former government.

Let us look at what he said about family formation. When Labor in Government dealt with the immigration bill, Mr Ruddock spoke about that and said:

I regard it as absolutely unconscionable for a government to say half way through the year, `We have enough spouses in now, we are going to close off the category and no more people in that category can come to Australia—no more husbands and wives, no more dependent children, or aged parents'. I am glad that the Minister has made the decision to exclude those groups.

In fact what we did in government was to put into the Migration Act two provisions which expressly said that the power is not to be exercised against immediate family. Section 84 and 85 of the migration act state, regarding those powers to suspend or to determine maximum numbers of visas:

. . . does not have any effect in relation to an application for a visa made by a person on the ground that he or she is the spouse, dependent child or aged parent of:

(a)   an Australian citizen; or

(b)   the holder of a permanent visa . . .

If Mr Ruddock proceeds down this path, he is heading for litigation, he is heading for a contest and he is putting the interests of foreigners with no relationship to Australia—people who have no connections with this country—ahead of our own, ahead of our own people who go overseas and wish to marry, who have dependent children or who wish to give care to their elderly parents.

The minister is also obviously seeking to abuse the intent of the Migration Act. Section 51 does allow the minister to consider applications in such order as he considers desirable. This section puts that in context when it says:

(2)   The fact that an application has not yet been considered or disposed of although an application that was made later has been considered or disposed of does not mean that the consideration or disposal of the earlier application is unreasonably delayed.

That is there to enable the minister to process matters in an appropriate way. It is not there to give effect to a policy that the minister clearly cannot get through a parliament which will not accept his priority in relation to giving people from overseas, who have no connection with this country, priority over our own. The minister cannot do this either. Section 47 of the act says that the minister is obliged to consider a valid application for a visa. The minister knows these things, but he is being sent on an errand now to pursue an agenda other than his own.

Contrary to his own previous statements, contrary to the national interest, contrary to his party's pre-election platform—a platform which was out there in black and white, a platform which went into all these measures in considerable detail, which was circulated widely amongst all elements of the Australian community—he now turns around and acts entirely contrary to the directions that he set out before the election campaign.

In conclusion, we believe that, if a choice has to be made, if we are going to have low immigration—and both sides of politics agree there is to be low immigration at times when Australia does face high unemployment—the Howard government has chosen to make families lose out; Labor will not.