Mr RUDDOCK (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs)(11.39 a.m.) —I move:

(1)   Page 8 (after line 25), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A—Amendments related to limits on visas

Migration Act 1958

1 Subsection 5(1) (definition of aged parent )

Omit the definition.

2 Subsection 84(3)

Omit ", dependent child or aged parent", substitute "or dependent child".

3 Subsection 87(1)

Omit ", dependent child or aged parent", substitute "or dependent child".

This amendment to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1996, which has been circulated, is consequential upon the acceptance by the House of the amendments made by the Senate. Earlier this week the Senate rejected amendments to the Migration Act designed to enable this and future governments to deliver a balanced and orderly migration program. This rejection of the full range of enhancements to the capping provisions of the Migration Act is very disappointing to me. As I have said before, delivery of a balanced and orderly migration program is, in the government's view, the only way of restoring community confidence in the way in which the program itself is conducted.

The government is on track to deliver its migration program of 74,000 this financial year. However, this was not helped by the disallowance by the Senate of some of the key measures last year, and I have elaborated before on the impact of those decisions.

In relation to aged parent applications, after the majority of family test was rejected, we saw a 126 per cent increase in applications in the month immediately following. Similarly, we saw the rate of applications in the spouse category change. They had been trending downwards significantly month by month and when the rejection occurred the trend was upwards—not in the same order but it was still a trend upwards.

We will be able to deliver the program this year, however, without the need to cap. The reductions that we had achieved early in the stage were sufficient, but with the time lags in processing applications we do believe that we will be able to deliver the program without the need to cap and terminate applications in the aged parent, spouse and dependant categories. However, the very significant increase in aged parent applications following disallowance, as I mentioned before, could well mean that next year capping will be required in relation to aged parent applications. The majority of family test would have distinguished those applications from those in the balance of family test quite considerably.

I have given some directions in relation to processing. Certainly we are processing applications in accordance with the law, but we will give priority to those who satisfy the majority of family test rather than the balance of family test. If it becomes necessary to queue, obviously those that will be postponed will be those where the lesser test is satisfied. But, obviously, with the growth that has occurred in the aged parent category applications, there is an expectation that next year we will need to cap.

In relation to the spouse category, there is also that possibility, but decisions as to the direction and size of next year's program will be taken by the government in the next couple of months, and I am presently engaged in extensive community consultations as a lead-up to that decision. In that context, I would not like to predict at this stage what may be required in that area.

In discussions with the member for Denison (Mr Kerr), as he has alluded to, and in Senator Bolkus's statement in the Senate to this bill, the opposition has indicated that it is prepared to support the cap and queue powers in relation to aged parents, but not in relation to spouses or dependent children. As a result, the government has reluctantly accepted the Senate's amendment to this Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3). However, we are now moving what I am told are consequential amendments which will extend the cap and queue powers to aged parents. The capacity to cap and queue aged parents will reduce pressure on other parts of the program and make it less likely that the government will have to consider using the cap and terminate powers in migration classes where that is the only available mechanism.

In the context of this bill, the government does not intend to continue to pursue the other amendments to capping powers. However, we believe that the ability to cap and queue all parts of the program is a necessary and appropriate power for the government to have. We will continue to press this point and see whether we can get further agreement in relation to those matters from our colleagues both here and in the Senate.

The amendments I have moved today are straightforward. The first item in schedule 1A is a technical amendment to section 5(1) of the act omitting `aged parent' from the list of definitions. This is consequential to the other two items, which remove all references to `aged parent' in the act.

The second item in the schedule omits reference to `aged parent' in section 84(3) of the act. The amendment has the effect of removing aged parents from an exemption from determinations suspending processing of visa applications of a specified class.

The third item in the schedule omits reference to `aged parent' in section 87(1) of the act. The amendment has the effect of removing aged parents from an exemption from determinations placing limits on the number of visas in a specified class that may be granted in a specified financial year. I commend the amendment to the House.