Dr WASHER (4:41 PM) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House a most welcome and widely supported immigration bill that was voted down in the Senate and how this has adversely affected some hardworking families in my electorate. The Migration Amendment Regulation 1998 enabled the parents of migrants to apply under a new visa category to be reunited with their children in Australia. This visa allowed the sponsors, usually the children, to contribute financially to the costs, particularly the health costs, associated with bringing their elderly parents to this country.

As members of this House would be aware, it can take some years for a visa application of any class to be finally approved. With the new visa, known as subclass 113, the sponsor paid a charge of $6,060 in two instalments, and an assurance of support of $4,000 for the main applicant and $2,000 per additional adult. The assurance of support is a legally binding commitment to repay the Commonwealth of Australia any benefits that may be paid to those covered by the assurance in the first two years after they arrive.

These new parent visas were then processed separately to the usual parent visa category and were subsequently processed faster. The parents of the Leggett family in my electorate who had been waiting nearly two years on the old 103 category parent visa jumped at the opportunity to apply for the new subclass. The family were quite prepared to pay the additional money. They recognised, like the majority of Australians, that if elderly parents are to live with their children in Australia the sponsors should be prepared to contribute towards the cost of such expenses as health care and income support.

The visas were processed, new health checks were completed and, in March this year, the Australian High Commission in London informed the Leggetts that their visas were on the verge of being issued. They readied themselves to join their family in Australia and rejoiced in the thought that they would be here for their youngest granddaughter's second birthday. But the elderly Leggetts were not aware that on the other side of the world in the Senate chamber in the Australian parliament Labor and the minor parties defeated this regulation using the incredibly naive and simplistic argument that this visa was a battle of the haves and have-nots, the rich and the poor. Once again, the Senate ignored the wave of support of the Australian community and blocked this regulation.

Now the Leggetts are back in the queue of the old subclass with their hopes dashed and their plans ruined. Families like the Leggetts were prepared to pay extra and make a substantial contribution to their parents' upkeep in Australia. This does not make them wealthy nor does it stop other applicants who were not prepared or who were unable to make an extra contribution to be able to come to this country. It is becoming increasingly clear that many on the other side of this House think that hardworking Australians on an average income are somehow wealthy elite living the high life.

Their approach during the election campaign to the lack of income tax cuts for average Australian wage earners was testimony to this, not to mention their objections to the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. It was argued that private health insurance was for the rich instead of quite rightly recognising that there were many Australians, even those on pensions, who wanted to have health insurance but could not afford it because of high premiums. It was also argued that money should be spent on public hospitals despite the fact that fewer people in the public system would take the strain off the system, providing a better service for those who could not afford health cover.

The same principle applies to this now defunct parent visa category. Rather than stopping those in the queue who could not afford the more expensive visa coming to Australia, it was reducing the size of the queue. Fewer applicants in the queue would have meant more approvals before the cap was met for that year and a faster chance of being issued a visa. The people waiting behind the supposedly wealthy Leggetts were close to being issued a visa when the Leggetts moved to the new subclass. Now they will have to wait longer because the Leggetts are back in their queue.

I borrow the analogy of the line at the football used by Democrat Senator Bartlett during the Senate debate on this regulation when he voted to defeat the hopes of the Leggett family. Senator Bartlett said that if there is a long line to get tickets for the football it would not be fair if another line were started for people who are prepared to pay more so that they can get into the ground faster. I put it to the senator that, at the football, there are also fans who have paid extra to become a member of the football club so that they do not have to wait in line each week. Then there are the people who may have bought a dearer ticket in the stands and entered through a different gate. Then there are the fans who rang a week before and bought their tickets over the phone, paying a booking fee and a credit card charge. Imagine the queue if all these people had no option but to buy the same ticket as everyone else. This would mean the fans whose sole option it was to queue would have to wait so long that they would miss the first quarter or, worse still, not be able to get in at all.

This new parent visa was suggested by the immigration minister after his extensive consultations when travelling around Australia last year. One of his public meetings occurred in my electorate, and I commend the minister's approach of involving the community on a face-to-face basis. It is most welcome by my constituents. Not one criticism was made towards this new parent visa by either the general public or the peak bodies involved in immigration issues. In fact, these groups suggested that a category should be introduced for sponsors prepared to make a commitment to care for their parents and be financially responsible for them. It was suggested because the Australian community wants a balanced and sensible approach to immigration matters in this country. Measures such as a two-year waiting period before newly arrived migrants can access support from Centrelink was widely accept by the Australian community. This was another example of a balanced approach to immigration policy.

Shifting the emphasis to skilled workers and business migration was another commonsense move. These immigrants have an immediate and positive effect on the Australian economy and place little strain on our social security and public health systems. I understand that, along with the Leggett family, 2,800 parents waiting for visas took the option of this new subclass between 1 November last year and 31 March this year. This was when the Senate rejected the regulation that brought about this new subclass. As an aside, because this was just a regulation and not actually a piece of legislation the new visa could be taken up before the parliament approved the change. I am told it is very rare for a regulation to be defeated by the Senate, and having a new visa offered then taken away so quickly just added to the anguish of these families.

There was a large number of families in Australia prepared to sponsor their parents under the new parent visa subclass. As only 273 of the new visas had time to be issued before it was defeated in the Senate, I know there are thousands of families out there who must have been bitterly disappointed when they heard the reasoning offered by non-government members of the Senate. This was a widely supported, commonsense measure that was defeated by ideological nonsense. I call on non-government members to reconsider their approach to this policy or risk remaining out of touch with the voting public for longer than they think. A few days ago the Leggetts celebrated their daughter's second birthday without the presence of the grandparents because of this Senate decision.