Dr WASHER (5:16 PM) —I am particularly pleased to rise in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000. In this House last year I spoke of my extremely strong disappointment with the voting down in the Senate of the Migration Amendment Regulation 1998,which would have allowed the children of elderly parents living overseas to sponsor them to migrate to Australia under a new visa subclass. This disallowance caused considerable distress to many constituents in my electorate of Moore who were willing to pay an additional assurance of support in order to expedite the visa process and, at the same time, ensure their relatives were not an undue burden on the Australian taxpayer. Further distress was caused as many parents were being processed under this new subclass when the decision was made in the Senate to deny these people the opportunity to be reunited with their families in Australia.

It was not an easy task to explain to the families in my electorate why their parents should have to go back into the queue for the old visa, where there is a cap each year of 500 applicants, especially given the reasons of the non--government parties in the Senate for the disallowance. Despite the high level of interest of families in Australia in taking advantage of the new visa, the Labor Party denied them the opportunity because they said it was a visa for the rich. This was even harder to explain to my constituents, who were by no means wealthy—just prepared, along with their parents, to contribute towards the cost of being reunited with their family. Fortunately, the designated parent visa category was made available in November last year to assist the parents who were victimised by the Senate's decision. This incorporated the previous arrangements of the Migration Amendment Regulation, and nearly all of the applicants from the previous visa class moved over to this new category of visa.

This bill will allow for an intake of up to 4,000 parents over the next two years under the federal government's immigration program, in addition to existing visas that are available to parents. Those in the designated parent visa class will continue to be processed under that visa. The new entry arrangements under this bill ask for an assurance of support for a period of 10 years instead of the current two. This is in line with the current 10-year waiting period before elderly migrants are able to access the age pension. The bond for the assurance of support will rise from $3,500 to $10,000 for the main applicant and from $1,500 to $4,000 for other adult dependants. This will be repaid to the applicants after the 10 years if they have not accessed any welfare benefits during that time. The interest on that bond will also be repaid to the applicants. The applicants will then have a choice of taking out suitable private health insurance for the first 10 years or paying a health bond of $25,000 to contribute to the cost of their health needs in that time.

Another welcome aspect of this bill makes for more flexible arrangements for parents who are currently waiting for approval for a visa but who wish to visit their families in the meantime. In terms of health care during that time, many of these parents will be able to access reciprocal arrangements within Medicare. Otherwise, they will not have access to Medicare whilst on a visitors visa. This visa and the previously disallowed visa were introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs after his extensive consultations when travelling around the country to discuss Australia's immigration program. One of these public meetings was held in my electorate, and I commend the minister on his willingness to listen to my constituents. For an immigration program to be successful, it is important to give members of the public, who often feel alienated by the political decision making process, a chance to put their views to the minister—and I know he is a good listener.

Parent visas, under which more elderly parents have the opportunity to come to Australia if they are prepared to contribute towards the cost of their care, have been welcomed by both the general public and the major peak bodies involved in immigration issues. It is a commonsense measure that allows new Australians the means of bringing their parents to Australia while not being an unfair burden on the taxpayer. Those who have worked and paid taxes all their lives in another country should not move to this country and receive the benefits that people here pay taxes for. They should not expect to be fully supported. The many families that I have had contact with who wish to see their parents join them in Australia accept this as a fair means of entering the country. As I said earlier, all the peak bodies involved in immigration believe this is a fair measure. It is now up to the Senate to listen to the wishes of their constituents.

Another reason why many of the families have absolutely no problem with supporting their parents, or helping the parents support themselves, is that this is not an unusual request in the immigration laws of other countries. Australia is not asking for something out of the ordinary when it asks newly arrived migrants to be self-supporting. For example, elderly parents wanting to emigrate to the United Kingdom to join their children who migrated from Australia would only be granted a visa if they were wholly or mainly financially dependent on the sponsor. They are unable to access any public funds—that is, state benefits such as income support, housing assistance, thejob seekers allowance and disability payments.

This new parent visa will help to free up the existing parent visa category which has a cap of 500 applicants per year, so those people unable or unwilling to pay an increased assurance of support will have their visas approved in a shorter time frame as many applicants ahead of them in the queue move over to the new visa. This surely must keep the member for Prospect happy. A recent survey completed by the National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University showed that three-quarters of migrants surveyed in Australia had a parent living overseas. After three years of settlement, 15 per cent of the sample surveyed had sponsored or applied to sponsor a close relative to migrate to Australia. A further 18 per cent indicated they were planning to sponsor a relative in the near future. At present there are about 20,000 parents waiting to obtain a visa to migrate to Australia. The sponsoring of elderly parents will always be a major component of any immigration program in this country, so it is important that we get this right. As this House has already heard, the average cost of looking after the health of someone over the age of 65 is estimated at $6,000 a year. As a community, we have to balance the wishes of new Australians to be reunited with their parents and the effect this will have on the public purse. This is not to say we should ignore the many positive benefits of bringing parents out to Australia, particularly in terms of family support. I call on the non-government parties in this House to stop the ideological nonsense about visas for the rich and support this practical, widely popular and fair measure. I commend this Bill to the House. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.