Senator ELLISON(6.47 p.m.) —The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Periods and Other Measures) Bill 1996 was introduced into the Senate in May 1996 as part of the government's commitment to a pre-election policy that new entrants to Australia should provide for their own support during their first two years here. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and other related bills to extend the newly arrived residents waiting period for certain social security payments from six months to two years for migrants who arrived in Australia on or after 1 April this year. It also makes amendments to these acts to ensure that these provisions are more workable.

The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in May and was reported on in September. I am pleased to advise the Senate that the majority of the committee made a number of recommendations which have been taken up by the government and accepted. Before I touch on them, let me deal with a number of concerns that have been mentioned today. One of them relates to racial discrimination. I might say at the outset that the committee relied on the evidence of Professor Ivan Shearer and the Attorney-General's Department to the effect that the bill does not discriminate on the grounds of race or contravene international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Furthermore, concerns were raised in relation to retrospectivity. I am pleased to put to bed any concerns of that sort. The committee noted these and looked at that subject. It stated that, in its view, these provisions were clearly enunciated during the election campaign. Information on the proposed changes to the policy were widely circulated by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The committee noted that the provisions in this bill relating to special benefits are prospective and that new residents who arrive on or after 1 April 1996 will be eligible for special benefits under the current arrangements. Therefore, for those reasons, the committee was of the view that there was no retrospective effect in relation to this bill. This policy achieved a good deal of attention in the run-up to the March election.

I mentioned that other recommendations were made by the majority. These related in part to the carers pension, the child disability allowance, the double orphan pension, the innocent illegals category of migrants and interdependent relationships. There was a lot more detail to it than that. I recommend to anyone interested in this area to read the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. Suffice it to say that a number of groups gave evidence in relation to these areas of concern. This was taken up by the committee and acted upon by the government.

I might also add that the majority of the committee recommended that some guidelines be set down by the secretary to the department in relation to the definition of `family members'. Furthermore, as the two-year waiting period commences on the date of arrival in Australia or the granting of permanent resident status, the committee was of the view that any appeal provision should not unfairly interfere with the rights or situation of any appellant in relation to their status. For this reason, an amendment has been included to provide that if a decision not to grant a visa is overturned, the period will commence on the day it was initially refused. That concern was raised in the course of evidence and has been met by the majority report of the committee.

I must also make it clear that this bill does not affect in any way the refugee or humanitarian programs which are currently in place. It does not detract from those in any form whatsoever and I think it is important that it not do so. At the end of the day we have a bill which strikes a balance between allowing for equity in dealing with those who fall within the exceptional categories that I have mentioned in part and the need to allow for responsible control of government expenditure in this area.

Substantial savings will accrue on the passing of this bill. That will mean that the huge deficit which this government inherited in March this year can be partly addressed. The government looked not only at financial considerations but also at the matters that I raised earlier—in much more detail than I have enunciated here today—relating to exceptional circumstances, including such areas of concern as the carers pension, just to name one.

So, therefore, there is a balance. I reject entirely the proposition that this is a bill which has not looked at these exceptional circumstances. There is a balance between controlling government expenditure and looking at the more human aspects which can touch on the area of immigration in these circumstances.

The previous government saw fit to impose a six-month waiting period. This government in the run up to the election announced that its policy would be that this period would be extended to two years. It was on that basis that it was elected to power. I do not think you can get a clearer mandate than that.