Senator BARTLETT (6:50 PM) —I move:

That the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 8), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 285 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.

As I understand, we will not be rising tonight until we come to a vote on this issue. Is that correct, or will we have to try to finish this by 7.20 p.m.?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson) —Senator, I do not think we have been so advised.

Senator BARTLETT —Okay. I wanted to get clarification on that because, as senators may be aware, this is the final day that this disallowance motion can be debated and determined under whatever arcane legal requirements we have that govern these things.

Senator Patterson —It is not arcane; you have delayed it.

Senator BARTLETT —I have not delayed it. Under the law as it stands, if a motion is not voted on by the time 15 sitting days expire from when it was first given, then the regulations are taken to be disallowed. My view is very much that I do not want a regulation to be disallowed purely because time expired for consideration of it. I put on the record the fact that I was ready for this to be debated more than a week ago. If we have to finish this by 7.20 p.m., then I will be very brief at this stage. Hopefully, other senators will likewise be brief because I do not wish to have a disallowance go through purely because of an expiry of time. I think that is a very inappropriate way for any regulation or disallowable instrument to be disallowed.

At this stage I will just give a brief outline. The migration amendment regulation that is contained in statutory rules No. 285 makes it harder for parents to migrate to Australia. While the first instalment of the visa application charge for onshore applicants in this category has remained unchanged at $1,060, the second instalment has increased from $945 per person to $5,000 per adult person and $945 per person under 18 years old. The assurance of support bond has also risen from $3,500 for the main applicant and $1,500 per additional adult to $4,000 for the main applicant and $2,000 per additional adult. This money continues to be refunded after two years if social security benefits have not been accessed.

Applicants under this new parent category are accorded a higher priority than those under the old subclass. One of the areas of concern to the Democrats is that those people who can afford the increased amounts that are required under the visa application charge and the assurance of support bond basically get into the fast lane while the rest have to wait in the longer queue. A very simple—but I imagine quite easy to comprehend—analogy would be people in a long line queuing to get into the movies, the footy or whatever, and having to wait and potentially miss out because they are too far back in the queue. But if they pay double the price then they are able to jump into the fast lane and get in. In the Democrats' view, that is not a desirable approach to public policy.

We believe that, in some circumstances, the aspect of applicants under this category having to apply from offshore and no longer being able to apply onshore may also generate some problems. We think it is inappropriately inflexible as well. The very large hike in fees and charges for the new parent/aged dependent relative categories will make it virtually impossible in some cases for parents to apply. The Democrats feel the changes open Australia's immigration law up to the charge of being directed more towards the rich and discriminating against the poor and underprivileged.

The Democrats believe that in an area such as parent reunions, which is very different from skilled migration or business migration, we should not have too high a high-jump bar or a hurdle for people purely on the basis of their income. In addition, people able to pay the new increased charges have been placed at the top of the processing queue, while those unable to afford these charges but have lodged applications at an earlier time have slipped back in the queue. We believe this is fundamentally unfair.

Because I am trying to be brief I will just raise one other point, which will enable other senators to put forward their views on the disallowance motion. I have said a number of times in this place that, broadly speaking, I find the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, reasonably willing to enter into negotiations to consider different views and concerns that senators and the community have about approaches that he is considering taking. I do not want to make this sound like a blanket statement but I have been somewhat disappointed that the main response from the minister on this regulation has been basically to threaten that if the Senate passes this disallowance motion then his response will be to further slash the parent reunion program from the current level of 2,800 per year to around 500 per year, which will obviously significantly increase the waiting period even further. For 1998-99 the government has capped the parent subclass at about 2,800 places.

As I said, the minister's response to the concerns that have been put forward not only from the Democrats but also from the community about this measure has been to say, `If you don't like it and you knock it off, I will put in an incredibly tight cap of only 500. And then I will tell the community that it is all the Senate's fault or the Democrats' fault or my fault or whoever's fault.' I am not overly impressed with that as an appropriate way of deciding public policy outcomes.

I would say that if at the end of the day—to use a cliche—the minister decides to introduce a cap of 500 per year in the parent reunion program, then that is the minister's decision. It is not a decision of the Senate. We are only able to debate and consider proposals put forward by the government, by the executive, on their face value. That is what the Democrats are doing in relation to this regulation.

If the minister wants to respond by introducing another measure that is even more draconian than that, then that is on his head and that is for him to justify. It is the parliament's role and duty to assess disallowable instruments, and to decide whether they are appropriate public policy—whether they are appropriate under the broad range of measures, such as fairness and equity, that we have to consider. I think the parliament will make a decision based on those sorts of grounds. If the minister wants to respond by introducing a further unfair measure, then that is for him to decide and for him to justify.