Senator PATTERSON (7:07 PM) —I rise to thank honourable senators for their contributions and to say that if we defer a motion to the last day it does put a bit of pressure on. Maybe it is a lesson for all of us that we should try to debate such a motion the day before the last day so we are not in this situation.

I would like to reply to what Senator Harradine said. I would not always want to speak on behalf of everyone in this chamber, but I think I could speak on behalf of everyone in this chamber today and say: if we had our druthers, if it were an ideal world, we would want every single person who had migrated to Australia to be able to be reunited with their parents and bring them here. That is not possible.

One of the reasons it is not possible is that it would distort our population profile. The other reason is that it would place a very large burden on our social security system. Despite the rule that older people who migrate here must live here for 10 years before they can receive the pension, an inordinate number of people of working age who come in the aged parent visa category end up on unemployment benefits, and many end up on special benefits, because the families fail to meet their obligations. It is not all families. Many families who bring their older relatives here do the right thing and care for them.

But, as a government, we have to make judgments about the extent to which people should be expected to provide for older relatives who migrate here; relatives who have not made a contribution in Australia or who come from countries that do not have reciprocal pension arrangements with Australia. These are judgments that have to be made. We could not accept the number of people who are applying in the parent category and at the rate at which they are applying.

When the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, went around last year consulting on immigration issues, one of the issues that was raised by a number of the groups was: `Couldn't we have a category for people who have made a commitment to care for their parents and to be financially responsible for them?' That came out of those community consultations, and some of the people who were asking for that were from some of the welfare organisations. So the minister decided to develop regulations that would accommodate that request.

In my new role as parliamentary secretary, I was with the minister in his consultations right around Australia, and people were positive about that development. We went to every capital city, and there was not any criticism made. We had public meetings, we met with peak bodies, and not one person was critical of those regulations. In fact, they thanked the minister for introducing them.

I was at a meeting here in Parliament House with a number of organisations, and one of the groups went over the same thing. They said they wanted a regulation that contained a category where the sponsoring family took responsibility. The minister said, `We have that, but it is at risk at the moment because we have a motion in the Senate to disallow the regulation.' I have to tell you that those people were nothing short of horrified.

We have heard that the parents of people who are wealthy or have more income than others will be able to jump the queue ahead of others. Let me put the argument the other way. Senator Harradine and others might disagree that there has to be a cap, but I think the Australian public has reached the point of saying, `We need a cap because we cannot support an inordinate number of people.' If we have a cap and we do not have these regulations, everybody will be in the queue. Therefore, those who could afford to be included in the category that is covered in these regulations would preclude those who cannot afford to be there. So you would preclude people who cannot afford to come. That is the thing that honourable senators have to think about.

I think you will find that the community is quite concerned. I can say from my personal experience of nearly all of those consultations with the minister right around Australia, including rural Australia, there was not one concern expressed. Any comments that were made about these regulations were positive.

I am very sad tonight. My mother migrated to America when I was about 21 years old—

Senator Carr interjecting—

Senator PATTERSON —Thank you, Senator Carr. That was an unnecessary interjection. I did not ever expect that I would have a right to be reunited with her—as her last relative in Australia—in America. I know that sometimes these decisions are made when you are younger, and you do not realise you are going to get older. It is difficult, and I understand the difficulties people face when they have a relative living in another country. But it is not possible for us to allow everyone who applies to come. We were hoping to make it easier for some and to ensure that we could have as many as possible. I regret that the Senate has made this decision tonight. I hope, if the minister decides to reintroduce this regulation—he may not—that you will consider it again.

Again, I express my regret. I express my regret to those people who are in the queue. I have forgotten how many have applied and voted with their feet to transfer across categories—it is something like 2,800 people. I say to those 2,800 people tonight: I am very sorry that you will have to go back into the queue and you will not have the opportunity of having your parents here as soon as you thought. That is my regret tonight.