Senator BARTLETT (12:03 PM) —I would like to speak to this schedule and indicate the reasons why the Democrats are opposed to it. It relates to the newly arrived residents waiting period, which is a topic that I have spoken on a number of times in this chamber over the last couple of years. I will not go into a fully-fledged storm of outrage. As I said earlier on, I try to approach social security issues and immigration issues—this one combines the two—in a non-inflammatory way, although I must say that this particular aspect of the two-year waiting period is one that I do have a bit of trouble retaining a dispassionate approach to, because I find it one of the more distasteful aspects of social security policy over recent years. The measure itself is only a small aspect of that, and there is an argument of consistency in relation to the measure which the government has put forward to promote consistency in the application of the waiting period. It relates to applying the newly arrived residents waiting period to aspects of the Health Insurance Act and health care cards.

Whilst it might not sound like a particularly significant thing, it is a measure that will, according to the explanatory memorandum, in a couple of years time save around $13½ million. As I repeatedly point out, saving taxpayers' money is a good thing. But taking assistance away from people in need is not a good thing. In many aspects, this whole issue of the two-year waiting period is a false economy. Not providing assistance to people when they are first settling in the country can make it a lot more difficult for them to establish themselves and can often lead to greater cost, not just to the public purse but to the social fabric down the track.

The two-year waiting period is a measure that the Democrats have consistently opposed, and we continue to oppose it. I know that the ALP initially opposed the measure, and it came into being through the support of Senator Harradine. At one stage an attempt of mine to repeal it was unsuccessful because of the vote of Senator Harradine. We had a brief Senate committee inquiry into it, by which time we came back here and I had another attempt at repealing it; Senator Harradine had been convinced but unfortunately the ALP had ceased to be convinced. So once again the measure remained in place. That was a source of some disappointment to me, I must say, but obviously I did not argue quite as expertly as I thought I had. Perhaps I had assumed, given Labor's previous support for the position of removing the two-year waiting period for special benefits, that that position would be retained.

In the Senate committee inquiry, the ALP produced a suggestion, which I think was repeated here in this chamber, that there would be a need to review the two-year waiting period and its impacts after a couple of years. That couple of years has now passed and we certainly think that it would be a good idea to assess more broadly the impact that the two-year waiting period is having across the board.

Certainly a lot of information has been provided to me from people who are working out in the community with migrants that it is having a significant negative impact—it is generating hardship for a number of people, for a number of families. Again, that number may not be huge but, for those who are suffering hardship as a result of this measure, telling them that they are only a small number does not really help them very much. It is still a measure that is causing very significant suffering, and I think it sends out some very unhelpful messages more broadly about some of the stereotypes about migrants coming here to go on social security and bludge off the Australian community and things like that—some of those more distasteful suggestions that are voiced on this issue from time to time. I think this measure gives implicit support to some of those comments from other people.

The Democrats continue to be very concerned about the impact of the two-year waiting period. This schedule has only a small impact on that in terms of its extension to health related issues. I will refrain from moving another amendment to try to change the two-year waiting period to enable access to special benefit because I can reasonably assume what the outcome would be in the chamber. Nonetheless, I indicate that the Democrats' concerns are still as strong as ever.

I urge all other parties to reconsider this issue in terms of the actual impact it is having on people in this community. As I say, with this schedule in particular—the specific measure we are opposing—it is another $13½ million of assistance in health issues which can be amongst the most important areas of need for people in the community. Oftentimes they can find a way of getting by in terms of income but those extra health costs, particularly if they have children, can really make the difference. I am assuming that the Democrats will be unsuccessful in getting this schedule deleted from the legislation, but I urge all parties to keep considering this issue and the real impact that it is having on families out in the community at the moment.