Senator BARTLETT (9:52 AM) —By popular acclaim, I am happy to speak to this legislation, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and a related bill. The legislation is significant and we will be interested to hear the contributions of other speakers as well. It is important and is of interest to a large number of people throughout the Australian community. The main thrust of the bill is the parent visa component of it but, as the title of the bill says, there are other measures as well apart from the parent measure. There are a few of those that are completely separate to the parent visa issue which I think do have some significance and merit. I note also that the government circulated some time back some other amendments, again not specifically relating to the parent visa issue but other components of the migration legislation, and those as well are worth considering. They can be dealt with in the committee stage when they are moved by the government.

The main thrust of the legislation and the part I speak to at this stage of the debate is the parent visa component, which is schedule 3 of the legislation. It is the one which virtually all of the public debate has focused on. The issue goes back quite a long period of time to an attempt by the government last year to introduce a separate category of parent visas for people prepared to pay quite a significant extra amount. At the time the Senate chose to support a motion that I moved to disallow that measure, which was brought in by regulation, particularly on the grounds that it provided a mechanism which meant that basically people who have significant amounts of wealth would get an advantage over those who do not. If you are looking at the purpose, the benefit and the value of the parent component of our migration program, the Democrats certainly believe that wealth or otherwise of parents should not be a determining factor in whether or not people can get into the country or, in the case of this original proposal, whether or not people would get fast-tracked. It was basically a mechanism for going into a fast track queue. The term `queue-jumping' is used a lot in terms of another aspect of migration. I think it is very unfairly and inaccurately used in relation to asylum seekers. But in the case of parents there is quite clearly a queue, and in the case of the proposal that the government put forward, people could shift into a queue that moved a lot quicker if they paid a substantial amount of money.

The Senate chose to disallow that measure, and the government and the minister in particular, Minister Ruddock, as a consequence acted, I believe, in a very inappropriate way—in a fit of pique, if you like—by reducing the overall numbers allowed in through the parent category to 500. That was the threat that he made to the Senate at the time and he carried through with that. I suppose in that sense at least he is a person of his word: if he makes a threat, he carries it through. But the carrying through of that threat has meant a lot of hardship to a lot of Australian families and a lot of people who are seeking to reunite with their families in Australia. For parents who are seeking to migrate to Australia to join their families here, 500 a year is a very small number. The numbers of parents who are seeking to get into Australia is in the many thousands, and obviously if you are talking about aged parents then having a potential waiting time stretching beyond a decade it gets completely impractical and very distressing to a lot of people. But that is the situation that people are currently faced with. There are a very large number of people trying to get in and a very small number that are allowed in under the cap that has been imposed by the minister. It was a decision of the minister and the government to put that cap at that level—not the Senate and not anybody else. I believe the government must bear full responsibility and blame for the consequent distress that is felt by many people who are finding it very difficult to reunite their families.

That has now led to a situation where this particular proposal put forward by the government in many ways has similar threads to what was put forward originally. This one is done by the fairly unusual mechanism of using legislation to amend regulations. It puts forward a situation where for a couple to have parents come to Australia they need to put forward $64,000 on top of the initial application fee that already exists. It is a particularly sizeable amount of money and clearly eliminates a large number of people. The amount of $64,000 is split up into, firstly, a component that relates to people putting forward a bond so that they will not claim social security payments and they forfeit that bond if they do claim social security in the first 10 years. That amount of $10,000, and $4000 for the second person, is repaid after 10 years if people do not claim social security.

The other even more significant component relates to a health charge which people have to pay. It is like a form of health insurance, if you like, and is compulsory. They do not get that back. That amount of $25,000 per person makes a significant impact in terms of the amount of money that people have to pay. It was difficult in the various committee inquiries into this matter through estimates questioning of the department to try and get a clear idea of where that figure was derived from. It seemed to be basically a bit of a stab in the dark. Although technically people can avoid paying it by taking out private health insurance cover that provides health insurance for that 10-year period, there is, as I understand it, no product available in Australia at the moment for people to be able to take out such insurance, so it does not provide an opportunity for people to use that mechanism. In any case, the amount of money that people will be required to provide is a very large amount, and that same principle of people being able to get fast-tracked into Australia if they can put forward large amounts of money is one that the Democrats have a lot of problems with.

We were willing to consider the issue purely because, despite having problems with the principle, we are aware—certainly, I am aware—through contact with many people, not just in my state of Queensland but around the country, that the government's extraordinarily small cap is causing a lot of distress to people. The extraordinarily long waiting time for parents is creating a lot of unnecessary hardship and distress. For that reason, it is an issue that we were willing to consider. I consulted widely with as many potentially affected people as I could to see what their views were about whether this option, flawed as it may be, was at least something that they were willing to support, because it would provide an opportunity for more parents to get into the country than is currently available.

An even more unfortunate component of what the minister originally proposed and indicated in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives was that he would be completely closing off the existing parent category, which would mean that no parents would be allowed in unless they could pay the $64,000 charge. I think that is a completely unsatisfactory situation. The consultation that I carried out involved seeking comment from as many people as possible throughout the country who are involved in migration issues, ranging from migration agents to community organisations, ethnic organisations, peak bodies and individuals I had had contact with over a number of years in relation to these issues. It was a widespread seeking of opinion.

I know the minister had a number of meetings around the country encouraging people, quite specifically, to contact me and my office to let me know whether they supported the government's measure and to suggest that the Democrats should support it to allow it through. Despite the philosophical objections that the Democrats had to the measure, which we expressed a number of times—indeed, we expressed them in the debate on the regulation disallowance last year—we were willing to consider that issue. That was why I undertook to seek the views of as many people as possible. Basically, the feedback I got was, surprisingly, overwhelmingly against the proposal that the government has put forward. While many people recognise the hardship that the very low cap the government has imposed is causing, they believe that the principle of what the government was putting forward was nonetheless so objectionable and inappropriate and that the precedent that would be set was so undesirable that they very much urged me and the Democrats to oppose this measure.

Obviously, a substantial amount of revenue would be generated by this measure. Once in place, it would be very difficult for a future government, of whatever persuasion, and any future minister to be able to remove such a measure and such a charge. I think we would be stuck with it. Nonetheless, we are in a situation at the moment where the government is maintaining a very low number of parents who are allowed in, and that is causing significant hardship. I hope that a future government reviews that, and after the next election we have an opportunity to increase those numbers significantly.

It is that principle that I would like to focus on in the rest of my comments. What this measure and a lot of the justification for it, by the minister in particular and a few other people who have supported it, are putting forward is once again the flawed and, I believe, very unfortunate suggestion that migrants are a cost to the community and an economic burden and that, if we are going to allow people into the country as Australian residents, they should have to pay for the privilege and pay their own way. Certainly, I do not deny that when people migrate here they can be a cost to public resources, through the health system in particular. All of us can be costs to public resources. All of us pay taxes to help cover that. Certainly now, with the expanded indirect tax base, even if people are not paying income tax, they are contributing significantly to the tax and revenue base of this country by virtue of being here.

The suggestion and the principle that somehow migrants are a cost and a burden to the community presents a very narrow view. While there may be some revenue cost as a result of people being here, that completely ignores the very significant contribution and benefit that people make when they are part of the Australian community. They make that indirectly in economic terms and also in other ways which are not so easily measured in dollars and cents but contribute enormously to the richness and the strength of Australian society and the community. If you are looking at parents, as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 is, obviously having parents here assists and contributes in many ways to the people they are reuniting with—their children. In many cases, they provide extra care for grandchildren that would not otherwise be provided. That is not measured or recognised when all these supposed costs are put forward by the government. It is a continual inappropriate emphasis on trying to highlight how much people supposedly cost us when they migrate here and completely ignores the benefits that they bring, not just to their immediate family but to the broader community. I think it is very unfortunate that that emphasis is being repeated by the government to justify this measure.

A number of times, over recent years in particular, we have needed to make people aware of and re-emphasise the value of migration. It is widely acknowledged that there has been a decline in faith in the migration program within Australia. Part of that is because of a reticence or an unwillingness by some people in the community and those in leadership roles to emphasise the positive benefits of migration and to emphasise the value that migrants bring to the Australian community. We have seen messages about that emphasised over recent weeks through the Olympics when we had the very positive examples of the great contributions that people from so many different nations have brought to Australia—not just people with sporting talent and lots of money or business skills. One of the issues continually emphasised was the importance of family support. For a government that speaks so much about being pro-family to put forward measures and to emphasise restrictions on parents being able to reunite with families goes completely against that rhetoric.

The approach that the government has taken on parent visa issues in general over recent years is completely anti-family. It keeps families apart, it prevents them from reuniting and it also undermines the fabric of multiculturalism itself. Despite all the words again from the government saying that it supports multiculturalism, one of the significant components of it is that connection with people's histories, that connection with their origins. The value of what parents can bring as part of that is inestimable. It is particularly important to maintain those connections and to emphasise those bonds and those links that enrich the Australian community and our understanding of and our links with the wider world. Keeping parents apart from their children in such a restricted way as this government has done is not just an anti-family measure but indeed, from the Democrats' point of view, weakens the fabric of multiculturalism which is so important to the past, present and future success of Australia.

It is a measure that the Democrats have a problem with both in terms of our philosophical point of view and in terms of the message it sends to the Australian community. It sends a wrong message that migrants are a cost, whereas from the Democrats' point of view we should be emphasising the benefits that migrants bring to the Australian economy and the community. It is a measure which weakens multiculturalism, which the Democrats are very strongly supportive of, and it is a measure which is quite significantly discriminatory on the basis of wealth. It is a significant amount of money: $64,000 for a couple. It is one that many families would not be able to afford and one that basically means that, if you have a stack of dough, you can get into the country; if you do not, then bad luck. That is not an appropriate basis on which to formulate our migration program, particularly in the family area.

Obviously there is a business component to our migration program. If you are looking at people being able to enter the country under those sorts of measures, then perhaps things like qualifications and money available for investment might be factored in—but not if you are simply looking at parents. The reason there is a component of our migration program for parent reunion is that we recognise the value of reuniting families and of keeping those bonds and all the benefits that that brings. That is why we have that tradition as part of our migration program. That valuable component of our migration program has been severely weakened in recent years by this government. This particular measure would continue to weaken that and, in my view, contaminate the family reunion component of the migration program by linking it very closely with financial resources. That is not an appropriate mechanism, in the Democrats view, for determining entry into Australia under the family component of the migration program. That is why we are opposed to this measure. It is unfortunate that, under the ongoing approach that this government is taking, so small a number will be able to migrate here through the parent category. But that is a decision of the government and it is one that, hopefully, will be changed—if not by this government then by a future one.