Senator BARTLETT (Leader of the Australian Democrats) (10:47 AM) —The Democrats will support this motion to disallow migration regulations. I say at the outset that it is very disappointing to be in a situation where we are forced to do so and therefore negate some positive measures that will assist many people. Most of the time when I am talking about the disgraceful policy Australia has towards refugees I try to be reasonably gentle towards the Labor Party, encouraging them to slowly move towards a better policy. They have moved a small way, but not very far, as can be seen from the previous speech by Senator Sherry. I know Senator Sherry is not the portfolio holder so he has simply got his marching orders but, frankly, Labor's approach on this issue has been a combination of breathtaking hypocrisy and absolute stupidity. I am absolutely furious that we are in a situation where we have to damage the future of a whole lot of people simply because of their inability or unwillingness to take an alternative approach. They had an opportunity a couple of weeks ago—through an amendment that the Democrats moved to legislation—to prevent the government from introducing this expansion of temporary protection visas and they chose not to take it.

Senator Sherry says that the public understand this government's tactic and see through it. I am afraid that the public do not, and that is why the public have been repeatedly urging us to simply disallow these regulations and then introduce new ones that will reintroduce the positive measures. Unfortunately, the Senate cannot introduce regulations. The Democrats attempted to do that through primary legislation and were thwarted by the ALP on the excuse: `The government won't accept it, so why bother voting for it in the first place?' A fabulous argument! But we will continue to do so. We will seek to reintroduce the positive measure in this through amendments to other legislation when it comes up. I put the government on notice about that. I make no apology for it, because it is an example of where this government quite openly and deliberately has intertwined three distinctly different issues in regulations and made them impossible to be separated.

An official from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Mr Walker, made that absolutely clear at a Senate committee hearing into the legislation. The departmental official also said it is fair to say that it is an approach that has not been used before. As was said by Senator Ludwig at the time, it is an approach that is effectively designed to prevent the Senate from disallowing part of it. I suppose you could say that is clever politics, that is the government being cute, but if they want to abuse the process in that way then we will have to explore other avenues to get outcomes that reflect what the Senate desires to do, and that will have to be through amendments to primary legislation. That is not the best way of doing it but is the only option we have if the government continues to pursue approaches of intertwining separate measures in regulations as a deliberate mechanism to prevent them being separately disallowed.

Senator Sherry said we should hear some mea culpa from the government about this seven-day rule, fixing up an unintended consequence of previous legislation. It probably would be nice to hear that from the government, but personally I am pleased that they actually made an attempt to fix this because it is an area many groups have been trying to get them to address for a long period of time. Speaking of mea culpa, how about a mea culpa from the Labor Party, who supported the legislation that had that consequence in it and plenty of other negative consequences that still exist today? To simply pretend that the mess that things are now in in relation to refugees in Australia is somehow all the government's fault is a very convenient ignoring of quite recent history.

We even hear, quite rightly, Senator Sherry pointing out Mr Ruddock's outrage when One Nation talked about temporary protection visas in 1998. There was outrage from the Labor Party as well, as there should have been, as there was from the Democrats. That outrage did not count for much a year later when the government introduced temporary protection visas and the Labor Party supported them and did not support a Democrat attempt to disallow the introduction of those temporary protection visas. We refer to, as was done, the policy of the UNHCR and of the refugee council regarding TPVs. They are quite unequivocal in their criticism of the temporary protection visa regime, yet Senator Sherry goes on to point out that it is still part of Labor Party policy. Great stuff!

Nonetheless, we are pleased that we are not extending the policy to require temporary protection visas for people who arrive in an authorised fashion. That is a welcome move and, obviously, one that the Democrats strongly support. As a party we have consistently and strongly opposed the introduction of temporary protection visas from the first instant and, indeed, even voiced concerns when the safe haven visa was first introduced for the Kosovo refugees, because of the potential for it to be abused and misused in the future by the minister and the absolute and unaccountable power that the minister got from it. Of course, we have been proven right in relation to that as well.

This is a situation where we are trying to figure out the lesser of two evils. Certainly, the Democrats would have preferred the ability to remove the evil altogether and leave the good behind. Instead, we are having to throw out a significant measure—and it is a significant measure—to remove the problem of the seven-day rule for a whole group of people. The seven-day rule applies for a whole lot of other people. I would be interested to hear why Labor thinks it is good for it to be removed for one group of people but still supported legislation that brought it in for a whole lot of other people.

It should be emphasised that temporary protection visas are unnecessary and incredibly cruel. Sure, people's circumstances can change at home, and they may only want temporary refuge from that persecution, but it should be for that person once they have been found to have been legitimately fleeing persecution to decide for themselves when they want to go back. Many refugees do. Many people who have got permanent visas here as refugees—some who have become citizens—have subsequently gone back when circumstances have changed. But let us have people being able to make that decision for themselves. Let us not have an unaccountable, non-transparent government process deciding whether it is safe for somebody who has been found to be a refugee to be flung back into a horrendous situation. Let us not have people living with complete uncertainty on temporary visas, not knowing whether they will be forced back in the future, not being able to properly settle in Australia and not being able to make the contribution to their new country that they would like to make.

Temporary protection visas are bad across the board. They remove the power of refugees to determine their own future and leave it in the hands of bureaucrats. The regime removes the power of refugees to get on with their lives and recover from the trauma that they have experienced, and basically leaves their future in someone else's hands. Nobody should be put in that situation, least of all people as vulnerable and as damaged as many refugees are. The entire temporary protection visa regime should be abolished and the Democrats will continue to work towards that goal. We will continue to encourage the Labor Party to further shift their position to recognise that their acquiescence all the way back in 1999 was a bad mistake. In my view, that is where they really lost the debate with the government about refugee policy—when they caved in and kept their head down for the next two years—rather than when the Tampa appeared on the horizon. It was too late by then.

In the meantime, this attempt to further expand TPVs will be defeated, and that is a welcome move. The Democrats will seek to move amendments to future legislation to address what the government is trying to do with part of these regulations—that is, deal with the anomaly to do with the seven-day rule and also the alignment of family visas. It should be emphasised that by doing this the Senate is significantly harming the circumstances of a large number of people. We had the opportunity to take an alternative approach that would not have had this outcome, and that opportunity was not taken up. The Democrats will be looking for other opportunities and hope that we have more success down the track in relation to that.

Certainly, a message needs to go back to those many Australians who, quite rightly and welcomely, urged the Senate to prevent the expansion of temporary protection visas. They need to know that the Senate cannot introduce a regulation to reinstate the bits that we like. That is not within our power. It is unfortunate, although not surprising—I do not expect the public to understand the intricacies of delegated legislation and how that power works here—that they were not aware of that. We will certainly be making sure that they are, because the pressure will need to be kept on to try to reintroduce the positive measure regarding the seven-day rule. It just will not be able to be done via regulation. We will seek to do it through other means. It is only one component of the very large number of areas where refugees are suffering in the Australian community.

All the reasons that the Senate is disallowing this measure in relation to temporary protection visas go back to what was wrong with temporary protection visas in the first place. Whilst this decision of the Senate—a positive decision—will prevent a greater number of people being put on temporary protection visas, it should be remembered that there are nonetheless many thousands of refugees in Australia on temporary protection visas. For many of them, those visas have expired and they have reapplied and have not been assessed. They are then left in absolute limbo with no idea whether they could be deported within a couple of weeks or a month. Try getting on with your life in that sort of circumstance!

All of those people are being prevented from being reunited with their immediate families. They cannot leave Australia without being unable to return, and their families will never get permission to come here. That is one of the fundamentally evil parts of the temporary protection visa. Australians are probably not aware that there are nine men—refugees—on temporary protection visas with wives and young children who have been on Nauru for two years and who are being prevented from rejoining their husbands. They are being told that they are separate individuals who do not meet the criteria for refugee status even though their husbands do. They are being told that they have to return to Afghanistan and Iraq, and maintain and perpetuate—probably for all time—that separation between husband and wife and, most cruelly, father and young children, some of whom have never seen their fathers.

I challenge any senator in this place to talk with any of those people and not recognise the absolutely unspeakable cruelty that is being inflicted on them, particularly on those children. That is why the temporary protection visa regime should be abolished across the board. That is why it is welcome that at least it is not being expanded. But let us not think that that is really addressing the core of the problem. The core of the problem is thousands of people whose lives are in limbo, whose lives are being destroyed and whose children's futures are being stolen. We still have a long way to go to reverse that situation.