Senator LUDWIG (Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (6:24 PM) —I move:

Considerations to be taken into account in granting visas

This amendment gives certainty to temporary protection visa holders. This amendment aims to grant permanent protection to TPV holders who have been in the community for longer than two years if ongoing protection under the refugee convention is required. In those cases where it is determined that protection is no longer required, permanent residence will be offered to the TPV holder who passes a rigorous public interest test, where it is found that the person is the sort of person who Australia could otherwise select for a migration program.

The government bill speeds up the processing time for TPV holders. This is a welcome change and perhaps even a significant change for this government, given its history. However, the bill does not provide any certainty for TPV holders. People deserve to live their lives with some certainty. Labor finds it truly unacceptable to have human beings strung along for long periods of uncertainty associated with temporary protection visas. This is an issue that I raised previously during this debate in the committee stage, but I make the point again.

The amendment moved by Labor contains a better model for processing of visas for persons in detention. Our model removes the delays and potential unfairness involved in the use of the non-reviewable ministerial discretion by substituting an independent assessment for any compelling special humanitarian claim. The government’s proposed bill simply provides non-compellable power to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to grant a visa to a person in detention. The government’s changes keep the process in house, rely on catching the minister in a good mood, one would assume, and continue to avoid transparency and accountability.

I did not want to go to the Senate Select Committee on Ministerial Discretion in Migration Matters, but I think its report—and I am sure Senator Brandis is familiar with it—highlighted that the ongoing inability to ensure that there is transparency and accountability, as highlighted by the use of section 417, needs to be revisited. In this instance the government proposes a time frame for primary assessment, but the reality is that TPV holders will still be in limbo. That is clear; that is the situation you are still going to have. They will be unable to form long-term relationships or plan for their futures—or even the futures of their children. I urge the government to look at this amendment, look at the position they are going to put people in, and change their mind and accept it.