Senator BARTLETT (6:18 PM) —I also want to speak about the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs annual report. We have had a bit of a focus on DIMIA this afternoon, both in the discussion on the matter of public importance and in the debate on the general business motion moved by Senator Ludwig, and it is appropriate that that is the case. We have also had a debate on the excise of Australian territory from the migration zone. There have been a number of times in those debates and many others when I have spoken about the wider importance of the migration area in terms of public policy and why Australians need to make themselves aware that this is not just an issue of a small number of unfortunate people who have fallen through the cracks and not just an issue of asylum seekers; it is an issue of huge significance to the future direction of Australia.

Given the other opportunities I have had this afternoon to specifically criticise the department and the actions of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, I want to draw on the departmental report to point to the significant number of people who are affected or touched in one way or another by the actions of the immigration department each year. This is, firstly, to demonstrate why it is so significant that we do much better in terms of getting things right and, secondly, to emphasise just how significant this is, in a social, economic and environmental context, to the future directions of our country. I will make a few comments along the way.

It is worth noting, if you look at the figures in this report, the number of visas issued in the visitors area and to working holidaymakers each year. In the last financial year, at the end of 2004, the total number of visitor visas issued was nearly 3½ million—that is a huge number of people. Of those, 2¾ million were electronic travel authority visitor visas, another 400,000 were tourist visas for people from non-ETA countries, there were 150,000 business visitors and there were 10,000 sponsored family visitors. In addition to that 3½ million, we had nearly 100,000 working holidaymakers—and I believe that that will go over 100,000 in the next financial year. That is a huge number of people and it shows just how much this issue is interconnected with the Australian community. When we are talking about 3½ million visitor visas each year, that makes debates about whether our permanent intake should be 90,000, 100,000 or 110,000 pretty minor in comparison.

If you look at the permanent entry area in the so-called economic program, there were over 71,000 in 2003-04. As is well known, that is going to increase to close to 100,000 in the next financial year in the economic area. If you contrast that with the family area, which was down to only 42,000 in the previous financial year, you can see how much the migration program has been distorted by looking for people who will bring in quick money and by dealing with short-term employment and skills shortage issues but not recognising the broader value of the family in our program. I particularly point to the increase—the nearly 866 per cent increase—in parent visas from the year before. That went up from 510 to nearly 5,000 and was a direct result, I might say, of Democrat negotiations in trying to deal with the total mismanagement of the parents category—this government’s obsession with trying to reduce and limit the number of people who come here, purely on the basis that they might cost us something in dollars and cents.

It is driven by a clear discrimination on the basis of age. It is a clear discrimination saying, ‘We don’t want people coming here who will cost our health system.’ It also impacts on people who have children or spouses with disabilities. They are clearly discriminated against purely on that basis because we look at the dollars and cents of what they might cost our health system; we do not look at the broader social benefits. I note that Senator Nash, in her fine first speech, talked about the role of grandparents. That is a clear example of the wider benefits that the family unit can play. It is a real concern that we are decreasing parent and family visas in favour of short-term economic benefits. There are student visas as well—another 171,000; the numbers are enormous. It is a clear reminder of how important migration is. (Time expired)