Division Description Changes — Bills — Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016; Second Reading — 27th Nov 2018

Change	Division
senate vote 2018-11-27#10 Edited by mackay staff on 2018-12-29 13:52:05	Title Bills — Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016; Second Reading Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea Description ~~<p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p>~~ <p>This is a continuation of my speech in the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016. When I was speaking previously on this legislation, I made it clear that we do not support this legislation because it would basically create a separate family violence framework for people seeking asylum in this country and for migrants to this country. I referenced the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2011 report, entitled <i>Family violence and Commonwealth laws</i><i>Im</i><i>proving legal framework</i><i>s,</i> and noted that that report considered issues around regulating sponsorship and that the department of immigration submitted to that inquiry that:</p> <p class="italic">Such measures could lead to claims that the Australian Government is arbitrarily interfering with families, in breach of its international obligations. It could also lead to claims that the Australian government is interfering with relationships between Australian and their overseas partners in a way it would not interfere in a relationship between two Australians.</p> The majority voted to agree with the main idea of the [bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5688), which means they can now discuss the bill in more detail. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a [second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd021): *> The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to introduce a sponsorship framework for the sponsored** family visa program. The proposed changes will:* *> separate sponsorship assessment from the visa application process > * require the approval of persons as family sponsors before any relevant visa applications are made *> impose statutory obligations on persons who are or were approved as family sponsors and provide for enforceable sanctions if such obligations are not satisfied *> allow the Minister to refuse a sponsorship application and cancel and/or bar a family sponsor where inappropriate use of the program or serious offences are detected, especially those involving violence and *> improve the sharing of personal information between parties to the application and the program more generally. <p>The Australian Law Reform Commission concluded that, rather than instituting a separate criterion for sponsorship, the safety of victims of family violence can be promoted through targeted education and information dissemination. The Australian Law Reform Commission also concluded that:</p> ~~<p class="italic">… because of concerns about Australia's international obligations, as well as procedural fairness and privacy, sponsorship requirements should not be altered.</p>~~ <p>It's important to point out that partner visas form part of Australia's family migration stream, which allows noncitizens to enter and remain in Australia on the basis of their spouse or de facto relationship—and that is both opposite and same-sex—with an Australian citizen or permanent resident. It's also worth noting that submitters to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill noted that the bill has the potential to interfere with Australia's human rights obligations in regard to the right to family—specifically, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.</p> ~~<p>I want to highlight the Australian National University's submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry, which stated:</p>~~ <p class="italic">We acknowledge that the provisions are intended to prevent people from entering into relationships where there is a risk of family violence. However, we submit that such decisions ought to be made by the individuals themselves, rather than by the government.</p> <p>The Law Council submitted to that inquiry that the proposed amendments had the potential to discriminate against families on the basis of national or social origin or other status where one partner is a noncitizen. Their submission said:</p> <p class="italic">There is no equivalent law that requires partners who are either citizens or permanent residents to have their partner's criminal and personal history assessed before they are granted the right to live together.</p> <p>Indeed, when the Department of Immigration and Border Protection previously addressed this matter, they concluded that measures such as those contained in this bill could lead to claims that the Australian government is arbitrarily interfering with families in breach of its international obligations.</p> <p>I want to be very clear that the Australian Greens are very supportive of legislative measures that address family violence, and we're also very supportive of significant extra funding going into addressing family violence in this country. We make the point that the shockingly high number of women who are killed—murdered—in this country by a violent male partner or ex-partner ought to be raising this issue prominently in the minds of every senator, and it ought to lead to far more significant investment by government into services that support people who are suffering from family violence. So we very much agree that family violence is a critical issue in this country, and we urge the government to do more than it already has to provide support for people who are suffering from family violence. However, we share the concerns of organisations like the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Australian Women Against Violence Alliance and the Law Council of Australia, who all raised valid concerns about privacy and procedural fairness. They also noted the risk of punishing victims of family violence by jeopardising their chances of accessing a visa and highlighting the lack of evidence of any support being available for those people who did come forward as family violence survivors.</p> <p>Fundamentally, Senators, the Australian Greens believe that everyone should be treated equally in this country, whether your ancestors have been here for tens of thousands of years or for a couple of hundred years, or whether you arrived yesterday as a person who is seeking asylum in Australia or as a migrant to our country. We all ought to be treated equally under the law, and we, in the Greens, as senators would know, are big strong supporters of the rule of law.</p> <p>As to the provisions in this bill, although they are intended to prevent people from entering into a relationship where there is a risk of family violence, we firmly believe that these decisions should be made by the people themselves, not by the government. Yes, the government has a role in the provision of information, and yes, the government has a role in the provision of education and other supports. But, fundamentally, decisions about who to enter into a relationship with should be left to the people who are considering entering into a relationship together.</p> <p>This bill also provides the framework for the temporary sponsored parent visa program that the government announced in the budget. The new visa category will allow Australians to sponsor their parents to stay in Australia for up to five years at a time at a cost of $10,000. This new category is in addition to the existing parent visa categories. What we have here is yet another visa category for people who are wealthy enough to afford it. This is one of the big problems with the way this government runs the visa system in this country and the legislation that frames up the visa regime in this country: there are certain visas that are only accessible if you have enough cash to pay for them. That includes special investor visas but it also includes this new visa category.</p> <p>Family reunion for people who've migrated to this country is critical for the maintenance of family ties and family connections. It's worth the Senate knowing that it can cost over $100,000 to bring two parents to Australia under the contributory visa program. If you don't have the $100,000, there is the option of a non-contributory visa. But the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website currently advises:</p> <p>If you are a new applicant for a Parent (non-contributory) visa, your application will be queued and you can expect to wait approximately 30 years after your queue date until visa decision. Let's be very clear about what is going on here: if you're wealthy and you want to bring your parents to Australia, you can go to the top of the queue; if you're poor and you want to bring your parents to Australia, you have to wait for up to 30 years to reunite your family, 30 years to be able to see your parents again. I've got news for some senators. There are many, many people who want to be reunited with their parents and bring their parents to Australia to reside who haven't got 30 years because their parents will be dead in 30 years. But if you've got the cash you can go to the top of the line. Again, there is one rule for the well-off but another rule entirely for the not-so-well-off. The waiting list for the non-contributory parent visa is so long that people often die while waiting for their visas and without having had the opportunity to spend significant time with their children and grandchildren.</p> <p>It is a disgraceful situation in this country that we allow this to happen. The Australian Greens are determined to play a role in enforcing our country to do better and in making sure that people who want to can reunite with their parents—migrants to this country who want their parents to come here so that they can be with their grandchildren and so that their kids, who are often of working age, can support them through the later years of their life. We want to see that made more easy for more people. We don't want to see 30-year waiting periods where, in some cases, parents die before their visa applications are even considered by the department. That is unfair and an absolute travesty. The Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia believes that high entry charges for migrants who want to live in Australia are inequitable and fundamentally overlook the importance of Australian society. The Australian Greens agree. The ability to bring your parents to Australia to live should not be limited to only those who have the financial means to do so.</p> <p>It's also worth noting that, for people who came to Australia as refugees, it is even more difficult to sponsor family members, particularly if you are a refugee who arrived by boat. Of course, that is the combined policy-cruelty lock step that is engaged in by the LNP and the ALP in this place. Together they believe that if you arrive in Australia by boat and seek asylum then you ought to be exiled to places like Manus Island and Nauru. There are people on both Manus Island and Nauru who are about to clock up six years—six years in limbo, six years of lost life, six years of danger, six years of inadequate medical support, six years of indefinite offshore detention designed deliberately to destroy people's hope—and we are seeing the inevitable price being paid by innocent people on Manus Island and Nauru, including children: the inevitable mental illness, the inevitable trauma and torment that innocent people are suffering.</p> <p>The current approach by government unfairly disadvantages refugees in reuniting with their families. It's worth pointing out that reunited families offer stable support networks for refugees and humanitarian entrants, and we should be doing more as a parliament to make sure that people, including refugees, can be reunited with their parents. I want to bring to the attention of the Senate a comment by Dr Anna Boucher from the University of Sydney, who said:</p> <p class="italic">While the proposed five-year visa is described as temporary, it is also renewable, so parents could end up living out the rest of their lives in Australia on a series of temporary visas. They would be, for all intents and purposes, permanent residents, without any of the rights of permanent status, remaining outside the welfare safety net and wholly reliant on family for care and assistance. They would be living in a democracy but denied political representation and the right to vote.</p> <p>I also want to put on the record the submission by FECCA, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection regarding the temporary visa for parents:</p> <p class="italic">FECCA believes that a pathway to permanent residence is crucial in the implementation of the temporary sponsored parent visa. Without this pathway, individuals may find themselves in an ongoing 'limbo' of temporary visas without certainty about their future …</p> <p>The Australian Greens are at a loss to understand why the major parties in this parliament collectively believe that because you're a migrant or because you're a refugee you can be treated as a second-class citizen in this country. We are all Australians, and everyone who is living here has a right to the basic dignity of life, including the social security safety net, and many people have a right to be set on a pathway towards permanent residency and citizenship that is available to them. We have to do much, much more than we are currently doing to encourage and provide for the reuniting of families, many of whom have been kept apart for far too long by governments, of both political stripes, that don't appear to understand the value of bringing a family together.</p> <p>While I'm talking about the value of bringing families together, in the very short time remaining to me for this contribution I want to put on the record that there are still families separated, with some members on Nauru or Manus Island and other members in either Australia or a third country, due to the cruel policy lock step. We have to do more to reunite families of people who have been exiled to either Manus Island or Nauru and have lingered there for nearly six years now.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Nick McKim~~
This is a continuation of my speech in the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016. When I was speaking previously on this legislation, I made it clear that we do not support this legislation because it would basically create a separate family violence framework for people seeking asylum in this country and for migrants to this country. I referenced the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2011 report, entitled Family violence and Commonwealth lawsImproving legal frameworks, and noted that that report considered issues around regulating sponsorship and that the department of immigration submitted to that inquiry that:
Such measures could lead to claims that the Australian Government is arbitrarily interfering with families, in breach of its international obligations. It could also lead to claims that the Australian government is interfering with relationships between Australian and their overseas partners in a way it would not interfere in a relationship between two Australians.
The majority voted to agree with the main idea of the [bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5688), which means they can now discuss the bill in more detail. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a [second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html).
### What does this bill do?
According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd021):
> *The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to introduce a sponsorship framework for the sponsored family visa program. The proposed changes will:*
> * *separate sponsorship assessment from the visa application process*
> * *require the approval of persons as family sponsors before any relevant visa applications are made*
> * *impose statutory obligations on persons who are or were approved as family sponsors and provide for enforceable sanctions if such obligations are not satisfied*
> * *allow the Minister to refuse a sponsorship application and cancel and/or bar a family sponsor where inappropriate use of the program or serious offences are detected, especially those involving violence and*
> * *improve the sharing of personal information between parties to the application and the program more generally.*
The Australian Law Reform Commission concluded that, rather than instituting a separate criterion for sponsorship, the safety of victims of family violence can be promoted through targeted education and information dissemination. The Australian Law Reform Commission also concluded that:
~~… because of concerns about Australia's international obligations, as well as procedural fairness and privacy, sponsorship requirements should not be altered.~~
It's important to point out that partner visas form part of Australia's family migration stream, which allows noncitizens to enter and remain in Australia on the basis of their spouse or de facto relationship—and that is both opposite and same-sex—with an Australian citizen or permanent resident. It's also worth noting that submitters to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill noted that the bill has the potential to interfere with Australia's human rights obligations in regard to the right to family—specifically, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
~~I want to highlight the Australian National University's submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry, which stated:~~
We acknowledge that the provisions are intended to prevent people from entering into relationships where there is a risk of family violence. However, we submit that such decisions ought to be made by the individuals themselves, rather than by the government.
The Law Council submitted to that inquiry that the proposed amendments had the potential to discriminate against families on the basis of national or social origin or other status where one partner is a noncitizen. Their submission said:
There is no equivalent law that requires partners who are either citizens or permanent residents to have their partner's criminal and personal history assessed before they are granted the right to live together.
Indeed, when the Department of Immigration and Border Protection previously addressed this matter, they concluded that measures such as those contained in this bill could lead to claims that the Australian government is arbitrarily interfering with families in breach of its international obligations.
I want to be very clear that the Australian Greens are very supportive of legislative measures that address family violence, and we're also very supportive of significant extra funding going into addressing family violence in this country. We make the point that the shockingly high number of women who are killed—murdered—in this country by a violent male partner or ex-partner ought to be raising this issue prominently in the minds of every senator, and it ought to lead to far more significant investment by government into services that support people who are suffering from family violence. So we very much agree that family violence is a critical issue in this country, and we urge the government to do more than it already has to provide support for people who are suffering from family violence. However, we share the concerns of organisations like the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Australian Women Against Violence Alliance and the Law Council of Australia, who all raised valid concerns about privacy and procedural fairness. They also noted the risk of punishing victims of family violence by jeopardising their chances of accessing a visa and highlighting the lack of evidence of any support being available for those people who did come forward as family violence survivors.
Fundamentally, Senators, the Australian Greens believe that everyone should be treated equally in this country, whether your ancestors have been here for tens of thousands of years or for a couple of hundred years, or whether you arrived yesterday as a person who is seeking asylum in Australia or as a migrant to our country. We all ought to be treated equally under the law, and we, in the Greens, as senators would know, are big strong supporters of the rule of law.
As to the provisions in this bill, although they are intended to prevent people from entering into a relationship where there is a risk of family violence, we firmly believe that these decisions should be made by the people themselves, not by the government. Yes, the government has a role in the provision of information, and yes, the government has a role in the provision of education and other supports. But, fundamentally, decisions about who to enter into a relationship with should be left to the people who are considering entering into a relationship together.
This bill also provides the framework for the temporary sponsored parent visa program that the government announced in the budget. The new visa category will allow Australians to sponsor their parents to stay in Australia for up to five years at a time at a cost of $10,000. This new category is in addition to the existing parent visa categories. What we have here is yet another visa category for people who are wealthy enough to afford it. This is one of the big problems with the way this government runs the visa system in this country and the legislation that frames up the visa regime in this country: there are certain visas that are only accessible if you have enough cash to pay for them. That includes special investor visas but it also includes this new visa category.
Family reunion for people who've migrated to this country is critical for the maintenance of family ties and family connections. It's worth the Senate knowing that it can cost over $100,000 to bring two parents to Australia under the contributory visa program. If you don't have the $100,000, there is the option of a non-contributory visa. But the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website currently advises:
If you are a new applicant for a Parent (non-contributory) visa, your application will be queued and you can expect to wait approximately 30 years after your queue date until visa decision. Let's be very clear about what is going on here: if you're wealthy and you want to bring your parents to Australia, you can go to the top of the queue; if you're poor and you want to bring your parents to Australia, you have to wait for up to 30 years to reunite your family, 30 years to be able to see your parents again. I've got news for some senators. There are many, many people who want to be reunited with their parents and bring their parents to Australia to reside who haven't got 30 years because their parents will be dead in 30 years. But if you've got the cash you can go to the top of the line. Again, there is one rule for the well-off but another rule entirely for the not-so-well-off. The waiting list for the non-contributory parent visa is so long that people often die while waiting for their visas and without having had the opportunity to spend significant time with their children and grandchildren.
It is a disgraceful situation in this country that we allow this to happen. The Australian Greens are determined to play a role in enforcing our country to do better and in making sure that people who want to can reunite with their parents—migrants to this country who want their parents to come here so that they can be with their grandchildren and so that their kids, who are often of working age, can support them through the later years of their life. We want to see that made more easy for more people. We don't want to see 30-year waiting periods where, in some cases, parents die before their visa applications are even considered by the department. That is unfair and an absolute travesty. The Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia believes that high entry charges for migrants who want to live in Australia are inequitable and fundamentally overlook the importance of Australian society. The Australian Greens agree. The ability to bring your parents to Australia to live should not be limited to only those who have the financial means to do so.
It's also worth noting that, for people who came to Australia as refugees, it is even more difficult to sponsor family members, particularly if you are a refugee who arrived by boat. Of course, that is the combined policy-cruelty lock step that is engaged in by the LNP and the ALP in this place. Together they believe that if you arrive in Australia by boat and seek asylum then you ought to be exiled to places like Manus Island and Nauru. There are people on both Manus Island and Nauru who are about to clock up six years—six years in limbo, six years of lost life, six years of danger, six years of inadequate medical support, six years of indefinite offshore detention designed deliberately to destroy people's hope—and we are seeing the inevitable price being paid by innocent people on Manus Island and Nauru, including children: the inevitable mental illness, the inevitable trauma and torment that innocent people are suffering.
The current approach by government unfairly disadvantages refugees in reuniting with their families. It's worth pointing out that reunited families offer stable support networks for refugees and humanitarian entrants, and we should be doing more as a parliament to make sure that people, including refugees, can be reunited with their parents. I want to bring to the attention of the Senate a comment by Dr Anna Boucher from the University of Sydney, who said:
While the proposed five-year visa is described as temporary, it is also renewable, so parents could end up living out the rest of their lives in Australia on a series of temporary visas. They would be, for all intents and purposes, permanent residents, without any of the rights of permanent status, remaining outside the welfare safety net and wholly reliant on family for care and assistance. They would be living in a democracy but denied political representation and the right to vote.
I also want to put on the record the submission by FECCA, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection regarding the temporary visa for parents:
FECCA believes that a pathway to permanent residence is crucial in the implementation of the temporary sponsored parent visa. Without this pathway, individuals may find themselves in an ongoing 'limbo' of temporary visas without certainty about their future …
The Australian Greens are at a loss to understand why the major parties in this parliament collectively believe that because you're a migrant or because you're a refugee you can be treated as a second-class citizen in this country. We are all Australians, and everyone who is living here has a right to the basic dignity of life, including the social security safety net, and many people have a right to be set on a pathway towards permanent residency and citizenship that is available to them. We have to do much, much more than we are currently doing to encourage and provide for the reuniting of families, many of whom have been kept apart for far too long by governments, of both political stripes, that don't appear to understand the value of bringing a family together.
While I'm talking about the value of bringing families together, in the very short time remaining to me for this contribution I want to put on the record that there are still families separated, with some members on Nauru or Manus Island and other members in either Australia or a third country, due to the cruel policy lock step. We have to do more to reunite families of people who have been exiled to either Manus Island or Nauru and have lingered there for nearly six years now.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~