Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (11:37): I rise today to speak on the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014. This bill is a key part of the coalition government’s promise to stop the boats. The coalition government, through this bill, is introducing a package of measures to resolve the immigration status of the illegal maritime arrivals legacy caseload, which currently sits at a staggering 30,000 people who arrived under the policies of the former Labor-Greens government.

In fact, when we came to government there were over 33,000 unresolved cases, 27,000 of which had not even started to be dealt with, and some of them had been in detention since August 2012. This bill honours the coalition’s commitment to restore the full suite of border protection and immigration measures to stop the boats. These measures were successfully used under the Howard government but abolished by the former Labor government. I was working for the Howard government when we introduced these measures and faced this crisis over a decade ago. What happened under the previous Labor-Greens coalition was utterly foreseeable because we had been there before. We knew if you put the people smugglers back into business and you gave them a business model and a product to sell, they would do it. There is absolutely no surprise that once you implemented these policies then a flood of people would start to come in again. In fact, 50,000 people paid people smugglers to enter this country illegally. That was totally foreseeable, as were the consequences. If you get that many people coming in on boats you know people will die on the journey. You know that when they arrive they will have to be put into detention, and you also know they will have to be processed. But despite all of this being foreseeable as a consequence of the policy so irresponsibly implemented by those opposite, they did not make the provisions to process this increasing flood of people.

Those opposite talk about compassion all the time. Listening to the debate on this bill, and on similar bills and issues in recent times, I am still struggling—in fact, I find it impossible—to find compassion in a policy that entices people either to their deaths or to indefinite detention in this country. I do not understand the compassion; I see no compassion. In fact, with this legacy caseload, under the system of processing implemented and maintained by those opposite when in government, 30,000 people are still languishing under this system. Now what does that mean? It means 30,000 mothers, fathers and children whose lives are in limbo.

At the recent legislative committee hearing into this legislation, the department of immigration said that ‘the government has made it very clear that no illegal maritime arrival will be granted a permanent protection visa. If this legislation is not passed, illegal maritime arrivals will remain barred from being able to lodge an application for a permanent protection visa.’ So anybody who opposes this bill will be actively ensuring that these people remain in limbo. The question for these 30,000-plus people is: how long will they remain in limbo? The department said that ‘if the government continued to process the IMA backlog for consideration of a grant of a temporary humanitarian concern visa in lieu of the TPVs’—which those on the other side have been blocking; now this is the important bit—’it is estimated that the backlog under the Labor-Greens legislation and processes would take at least seven years to process.’

I will say that again: if those opposite block this legislation it will mean that 30,000 people will remain in limbo, many of them for up to seven years. I struggle to understand where the compassion is in that—that is, leaving people, who were enticed to pay to come to this country, in limbo for a further seven years. Surely the most compassionate option would be to speed up their processing time by years so that they can get a decision: yes, they can stay on one of the new visas we are proposing; or, no, they cannot. Surely it is better to give people the news as soon as possible and not leave them in limbo indefinitely.

This bill will reintroduce temporary protection visas and will introduce safe haven enterprise visas, which are also temporary visas. It will reinforce the government’s powers to undertake maritime turn backs and it will introduce rapid processing and streamlined review arrangements. Surely a compassionate response is to provide visas; to get people out in the community and provide them with an opportunity to work. It is not compassionate

to provide permanent visas. This would again put the people smugglers back in business and we would start all over again with the deaths, with the arrivals, and with more people and more children in detention.

These measures deliver on the government’s election commitments to reintroduce these TPVs, to ensure that no IMA will be granted a permanent protection visa, and critically, and most compassionately, to process Labor’s backlog of 30,000 asylum seekers. This should come as no surprise to anybody in this chamber or anybody in the Australian community. The reintroduction of TPVs is fundamental to the government’s key objectives to process the current backlog of IMA claims. I was on the committee inquiry into this bill; I heard the submissions from a wide range of people. Not a single one of them put forward a credible and implementable solution to this backlog that would not put the people smugglers back in business. To me, that is not the responsible and the compassionate course of action.

Under this policy from our government, we are providing temporary protection to those illegal maritime arrivals who are found to engage Australia’s protection obligations. Temporary protection visas will be granted for a maximum of three years and will provide access to Medicare, social security benefits and work rights, despite what those opposite have been claiming. However, most importantly, temporary protection visas will not include family reunion or a right to re-enter Australia. Those of you who have had a look at recent committee testimony from a number of different inquiries will see that that is one of the products that people smugglers sell: you send us your young children—’anchor children’—and if they get in and get a visa, you can bring your whole family in. That is a horrific and an inhumane offering on behalf of the people smugglers and we cannot not deal with it.

Senator Whish-Wilson: What about people who want to be with their families? What about them?

Senator REYNOLDS: If Senator Whish-Wilson thinks that sending children by boat is a compassionate way to deal with children and that there are remotely has any human rights aspects to it, he is welcome to address that in the chamber later.

These visas will be credited for a period of up to three years. On expiration, a person’s individual circumstances will quite reasonably be reassessed. Those who are found to still be owed protection will only be granted a further TPV or a SHEV, a safe haven enterprise visa. If they are found not to engage Australia’s protection obligations, they will be required to leave.

Consistent with this government’s principles of rewarding enterprise and its belief in a strong regional Australia, a new visa, the safe haven enterprise visa, will also be created by this bill. Again, it absolutely astounds me that people in this chamber, people who represent rural and regional communities in this country, would not be supportive of this new visa. The safe haven enterprise visa will be open to applications by those who have been processed under this legacy case load and who are found to engage Australia’s protection obligations. They will be an alternative to the TPV and will also encourage enterprise through learning and earning, which I think is wonderful.

Those granted a SHEV will work in designated regions, identified through a national self-nomination process. These visas will be valid for five years and, like the TPV, will not include family reunion or a right to re-enter Australia because, again, that is another product for people smugglers to sell. Holders of these visas will be targeted to designated regions and encouraged to fill regional job vacancies, and will have access to the same support arrangements as a TPV holder, including Medicare, social security benefits and work rights.

In the last few months as a senator in this place and from my travels around regional Western Australia, I have had many conversations with growers and farmers who simply cannot find local people to do these jobs that keep their businesses, their farms and their horticultural industries going. Any opportunity like this to help growers and farmers across Australia find hardworking employees is something to be commended. Again, I cannot understand how anybody in this place would not think that is a good thing.

What happens to them after they have worked in regional Australia? If they have worked in regional Australia without requiring access to income support for 3½ years, they will be able to apply, if they meet eligibility requirements, to be granted other onshore visas—for example, family and skilled visas as well as temporary and skilled student visas. If a SHEV holder was to access government assistance to study for a degree, a diploma or a trade certificate in a designated regional area, this would not be classified as accessing social security benefits. However, holders of this visa will not be able to apply for a permanent protection visa. If a holder of a SHEV has relied on income support for more than 18 months during a five-year period, they will only be eligible to apply

for another SHEV or a TPV, and this will only be granted if they are found to be engaging Australia’s protection obligations. If they are not found to have engaged Australia’s protection obligations, they will be required to leave the country.

Amendments in this bill to the Maritime Powers Act strengthen Australia’s maritime enforcement framework and the ongoing conduct of border security and maritime enforcement activities. These amendments also reinforce the government’s powers and support for Australian border protection officers conducting maritime operations to stop people-smuggling ventures at sea. Enforced turn-backs are a critical component of the government’s suite of border protection measures and have been successful in stopping the boats, stopping people dying and putting people smugglers out of business.

These measures affirm and strengthen our government’s ability to continue with the successful cessation of boat arrivals in Australia. As someone with firsthand experience with border protection policies, I know the effectiveness of stopping the boats. They are not easy decisions. They are probably some of the hardest decisions that any government has to take, but they have to be made in the national interest and, I must say, in the interest of those who are thinking of putting their lives at risk by paying people smugglers, and now in the interest of the 30,000 illegal maritime arrivals whose lives will be held in limbo under the policies of this government for nearly seven years if this legislation does not go through.

The migration system as it stands promotes a one-size-fits-all approach to responding to other claims. The framework is inconsistent with the robust protection system that promotes efficiency and integrity. While efficiency and integrity are buzzwords used in government and in business, what that actually means for those 30,000 people is that they will have to wait for up to seven years in limbo, and that is not acceptable. Under this bill, a new process, the fast-track assessment process, will efficiently and effectively respond to unmeritorious claims for asylum and, it has to be pointed out, there are many unmeritorious claims for asylum just as there are many that are meritorious. This new fast-track assessment process will replace access to the Refugee Review Tribunal with access to a new model of review—the Immigration Assessment Authority, known as the IAA. These measures are specifically aimed at addressing the current backlog of illegal maritime arrivals.

As we heard during our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hearings on this, 30,000 people are affected. Those who have meritorious claims will be afforded far better treatment under the provisions of this bill. However, it is the government’s policy that, if fast-tracked applicants present unmeritorious claims or have protection elsewhere, their cases will be channelled towards a direct immigration outcome, rather than having them access the merits review process in order to prolong their stay in Australia. The measures in this bill will support a robust and timely process, which is, as I said, the humanitarian and the right process. It will better prioritise and assess claims, and afford a differentiated approach depending on the characteristics of the claims. Prompt removal of failed asylum seekers from Australia also supports the integrity of our protection program and reduces the likelihood of applicants deliberately frustrating and playing the system, and delaying removal plans.

The cost of the former Labor government’s failures on our border over the last six years of government have been substantial in both humanitarian and financial terms. When looking at this bill and these measures, it is, I think, very important to go back and have a look at what they are designed to address. Labor and the Greens’ failed border protection policies resulted in an environment where 50,000 people put their lives and their families’ lives at risk by paying people smugglers, working through a pipeline of countries, to make this illegal journey. And why did they do it? Because those opposite deliberately, knowingly and with foresight implemented policies that drew them back to our country. Again, as I have said, I see no compassion in any government that would deliberately do that—not only deliberately bring them here in large numbers but put them into detention centres that were not ready and were not capable of looking after that many people. That is not compassion. That is not humane. Trying now to obstruct legislation that would deal with these 30,000 people in less than the seven years that their system would have taken—that is not the humane or right way to treat these 30,000 human beings.

As a consequence of the policies of those opposite, more than 14,800 have been waiting offshore in very desperate circumstances. Because of the policies of those opposite, they have been denied Australia’s protection through humanitarian visas, as places were taken in our program by those illegal maritime arrivals who had paid to come here—many of whom had paid and sent their children on that journey so that the whole family could come in behind them. That is in no way a humanitarian or a responsible government approach.

To me, the most compassionate and humanitarian approach is to pass this legislation to give these 30,000 human beings a decision. If they are not going to stay, it is the right thing to do to tell them so they can get on with their lives elsewhere. If they are able to stay, we should provide them with visas so that they can work, study and raise their families here. That is the humanitarian way. Do not leave them in detention for up to seven years. That would be the consequence of not passing this bill, which I commend to the Senate.