Page 941 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
affordable than the family reunion visa program, which is substantially oversubscribed, it is important to note that the family reunion program is open to all migrants and the community support program is intended to target those who are most in need.
As I said earlier, the Greens wholeheartedly support the community support program, but the criteria are alarming and the fact that refugees in this program are being included in Australia’s humanitarian intake limit is simply inequitable. It is creating classes of refugees—those who can afford to apply, those who have found sponsors who can afford to pay and those who simply cannot afford it. I have included a fair bit of the detail around the criteria in the motion in order to give members sufficient background to consider this matter, and I believe it speaks for itself.
Our humanitarian intake should be just that—humanitarian. It should not mean that we require people to already have an offer of employment, be within a young working age and have a clear pathway to ensure that they are financially self-sufficient within 12 months of arrival, let alone have access to $16,444, plus $2,680 for each other family member, just for visa application fees, as well as funding airfares, medical screening and settlement costs. The fact that you do not even get the $2,680 back if your visa application is rejected is also appalling in these circumstances. These are not business migration program applications from people who are comfortable in their home country and can possibly afford it; these are people who are desperately seeking asylum.
I also find it disturbing that the program reduces the level of Newstart payment that refugees would receive while they are waiting for their applications to be processed. It is unclear to me why their lifestyles would be any cheaper than any other unemployed person, especially as they are presumably arriving in Australia with basically nothing and Newstart is not a comfortable amount to live on in general anyway. If we want to have a program with these criteria that is one thing, but they should not be in place for people who should be part of our humanitarian intake.
Not only does this program place considerable hardship on families but it shows that it is not necessarily targeting those most in need. It is also becoming clear that the federal government’s aim of widening the scope of the program beyond family repatriation, as in the bulk of cases under the pilot program, is not well targeted either.
The community support program allows for community sponsorship of refugees via approved proposing organisations, or APOs, which can be individuals, community groups or businesses. It is intended that these APOs would have the skills and experience to manage the application and settlement process on behalf of visa applicants and their Australian supporters. However, as yet, more than six months into the program, there are still no APOs; yet until APOs have been appointed individual visa applications cannot be lodged.
The government’s intention to widen the scope of the program by attracting business support appears to be falling flat. This seems to be backed up with these significant delays in appointing and announcing the necessary APOs. It would be unsurprising if the high application costs were a factor in businesses’ hesitation to engage with the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video