The Coalition has introduced a comprehensive new strategy aimed at reducing immigration, which includes significant modifications to the existing framework.
A former deputy secretary of the Immigration Department has raised concerns regarding the feasibility of implementing this policy without legislative changes.
As details emerge about the Coalition’s revised migration policy, uncertainties persist regarding its practical application. This initiative seeks to lower immigration levels, enhance the vetting process for visa applicants, and expel individuals who fail to embrace Australian values.
The proposal to abandon a non-discriminatory approach to migration has led to accusations from Labor ministers, who claim the Coalition is attempting to outdo One Nation in its immigration stance.
On Tuesday, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor highlighted the dangers associated with globalization while presenting the Coalition’s Australian Values Migration Plan at the Menzies Research Centre in Canberra.
The policy emphasizes adherence to the “Australian Values Statement,” which all visa applicants must currently endorse. This statement includes principles such as equity for all and a commitment to the rule of law. Mr. Taylor asserted that migrants from liberal democracies are more likely to align with Australian values compared to those from other regions.
To enforce this, the Coalition plans to introduce a legally binding values assessment under the Migration Act, making it a condition for visa approval. Violations of this condition could lead to visa denial or cancellation, with those failing to adhere to these values facing expulsion from the country.
Abul Rizvi, a former deputy secretary at the Immigration Department, noted that the general public would likely back a stronger focus on Australian values. However, he expressed concern regarding the vagueness of the proposal and the operational challenges it presents. He questioned the costs, legal implications, and overall effectiveness of the approach.
Rizvi urged Mr. Taylor to explain why existing character test provisions do not address his concerns, especially as the Immigration Minister already holds significant authority in visa decisions. He inquired what specific circumstances would lead to visa denial or cancellation based on a breach of Australian values, rather than the character test.
A representative for shadow home affairs indicated that visa decisions would rely on concrete evidence of actions such as repeated law violations, hate speech, or participation in extremist activities. They emphasized that this policy would enhance the character test by making breaches of the values statement a formal visa condition, rather than a mere advisory agreement.
Under the proposed policy, the Coalition plans to create an “Enhanced Screening Coordination Centre” equipped with intelligence, screening, and enforcement capabilities to prevent the entry of radicals, extremists, and terrorists. Visa applicants would also be required to disclose their social media accounts, mirroring a policy implemented in the United States under former President Donald Trump.
Mr. Taylor mentioned that the screening process would be adjusted based on risk factors, though he did not provide clarity on what that entails or which groups might be deemed higher risk. He asserted that the Coalition would establish a joint taskforce aimed at removing individuals who overstay their visas.
When questioned about whether this taskforce would resemble the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Mr. Taylor highlighted that while the number of undocumented immigrants is greater in the U.S., Australia must utilize all available resources to ensure compliance.
A spokesperson for shadow home affairs reiterated that this operational body would unite several agencies, including the Australian Border Force and the Australian Federal Police, to tackle issues like illegal immigration, similar to existing initiatives against human trafficking and terrorism.
Mr. Taylor expressed concern that Australia’s immigration system is being misused by individuals claiming asylum. As part of the Coalition’s “safe country list,” it plans to expedite the rejection of unfounded protection claims from countries deemed “safe.”
Mr. Taylor drew parallels to former Prime Minister John Howard’s statement during the Tampa controversy, asserting the government’s authority to determine who qualifies for protection. He countered claims that this approach would violate the Refugee Convention, asserting that the government will decide who is deserving of protection and the conditions under which it is granted.
The Department of Home Affairs has issued a caution to temporary visa holders, particularly from the UK and Ireland, urging them to refrain from misusing the protection visa system, which is intended for those fleeing persecution.
A spokesperson for shadow home affairs noted that a similar “safe country” list has been in place in the UK since 2007. The Coalition is still in the process of identifying specific countries for this list, which will be based on their human rights records.
