The Greens want an end to the 'unconscionable' deportation of migrants with disability

Migrant parents can be deported because their child is born with a disability. There's now a push to change that.

The Greens want to end a migration rule which allows Australia to deport migrants because their child is born with a disability. The immigration minister personally intervened to protect an Indian family facing that fate this year.

KEY POINTS

• Migrants in Australia can be deported because they, or their child, have a disability.
• The Greens will move a bill to change that.
• The immigration minister concedes the current policy "doesn't meet community expectations".

The Greens are pushing to scrap an "unconscionable" policy that means migrant families face deportation if a child in that family was born with a disability.

The Disability Act currently does not apply to the Migration Act, meaning migrants can be told to leave Australia if treating their disability, or that of their child, means they are deemed a burden on the taxpayer.

Immigration Minister Andrew Giles has conceded the criteria "doesn’t meet community expectations", saying Labor is working through solutions.

Nick McKim says deporting people because their child has a disability is unconscionable. Source: AAP / Mick Tsikas

Giles personally intervened in March to prevent the deportation of the Perth-based Kollikkara family, which was given less than a month to leave the country because their 10-year-old son had Down syndrome.

But in an amendment to be put to parliament, the Greens will move to ensure the "highly ableist" policy behind the initial ruling is scrapped entirely.

"This kind of blatant discrimination belongs in the dustbin of history," the party's immigration spokesperson, Nick McKim, told SBS News.

"It's just unconscionable that a family with a child, who is in some cases born in Australia, is at risk of deportation because that child is disabled. We need to change that."

Giles intervened to prevent the deportation of Aneesh Kollikkara (left) and Krishnadevi Aneesh (right), pictured with their two children, in March. Source: SBS News / Tom Stayner

A spokesperson for Home Affairs stressed failing the health requirement did not mean automatic refusal to a person's visa application, with waivers available to many.

Those ineligible for a waiver can also appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, they said.

"More than 99 per cent of visa applicants meet the health requirement," they said.

Why are people threatened with deportation?

The Greens' bill would prevent the significant cost threshold (SCT) from being used to assess visa claims.

The SCT means visas can be refused if caring for the applicant, or their dependant, would cost the taxpayer $51,000 over a decade - or $5,100 annually.

That's a far lower threshold than comparable countries like Canada, where it equates to roughly $270,000 over a decade, or New Zealand, where it's around $150,000.

Australia's significant cost threshold is well below comparable countries like Canada and New Zealand.

While the Greens want the rule scrapped entirely, McKim said they are "open to a discussion" about raising Australia's threshold if Labor is resistant.

"Labor's policy [platform] says that people with a disability should be treated like everyone else, and we're hopeful that policy will drive the government to change their migration and disability policy settings," he said.

"Ultimately, Labor's position is a matter of them. We're prepared to engage and work with good faith."

The policy has been criticised not just on moral grounds, but economic ones: many parents contribute well above the threshold in taxes.

And in the case of the Kollikkara family, both parents were working in high-skilled sectors to which the government is seeking to attract workers.

"For those families in particular, it's highly unjust," McKim said.

"But this ultimately needs to be totally fixed, because this is not just about one particular family or one particular kind of disability. This is about everyone who is disabled."

Greens say ministerial intervention not enough

Giles conceded there's work to do, insisting the government was engaging with experts and those with lived experience.

"Australia’s approach to migration health requirements at the moment doesn’t meet community expectations," he said.

"I see this almost every week in the personal decisions I make to intervene in the visa system via ministerial intervention."

Andrew Giles accepts the current threshold does "not meet community expectations". Source: AAP / Darren England

Giles stepping in for the Kollikkara family was not the first time Labor had used the immigration minister's powers to intervene in individual cases.

Within days of Labor taking office, then-interim minister Jim Chalmers ensured the so-called Biloela family could remain in Australia, after the Coalition spent years attempting to deport them.

Community advocate Suresh Rajan, who works with families facing deportation, said the rule "sets the culture" that Australia's migration system can be "very much based on discrimination".

"It really is giving out a message that if you are a person with disability, somehow you're inferior to everyone else in the community.

"That is a terrible social status to have right from the very start, when you're coming into a country and you're immediately being discriminated against. Are you expecting that that's going to be your life in this country?"

Community advocate Suresh Rajan says the rule takes a terrible toll on those affected. Credit: Supplied

Rajan warned ministerial intervention was a last resort, meaning families were often left in limbo for years as their visa application and legal appeal played out.

"You're in a state of flux ... in a country that is basically saying you're not welcome to stay here and you're a burden to the taxpayer. Those things are really quite demeaning," he said.

"The toll that this takes on people is just enormous."