Rethink urged on ‘outdated’ treatment of migrants with disabilities

An Albanese government review into Australia’s treatment of migrants with disabilities and permanent health conditions has branded its approach outdated and called for an overhaul as desperate families face removal from the country.

The Department of Home Affairs report published this month wants permanent skilled migrants with health issues; disabled, Australian-born children; and people with manageable conditions such as HIV to be given greater opportunities to stay.

Melbourne professional Lily Lumintang (left) holds a picture of her disabled son, Jonathan, who is with family in Indonesia.Credit: Joe Armao

“It is possible that existing settings may currently act as a deterrent for skilled migrants with a child with a disability or a skilled migrant with a chronic condition,” the report said, as Australia competes for the best global talent amid an economy-wide skills shortage.

The government has acted on five of the 11 recommendations but is yet to commit to another five and is reviewing another.

A controversial migration exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act allows the government to order the removal of families. It uses a mechanism called the “significant cost threshold” to decide whether the lifetime care for a person with a disability or long-term condition is too costly for the public purse.

Immigration Minister Andrew Giles in October ordered a departmental review of the system, including the threshold, which this month went from $51,000 to $86,000 over 10 years for permanent visas, meaning applicants whose costs are forecast to exceed that amount are rejected.

But Dr Jan Gothard from immigration advocacy group Welcoming Disability said that was not enough.

“It still leaves us well out of step with New Zealand,” Gothard said. New Zealand’s threshold is $81,000 over five years.

She said the new threshold still excluded many people with manageable conditions.

A spokesperson for Giles said increasing the threshold was one of several recommendations from the review already implemented.

“The government will consider additional findings in due course,” the spokesperson said.

The report also recommended redefining what a significant cost was by multiplying the national average cost for health and community services by a certain factor, which in Canada is three.

It said the current policy “does not reflect contemporary views”.

“The impact of the current policy is that people living with stable and managed health conditions
such as HIV, Crohn’s disease and skin disorders such as psoriasis, are prevented from meeting
the migration health requirement for a permanent visa,” the report said.

Another key recommendation was “special consideration” for children with a disability who are born in Australia to migrant parents.

“When a child does not meet the migration health requirement, it impacts the whole family’s application for a permanent visa,” the report said.

“The parents have often been residing in Australia for a considerable amount of time and are contributing to the economy and the community with the intention of eventually settling in Australia.”

Lily Lumintang, whose 13-year-old son Jonathan has cerebral palsy, welcomed the recommendation. She recently lodged an application for ministerial intervention after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal denied her family’s bid to stay in Australia.

The Melbourne construction professional, who came to Australia as a student, has had to send Jonathan to live with family members in Indonesia as she and her partner have not been in a financial position to look after him. But she wants him to be able to live permanently in Australia.

“I see Australia’s welcome for disabled people, giving more opportunities, and I feel this is a good future for him,” she said.

The review also calls for greater access to health waivers for permanent skilled visa applicants.

Gothard said there was no suggestion waivers would be increased, adding the government had not committed to several recommendations.

“We find it disappointing that nothing concrete yet has been put forward. Everything is awaiting further review with no time frame. How long is this going to take?” she said.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.