Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise to take note of the initial report of the Select Committee on the Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru—the first report to you. That report had one recommendation:

The committee draws the attention of the Standing Committee on Public Works to Commonwealth expenditure on public works in the Republic of Nauru, not confined to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection but across the Commonwealth, and recommends that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection ensures that all future public works in the Republic of Nauru are referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act 1969 (Cth).

Senator Macdonald asked what we would like to do. His notion of invading Nauru will just go to the bin where it should be.

But what we do know is: there is an evidentiary and documentary trail showing that the Labor government completely honoured and followed the probity and scrutiny of the public works act. We know, because we have the two second reading speeches or the two contributions in the other place where exemptions were sought on the basis of expediency and urgency for urgent works on Nauru. And we know that there was commitment given by those respective ministers that the Public Works Committee would be kept fully informed as to expenditure and the like on Nauru.

We also know that the incoming Abbott government—the Hon. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, and his ministers—have not followed that seeking exemption or expediency motion. They have simply gone on to spend enormous amounts of public money without the proper scrutiny of the public works committee. We also know that the Minister for Finance in this place is the only one who can give an exemption. The Minister for Finance can give an exemption to a department. Then they need to go to the other place and seek an expediency or urgency motion, spell out the reasons and get on with it. They have not done that.

Under questioning during the inquiry process that we undertook they said, 'Don't worry about that because we keep the public works committee informed.' I have to tell you they have not. Every time they have informed the public works committee, the public works committee has said to me, 'We've told them to put some documentation to us.' You need to follow this through and the department has not done that. We know that when he was minister, Minister Morrison on water said, 'I don't talk to anybody. No information will be forthcoming.' This is not on water. This is on land. This is on Nauru. We know that a company called Canstruct has had two contracts—one for $36 million and another for $16 million, which, incidentally, met the threshold of the public works act scrutiny—which were never referred. These are the grown-ups in charge.

We know from the department's evidence that $1.3 billion has been spent in Nauru. We know that $450 million was spent in 10 months—$2,000 a day per asylum seeker; $1.3 million a day; $610,000 per asylum seeker to live in a mouldy tent. I will take that back; the evidence is that it is a marquee. But after 402 days a marquee is pretty well a tent. I have to tell you that after 402 days, the average length of time that they spend there, it is basically a tent. It is 10 by 12 metres and there can be six families in there. There is mould on the inside and that is in a climate the same as Darwin. The public works committee would have tested that for fit for purpose, in the public interest, value for money and the like. But it never came our way.

The department have the gall to say, 'We have received legal advice that this is aid to another country and does not have to come to the public works committee.' I am not able to provide that legal advice today, but there will be a point when I am. I have seen the legal advice and I have to say that the legal advice they have got does not say what they told us it said. It does not say that. The public works act has applied to every bit of construction on Nauru since this government took office and it has been cloaked in secrecy. It has not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There has been no transparency about it. It has been treated basically like the on-water matters: 'Don't you worry about that. We're not telling you.'

This culture of secrecy and lack of transparency has masked an appalling outcome. This is really bad public policy: $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money spent in an appalling way. Senator Macdonald says, 'What can we do with the tiny Republic of Nauru?' We have paid the Republic of Nauru $27 million, $1,000 a month for every asylum seeker, as a visa. We have paid the Republic of Nauru $8 a square metre for however many hectares the detention centre occupies. We have poured money into a country with a GDP of US$112 million, in addition to our foreign aid, which is about 25 million. We have poured money into that tiny republic. All I am saying is that we could have used that influx of money to turn Nauru into a much better republic.

We could have assisted, quite appropriately, with the refurbishment and improvement of their hospital and their school. But we have got a jail there, a detention centre, which has 800 guards. We are spending enormous sums of money on a very tiny tropical island as if it is them and us. These people are asylum seekers. I do not think there is any evidence that they are going to rise up and take over the community in Nauru. When they are in a situation requiring fair and just treatment they should be able to get it. All I am saying is that our incredible investment in this tiny republic should have got a better outcome.

The more we talk about it, we see that it is common sense. If we are investing huge sums of taxpayers' money then why can we not have a win-win? Why can the Republic of Nauru not win? Why can they not have a better trained police force? Why can they not have a better legislative and magistrates area? Why can they not have a better hospital and a better school? Why can we not do all of these things? Basically, we cannot do them because there is a culture of secrecy with the department knowing best and delivering appalling outcomes.

They had to do the Moss review. It was an independent inquiry. The department have picked up the 19 matters, but they are looking after themselves. There is no evidence that they are actually up for any accountability or scrutiny. You cannot get in as a journalist; it costs $8,000 and is non-refundable. You cannot get there to have a look at what is going on. Facebook has been closed down. All sorts of anti-democratic measures have been taken in that place and we are paying for it. If you look at $450 million over 10 months, that is four times their GDP.

And you are telling me that we cannot influence these people to provide better certainty of outcomes and that we cannot even get the processing of the refugee claims speeded up? That is absolute nonsense. We do not need to go to war with people, as Senator Macdonald alleges. We just need persistence and common sense: 'We are underpinning your economy. We want this to be a fair and just outcome for people.' They are people, after all. You might want to denigrate them and call them asylum seekers, but they are human beings. They are under our protection and control and we have a duty to do better, not to do worse.

Senator Macdonald decries the work of this committee, but all I can say is that I will just keep bringing the evidence to this place. I will use every opportunity to get on the public record all of the evidence about what we are doing wrong. All the department has to do is follow the rules of the parliament. If it is more than $15 million and it meets the criteria of the public works act, refer it. We do not travel to Nauru; we have a look at what is being done. If you put a contention up to us that you are going to put six families in a 10 by 12 marquee for two years and you are going to spend $36 million doing it, most people on the committee, of whatever political persuasion, would say, 'I think we need to think about that; that might not be the best use of taxpayers' money.'