Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

But this is the irony, Senator Scarr. We are actually going to, within reason, implement the process that, when we were in government, they vehemently opposed. We, when we were in government, as you know, implemented the Immigration Assessment Authority. It was called the IAA. It was created under the former Liberal government. Why? Australians probably don't want to be reminded of this history, but it was to deal with a backlog and a surge in protection claims that flowed from Labor's border-policy failures during the Rudd-Gillard years. We are a welcoming and generous nation. We all know that. But under the former Liberal government we maintained a strong humanitarian program. The reason we could do so is because the system was carefully managed. It was firm but fair, had stronger borders through security checks and had a review system that did not collapse, as it is currently doing, under its own weight. That balance matters. If you recall that during the Rudd-Gillard period there was chaos—I think it was an influx of 50,000 irregular maritime arrivals at the time—I sat on the relevant committee at the time, the last time we were in opposition. It was a tragic loss at sea. Of course, there was a surge in claims that inevitably fed into the review system.

When we came into government, what did we do? We established the IAA. Why? It was because we wanted to clean up the backlog. Guess what? It actually worked. We resolved this backlog. Cases were being decided in weeks not months or years. But at the time Labor hated it. They called us every name under the sun. They opposed this efficiency in the system bitterly. They knew that every case that came before the IAA was a reminder of the consequence of their policy setting failures and that a fast-track on-the-papers review was necessary to get through the migration mess that they had created. In fact, they hated it so much, despite the fact that we're here today doing what the Liberal Party had done in government, they even put in their national platform that it should be abolished.

So it's going to be interesting to listen to the speeches on the other side justifying something that they opposed last time they were in opposition, something that, in their national platform, they said should be abolished, when here we are today because the $1 billion of taxpayers' money that was spent to produce a fairer and more equitable system has fundamentally failed Australians. They are introducing what we, as the Liberal government, introduced—just under a different name. That is the reality. Once again, Labor is in power. Once again, the migration system has blown out. And, once again, as has happened previously, the government is reaching for Liberal backed mechanisms to slice through the backlog.

What were the main features of the IAA that were necessary to deal with Labor's mismanagement of our migration program? There was a rapid, on-the-papers review designed to cut through the backlog—and it did; the statistics don't lie. What are we actually debating today? What's the main feature in the bill that is currently before the Senate? That would be a rapid, on-the-papers review designed to cut through the backlog. Well,    quite frankly, if it looks like a duck and it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. That's why we're supporting it: because you're implementing Liberal Party policy that you opposed the last time you were in opposition and put into your platform that you never wanted to see. Yet here we are today, because you spent a billion dollars of taxpayers' money. You have failed the Australian taxpayer completely, so you've had to adopt Liberal Party policy to clean up your mess. In fact, Senator Scarr, the last time we spoke about the IAA in the chamber you made the point that IAA decisions were upheld at rates directly comparable to a full merits review in the AAT and that those decisions were made in around seven weeks, not seven months. You were right. This body is necessary. It was an efficient body. It is going to be an efficient body. It was needed back then to clean up Labor's migration mess.

So, whilst I despair that the former Attorney-General of this country spent one billion dollars of Australian taxpayers' money changing an 'A' to an 'R' and in the process delivering to them chaos, dysfunction and delay—that is, unfortunately, backed up; those on the other side can say what they like, but the statistics do not lie: backlog, delay and dysfunction—I'm glad that this government has finally come to its senses. I'm glad that, despite the billion-dollar waste—in fact, it's more than a billion dollars now, because of the waste—the Labor government has again realised that we do need a process, like the Liberal government introduced, to cut through the backlog and restore basic functionality. That's why the Liberal Party is very happy to support the re-establishment of that type of mechanism in this bill.

When you get to the heart of the issue, when it comes to running migration and keeping administrative review moving, Labor creates the mess—the mess is now there for all to see; the statistics are there—and then comes back into the parliament and asks the Liberal Party to help clean it up, which we will do, because the Australian taxpayer deserves better. As I said, policy failure by the former Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, tore down a tribunal that was operating and implemented, at a cost of a billion dollars, a model that's been slower, more costly and totally overwhelmed, with unprecedented blowouts and case load and months and months and months of delay.

As I said, the Liberal Party will back this bill. We will do so in the interest of all Australians, because we want to get matters moving, we want to reduce the backlogs and we want to restore a system that—just like when we were in government—actually works in practice.