Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Sport (Senator Lundy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cash today relating to detention centres and asylum seekers.

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Lundy to questions asked by me in question time today. A number of my colleagues noted the irony in the statement that I have just made to the Senate: 'I rise to take note of answers'—because what we have witnessed today is, quite frankly, one of the worst displays of a minister not answering questions in this Senate.

It is a very serious situation when the government makes an announcement, like the government did yesterday, that it is having to expand the detention facility because the detention network in Australia has officially broken under the Gillard Labor government; and, when asked very specific questions about just how much these additional onshore facilities are going to cost the Australian taxpayer, the minister was actually dumbfounded. Not only was she dumbfounded; she actually read from the wrong brief.

Australian taxpayers have a right to know just how much more of their money this government is going to rob them blind of to pay for what is now being heralded—even by the press, I have to say; and that is saying something—as possibly the greatest policy failure we have seen since Federation. Australians have witnessed over 30,000 people arriving in Australia in only a four-year period because of a gross dereliction of duty by this Labor government. We have now spent in excess of $6 billion of taxpayers' money because of the gross incompetence of those opposite.

Under the former Howard government, who stopped the boats—you cannot deny that; our policy stopped the boats and we reduced the number of people coming here to zero—Australians were paying $85 million a year for detention networks in Australia. The Australian taxpayer is now paying in excess of $6 billion. And only recently, on Monday, the Senate was asked to appropriate an additional $1.67 billion of taxpayers' money because this government just cannot get it right.

Today, after the government has made the announcement that it is again changing its policy in relation to detention, we ask what is it going to cost? You have made an announcement that you are going to open an additional 700 beds. You are going to reopen Pontville in Tasmania. You officially announced yesterday that you are now sending thousands of asylum seekers, not refugees, into the community. It needs to be very clear to Australians that refugees are not being sent into the community; asylum seekers are being sent into the community. There is a fundamental difference: these people have not had their claim actually verified. The government has admitted it will be sending thousands of asylum seekers into the Australian community and it cannot tell the Australian taxpayers how much it is going to cost them. It is $6 billion to date. Part of that is the additional $1.67 billion that this Senate appropriated on Monday. I can tell you, when we are back here in February, I do not know how much this government will be asking for anymore. We are already up to $6 billion, but I will put money on it that it will be at least another billion dollars of taxpayers' money.

Why do we say that? Because the minister was unable to tell the Senate whether or not the government had actually revised the number of estimated monthly arrivals. Currently, the government has budgeted for 450 arrivals per month. That is what the Australian government has said is its budget for this financial year. We are currently experiencing over 2,000 people arriving per month. That is the equivalent of the QE2 arriving at Christmas Island fully laden every single month. Two thousand people per month are arriving in Australia. Over 10,000 people have already arrived in this financial year alone. The government only budgeted for 5,400 people arriving. This is without a doubt the grossest dereliction of duty Australians have ever seen in relation to this portfolio area. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate in which we have heard a number of severe inaccuracies in the contribution just made by Senator Cash.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please tell me what they are.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, month after month, as I chair the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and as we sit in that committee three times a year at estimates, you sit alongside us at the table. On the day when the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is before us, you hear its representatives when they usually—almost nine times out of 10—begin their contribution by explaining to us what is happening in the world when it comes to the movement of people seeking asylum and the movement of people who are refugees. There are push and pull factors, the former secretary Andrew Metcalfe said, time and time again. So, standing in this chamber and making the comment that under the Howard government you single-handedly stopped the boats is an absolutely incorrect statement. We know, for the record, that the evidence will show that movement of people around the world seeking asylum stops and starts for many reasons.

We also know that, if you go back and have a look at the record, it will show that when TPVs were introduced the number of people who were seeking asylum in this country spiked because of the nature of the TPVs, which totally prevented family reunions. So, once the man or even the woman arrived in this country, their partner or their family had no choice but to get on a boat to join them, because they were not going to get here any other way. So please go back and look at the figures and accurately reflect what happens.

We stand in this chamber every single day having a debate about what is going on with the refugee policy in this country simply because you have failed to endorse wholeheartedly the Houston committee report and the 22 recommendations it made. So, yes, people will still keep arriving. Yes, the costs were included in the budget appropriation bills debate that you were part of last Monday—the cost is there in the MYEFO. But the essential element we need to understand and people listening need to understand is that, as a way of moving forward, this Prime Minister and this government got together three eminent people in this country and set up an expert committee headed by Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Defence Force, a person that your government appointed as the Chief of the Defence Force.

Those three people came up with a report that had 22 recommendations. They clearly said that the situation needed all of their report to be endorsed, that all of the fundamental propositions they put together needed to be endorsed as a package. But what do you across the chamber do? You want to cherry-pick and pick the eyes out of it. You do not want to endorse the Malaysia agreement, which was their pre-eminent recommendation. You want Nauru, but you do not want Malaysia. You want to do offshore processing, but you do not want to do it in a way that is going to comprehensively deal with this problem. One minute you want TPVs, but you do not want bridging visas. So I sit opposite you and listen to your contribution, Senator Cash, but—try as hard as you may, day after day—I still cannot get a handle on exactly what the policy of the coalition is. What is it that you fundamentally want?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Howard government policy.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want offshore processing, so you want Nauru? You have got Nauru. You want TPVs. We offered you the chance to have an independent inquiry into whether or not TPVs were effective. We did not rule them out. On the table we put a negotiating chip: here's TPVs—let's have a joint look at whether they are effective or not. You ruled that out. You do not want to give the Malaysia agreement a try. You want to tow back the boats to a country that is not going to accept your boats. You want to tow the boats back to somewhere, but you cannot tell the people of this country where you would tow the boats back to—because Indonesia sure as hell is not going to have them. So where are you going to take these people back to once they get halfway to Australia and they are on a rickety boat? You do not have a policy. Your policy is that you just want to keep playing politics with people's lives. (Time expired)

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say it is fairly nauseating to get lectured by those on the other side, particularly Senator Crossin, on picking policy. Can you imagine that—getting lectured by them about picking policy? It is now some 14 weeks—over three months—since Nauru opened. This is one successful policy of the Howard government. We say, 'Congratulations on accepting one policy out of a trilogy of success.' But remember that, to get a car, or anything, to move forward, you need three things to happen: the handbrake needs to be off, there needs to be air in the tyres and there needs to be petrol in the tank. If you fail on one of those three things, there is no movement. If you fail on two of them, I suspect there will be no movement either. It is a little bit like having a trifecta bet, going up to the bookie and saying, 'One of them came home; can I have my money.' It is just not going to cut it.

This is not some academic report that is suggesting, 'If you do all of these things, it'll be a miracle; that's never been tried.' We had a policy that ended up with us having absolutely no boats: temporary protection visas, offshore processing and turning the boats back where it is safe to do so. This has been tested. Three months ago, the government accepted one of our policies. What has happened? What are we going to measure it on? What about how many people have arrived? Since that date the policy has not worked, because we have had record numbers of people. We have had over 2,000 people a month. More people than the QE2 carries are arriving on Christmas Island every month. You have to say, 'I don't think this is really working for me.' If the intention was to stop people, clearly that policy has not worked. Since 14 August, 7,716 people have arrived.

So the government have tinkered around a bit and said, 'I know: instead of temporary protection visas'—which we need, as they are a clear disincentive—'we will call them bridging visas.' But they are not actually even a bridging visa; they are a new type of bridging visa. They are a recurring bridging visa, which basically means we are not waiting for some particular thing to happen. It is a bit like going to the chemist for a script. You are going to get one every time. You do not even have to turn up. So they are a special sort of bridging visa, a Clayton's bridging visa—the bridging visa you have when you do not have a bridging visa. This basically means you can stay forever. But not only do you have a reasonable expectation under those circumstances of permanent residency—which one might understand is quite reasonable if you are a refugee—but these are not even refugees. They are asylum seekers that now have the little green pad of a recurring 'I'll stay forever' bridging visa.

The whole idea of this package of policies was as a disincentive package. We sympathise with the 14½-odd million people who seek a migration outcome or a movement outcome on this globe; of course we do. But we have also decided that we would like to have them move in an orderly way. We have a list of people who are priorities set by the UNHCR, primarily from the Horn of Africa. These people are in the most horrendous circumstances. We do not want people to get on boats, so we must create and stick by a significant disincentive package. So how can it possibly be a disincentive when we muck about with this by saying, 'We don't want to offend people—we have to keep the Greens happy, and there are a couple of people in this electorate we want to keep happy—so what we'll do is talk about a new bridging visa which does absolutely nothing as a disincentive'? What is the acid test? What do they think about that? They have come in droves—7,000 people in three months, which is just unthinkable. When we were in government, we would have just given the game away, and it seems that that is exactly what this government has done. All it does is spend money on more accommodation, borrowing more money to set more people up—because we have no chance of stopping them.

So all we have done is give up. We are not even investing our hard-earned dollars; the government has broken the economy's back to the extent that we borrow everything we spend. So all its investment simply goes into dealing with its lack of grunt and its lack of capacity to make a disincentive package; to stick with that disincentive package; to ensure that people do not get on the vessels; to assist those people who are the most vulnerable and, according to the UNHCR, need to be provided with assistance as soon as possible; and to ensure that the family reunion processes associated with that are given absolute priority. That is what this government should be doing, and it has failed.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to contribute to the taking note debate about asylum seekers. As we all know, this is an issue that generates a highly charged political debate, and obviously it is something that those opposite continue to seek to make political mileage out of. It is time that those opposite realised that this is an ongoing challenge that many governments have faced, and they need to do away with the political point-scoring. It does not help. It does not help the issue, it does not help the Australian community and, in the end, it does not help the coalition. The people listening out there to what you have to say on this issue do not agree with you and are not listening to you. The Australian community want their political leaders to work together on this issue. We know that is what they want. They want us to work together and stop the political point-scoring.

To address the asylum seeker challenge, the federal Labor government are getting on with the job of trying to break the people-smuggling business model, because that is what needs to be done. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Chris Bowen, announced yesterday, on 21 November, that another group of 100 Sri Lankan men have been sent home. This is the ninth involuntary removal this month and the largest return to Colombo so far. This takes the number of Sri Lankans who have been returned involuntarily since 13 August this year to 426. When voluntary returns are included, a total of 525 have been returned home. The minister has also announced, as those opposite would be aware, that people who arrived by boat post 13 August and future arrivals will have the no-advantage principle applied to their cases onshore, even if they are not transferred offshore for regional processing.

I want to look back to earlier in the year when the political impasse over asylum seekers could not be broken and the parliament voted down measures to stop the tragedies at sea, so the government created the independent expert panel. This panel was set up to provide the government with a report on the best way forward for our nation to prevent asylum seekers risking their lives on dangerous boat journeys to Australia. This panel was made up of retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Professor Michael L'Estrange and Mr Paris Aristotle. The Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers then released its report containing 22 recommendations on the policy options available to government. In presenting this report, Mr Houston said that the panel had proposed a way forward that it believed would address the challenges that Australia faced over the short, medium and longer term.

The panel's report highlighted that, from late 2001 to June of this year, 964 asylum seekers and crew had been lost at sea, with 604 of these people having lost their lives since October 2009. The report made a number of important points regarding regional cooperation and the regional cooperation framework. The Houston report highlighted that it is fundamentally important that we achieve a regional cooperation framework as a central focus. The report also outlined a number of elements that were required to achieve genuine regional cooperation, including domestic policies that enjoy broad based support and are sustainable over time. (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers to questions asked by Senator Cash. Senator Crossin's contribution to this debate was in part correct: the world has most definitely changed. We have moved from a border protection policy that was well managed and controlled under the Howard government to one that is poorly managed, ill-conceived and causing no end of disaster for our borders. Senator Moore likes to suggest that people do not agree with the coalition's attitudes. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the community wants is clear and decisive action in regards to border protection policies. They want border protection policies that work. They know what they want because they were able to see them under the previous, Howard government. These are not bridging visas; these are bandaid visas—a belated and botched attempt, creating yet another policy failure by this Labor government.

You would not want to be a supporter of the Australian Labor Party this morning and wake up to read the attitudes of Australia's leading newspapers. Just to reflect on a few of them, under the headline of 'Flawed law won't stop boat people', the Daily Telegraph says:

The Labor government's policies toward asylum seekers were mistaken from the very first minute they were put in place, and they continue to be dogged by mistakes to this very day.

The Age has 'Labor's descent into agony excruciating to see' and states:

It might have been less painful for Labor if the government had just embraced John Howard's hard asylum-seeker policy in one fell swoop. Instead it has been an excruciating crawl back to the Coalition days. Each change cuts into the souls of some in the ALP …

The Australian newspaper, under the headline of 'Demise of Pacific non-solution', said:

Five years of backflips, bad judgment, half-baked proposals and piecemeal border protection steps culminated yesterday in Immigration Minister Chris Bowen running up the white flag on Labor's half-hearted Pacific solution.

Dennis Shanahan's comments in the Australianon the subject were headlined, 'Admit it, the model has been broken'.

Trying to choose the most outrageous of this Labor government's failures is an almost impossible task, there are so many examples of bungles, backflips, waste mismanagement and maladministration. Each one would have proven a major embarrassment for any other government, including previous Labor governments. However, for the Rudd-Gillard government it is par for the course. Perhaps nothing better demonstrates the incompetence of this government than its utter failure to manage Australia's borders. I would just like to put it in some perspective, similar to my colleagues Senator Scullion and Senator Cash but taking a more local and more Western Australian flavour.

As senators would know, I take a very keen interest in the Great Southern region of Western Australia. The largest town in the Great Southern is the City of Albany, which is where I have a regional electorate office. According to the latest statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the population of Albany is 26,644 people, almost 30,000. Under the Rudd-Gillard Labor government, over 30,000 people have arrived in Australia by boat. It is worth reflecting on the fact that it took 186 years for the City of Albany to get to almost 30,000 people. It has taken but five years for this government to get to 30,000 illegal immigrants. A couple of weeks ago it was my pleasure to host the shadow minister for immigration, Scott Morrison, in Albany, where he held a very successful public forum to discuss some of these matters.

What a powerful demonstration of this government's ineptitude these numbers represent—more people having arrived on this government's watch than there are people currently living in Albany, the Great Southern region's largest population centre. In the five years this government has been in office, 30,000 people have arrived. Half that number, or 15,000, have arrived this year alone. We now have an average of 2,000 people per month arriving in Australia by boat. The Prime Minister said 10 years ago, when she was immigration spokesman for Labor under Simon Crean, 'Another boat, another policy failure.' I am not given to agreeing too regularly with what the Prime Minister has to say, but on that score she is absolutely correct.

Quite apart from the cost in human misery, there is the financial cost. The cost blow-outs from Labor's border protection failures now top $6.6 billion. This year alone, since the budget was announced in May—the same month I came to this place—the blow-out has been $1.7 billion, but there is nothing temporary about it. If 30,000 people have turned up under this government, 15,000 of them this year— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.