Senate debates
Wednesday, 30 November 2022
Questions without Notice
Asylum Seekers
2:44 pm
Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That could actually be a Freudian slip!
Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I might start again. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, and, despite the jovial start, it is a serious question. Minister, according to the Department of Home Affairs, there are 92 people who arrived by boat to seek asylum in Australia still stranded on Nauru. It seems from answers in Senate estimates this week that the government has no idea how many have been left to languish in Papua New Guinea and, in fact, couldn't care less. But I can inform the government that that number is 94.
Minister, it's been almost 10 years since a Labor government first exiled those people offshore. Why will your Labor government not offer those 186 people temporary resettlement in Australia so they can be cared for and supported here while arrangements are being made for their permanent resettlement in a third country?
2:45 pm
Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is a very serious question, and I don't think that any Australian is happy about the fact that people have been in detention offshore for as long as they have, but our government was very clear going to the election that our policy in relation to people on Nauru was that we would support third country resettlement. That is something that we said a very long time before the election, and the fundamental problem here is that it took so long for the former government to do anything about the resettlement of these people. We all remember the years that an offer was on the table from the New Zealand government to resettle people from Nauru and it didn't happen. If the former government had taken up that option of resettling people in New Zealand, we should have been in a position where no-one was still in Nauru. But, of course, that was not taken by the former government, and that offer from New Zealand remained unanswered. We are certainly continuing to work with a number of third countries to consider facilitating resettlement, and that remains our policy.
In the meantime, as Senator McKim may be aware, we have also made a commitment to make permanent the very large number of people who are in Australia on temporary protection visas, who have been on those for far too long and have been left to languish in that situation while on Australian soil. So we are doing a lot of work across a range of visa categories. I was talking yesterday about the work that we're undertaking to clear the visa backlog as well, but our position remains that people on Nauru should be resettled in third countries, and we continue to work very hard with those countries and the people themselves to enable that to happen.
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator McKim, a first supplementary?
2:47 pm
Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There are over 5,000 people who have arrived in Australia by boat to seek asylum since 2013, and over 2,000 of that 5,000 were never actually transferred to either Manus Island or Nauru. People from the same country arrived on the same boat at the same time, and they were separated to totally different futures by completely arbitrary decisions. Why are some of them now worthy of permanent protection in Australia while others remain abandoned in offshore detention?
2:48 pm
Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Senator McKim. I welcome Senator McKim recognising that our government has committed to make permanent the very large number of people who the former government left languishing on temporary protection visas. That is a position that we always opposed. We thought it was extremely unfair for people who had been granted those temporary protection visas to remain lacking certainty from year to year, and of course there's a massive cost to taxpayers in requiring the regular processing and reprocessing of people on those temporary protection visas. So we are undertaking a lot of work to make that happen. It's not an easy process because of the sheer number of people who are on those temporary protection visas, but it's something that we remain committed to.
The people who are on temporary protection visas have been found to be refugees and are owed our protection, and that's why our government is committed to ensuring that they get permanent protection, which is what they should have been granted in the first place. (Time expired)
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator McKim, a second supplementary?
2:49 pm
Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It's like an episode of Utopia in this place at times! Minister, nearly a year ago the Morrison government callously washed its hands of responsibility for the people in that cohort still in exile in Papua New Guinea and abandoned them in a place which is not safe and does not support them. Some of them are dying there now. Will your government reverse that cynical decision and accept responsibility for the people that the Labor Party sent there 10 years ago?
2:50 pm
Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It's good that Senator McKim has been able to get his video for his social media, which is what we know that was about and what it's always about for Senator McKim. If Senator McKim was genuinely concerned about these issues he would be working with our government to assist us to implement the policy that we took to the election. But we know that it's never about the facts, it's never about the substance with the Greens. It continues to be—
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator McKim, you've asked your question. I'll ask you listen in silence.
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
He provided an inflammatory response. He deserved what he got.
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Whish-Wilson, I don't need commentary from you either. I've asked for silence.
Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It's disappointing that for the Greens these issues are always more about the social media clip or about the stunt rather than the substance.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Exhibit A, B, C, D, E and F.
Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
President, I refer to standing order 193 in relation to imputation of improper motives. Senator McKim cares deeply about this issue. He has a right to ask questions without having improper motives imputed to him.
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator McKim, on the same point of order?
Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That's the exactly the point of order I was about to make. You're entitled to ask questions in this place without having your motives impugned in such a way. That is, quite frankly, a disgraceful accusation from Senator Watt and he should withdraw it.
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I'm going to ask both senators—
Senator Wong, I'm responding. Senator McKim, your question in my view was asked in an extremely aggressive way. I do appreciate you have a lot of passion about the question, as do a range of senators in here on the questions that they ask. But in my view it was asked in a very aggressive way. I would remind Senator Watt of the point of order and I would ask him to answer your question in a respectful way. I'm asking all senators to listen respectfully as well. Senator Ruston on the point of order?
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order. The fact is that the question was asked as to whether the motives of the asker of the question were impugned by the comments by the minister. Are you actually not requesting for him to withdraw that imputation?
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Ruston, what I heard was—I'm more than happy to look at this on the record—
Senator Wong, please resume your seat—was a comment about the party, not the individual. If I'm wrong on that, I'll come back and correct. I have ruled on that. Senator Hanson-Young, I'll come to you. I've got Senator Scarr on his feet. Just to be clear, what I heard was a reference to the Greens. Senator Wong?
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I understand that Senator McKim has asked the minister to withdraw. I'd ask you to call the minister.
Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I withdraw any imputation against Senator McKim that I may have made. The point I'm trying to make is these are very serious issues. Senator McKim knows that not only I but every member of the government takes these issues very seriously. That's why since taking office we have been putting so much effort into both third party resettlement and also the processing of people, thousands of people, who were left languishing on temporary protection visas when we took office. We will continue to do that, and we don't need these sorts of performances that are often undertaken in this chamber by the Greens.