Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I give the minister marks for chutzpah, because it seems to me that he is claiming success out of the events of 16 and 18 February which, given what occurred, is genuinely astounding.

In circumstances where it is clear that there have not been frequent meetings between the minister and his counterpart in PNG until after these events occurred, it is evident that the government completely dropped the ball on the question of resettlement. As the minister well knows, what is different about this arrangement compared with any of the offshore processing which was done under the former Howard government, is that this arrangement will result in people being resettled in PNG. It is the fundamental point, which is why this has made the difference. The minister can talk about offshore processing and its effects, but the reality is that by the end of the Howard government people smugglers absolutely knew that if you got someone to Nauru you had well and truly got them to Australia. The prescription that existed then would simply not have survived the wave of people we have seen since.

What was different about the regional resettlement arrangement was the nature in which it took Australia off the table—that is why resettlement was so critical, and that is why it is such a huge mistake on the part of the minister that that ball was dropped, because it goes to the central question of the efficacy of the regional resettlement arrangement in PNG.

I do want to raise a separate matter, and that is the very tragic circumstances of Mr Leo Seemanpillai who, as it turned out, lived in my electorate. Leo Seemanpillai tragically died just over two weeks ago, and I would like to thank the minister for taking the time on the day after this tragic event to ring me and brief me on the circumstances of that. I do make that acknowledgement in this place now.

This was, and has been, a really tragic incident for the community of Geelong; obviously for the Tamil community in Geelong, of which Mr Seemanpillai was a member. My question to the minister in relation to this incident is a simple one. Mr Seemanpillai's funeral is tomorrow, and my question is: on what basis have visas been refused for Mr Seemanpillai's family to attend this funeral? And does the minister contend here today that there is absolutely nothing within his power to allow him to facilitate the passage of this man's family to attend the funeral tomorrow? It appears that a disturbing letter from the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection—as it is reported in the media—acknowledges the sincerity of the desire to pay respects on the part of Leo Seemanpillai's brother, Ezekiel, but it also states that it appears—and the question is whether this is correct—that he does not intend to stay in Australia on a genuinely temporary basis. Is that really the basis on which this man's brother has been refused a visa to come to Australia to attend his brother's funeral? My principal question is: does the minister have no power to do anything to deal with this circumstance and allow these people to attend their family member's funeral?

I would also like to ask another question in relation to a totally separate area. This relates to the change of contractor on Manus Island. Earlier this year, the principal contractor at the Manus Island detention facility changed from G4S to Transfield. As I understand, the contract to perform the services on Nauru appears to be a $2.1 billion contract. It is for both Nauru and Manus. My first question to the minister is: is that the price for the entire contract? But the principal question is: what tendering process was undertaken prior to the change in relation to the principal contractor? Whose decision was it within government to change the contractor, and when was that decision made?

See this speech in context