Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Many in North Sydney were disappointed to see the limited improvement in our human rights expenditure in the federal budget. Central to this disappointment was a lack of action in the Home Affairs portfolio. If we view the federal budget as an indication of the government's priorities and values, then I'd have to lament on behalf of the people of North Sydney that the humane treatment of refugees and people seeking asylum has been abandoned by this government. Key Labor Party commitments have not been met within this budget. We saw no budget allocated for increasing the humanitarian intake, abolishing temporary protection visas or safe haven enterprise visas, or providing appropriate social services like work and study rights for people seeking asylum.

Specifically in the context of the appropriation bills, I'd like to put four questions to the minister for immigration. Firstly, to the $632 million allocated this financial year for offshore processing, arguably this is wasteful spending on a cruel and inhumane offshore-processing system for asylum seekers. Since Australia's offshore detention centres were reopened by the Gillard government in 2012, successive governments have spent just on $11.7 billion on offshore detention and processing arrangements. As noted by regular Kaldor Centre analysis, each year the actual expenditure on offshore processing is far higher than the cost originally budgeted. To spend so much to punish so few is financially irresponsible and ultimately, arguably, immoral, and it is the view of many in North Sydney that Australia's treatment of asylum seekers is in urgent need of reform.

Disappointingly, the Albanese government is spending $150 million more a year than the Morrison government did on holding refugees offshore. According to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, this increase in spending alone could fund refugee support services for the next four years. Minister: how does the government justify the additional $150 million for the cruel offshore-processing regime, and did the government consider redirecting this expenditure to fund refugee support services?

Secondly, there is an urgent need to restore a basic financial safety net for people seeking asylum. Communities across Australia are witnessing the impacts of destitution and homelessness amongst bridging visa holders as a direct result of changes in 2017 to eligibility for the Status Resolution Support Services, or SRSS, program. The juxtaposition between the Treasurer's claim that this is a wellbeing budget for all and the record low levels of the SRSS is jarring. Can the minister please provide reasons for the deliberate exclusion of visa holders from social support services.

Thirdly, no additional places within the refugee and humanitarian programs were announced in the budget. Refugee resettlement to Australia dropped to a 45-year low in the 2021 period, and lost places have never been restored, despite the UNHCR identifying an ever-increasing number of refugees in urgent need of resettlement. Yet in this budget, the number of humanitarian places remains at 13,750, with an additional 16,400 places over four years for Afghan refugees. Additional places for community sponsorship were not included in this budget. This is despite Labor's pledge to expand the humanitarian program progressively to 27,000 per year with an additional 5,000 places for community sponsorship. I ask the minister: when will the Labor Party fulfil its commitments to expand the humanitarian program and end temporary protection, and why was this not funded in this budget? How can we find hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to harm refugees offshore yet find nothing for those who need our care and support?

Finally, I turn to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The AAT is responsible for the review of administrative decisions made by the Australian government, including the applications of people seeking asylum, and it is in crisis. Waiting times for refugees average nearly five years, and there is a backlog of over 30,000 applications. The budget acknowledges the increasing backlog and that it has not met its target of reducing cases, but the government has failed to commit any additional resources to the AAT or to the Immigration Assessment Authority, which is an independent authority within the AAT that is responsible for conducting the fast-track process. When will the government adequately fund the AAT?

See this speech in context