James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to start with a question to the immigration minister, which I think my colleague the member for Fisher was not quite able to get on record. It was to the minister. Could he outline how many cases or decisions of the AAT on visa matters has he appealed to the Federal Court? Because I note, as the member for Fisher has, that the minister has at times chosen to comment, when the AAT has made a decision, that it's not his fault. He's even made disparaging comments about the appointment of members to the AAT and suggested certain things about their decision-making. So if he's been dissatisfied with any AAT decisions, I'm sure he would have appealed against them to the Federal Court. I'd certainly start with this question to him: could he please inform us how many AAT decisions on these visa matters he's appealed to the Federal Court and/or beyond? That would be much appreciated.

He's also been good at blaming his department for a variety of issues in recent days. The most eye-catching was the initial claim he made about the monitoring of released detainees by way of drones, which I think was subsequently proved to be incorrect. He's then advised publicly that that was because his department inaccurately advised him. I suppose I've got questions to him about the drone program that his department runs and when he was advised that that drone program was monitoring these released detainees. I'm interested in whether he inquired of them at that point, given he believed it to be the case, as to whether or not that was the most efficient way of monitoring concerning released individuals and what the cost would be to undertake drone monitoring of a variety of released detainees compared to the more standard and conventional ankle bracelet monitoring that, it turns out, wasn't in place in this case. I'd appreciate the minister elaborating on that and the cost of monitoring individuals by drone—if that is something that the department does consider doing as a matter of course. It turns out it didn't in the cases that he claimed it had.

He's also been good at blaming the High Court for the NZYQ decision and the subsequent need to release a large cohort of detainees. There's an indication that it's cost about $250 million to provide the various monitoring of those released detainees subsequent to the High Court decision, and the budget certainly covers further resources for that. It would be good if the minister could break that $250 million down and explain what it's being used for, because it's not for drones, as he's conceded, and that same cohort aren't wearing ankle bracelets or what have you. The $250 million is $7 million or $8 million a person. If he could indicate what that money is being spent on now that we know what it's not being spent on, we would appreciate that. Did any of that cost potentially reach the velocity that it did because he and his department simply weren't prepared for that decision whatsoever? He and his department seemed to be caught off guard, despite, I think, Justice Gleeson—from memory—giving some comments during that trial that led to that judgement, which did foreshadow the potential for that circumstance to arise. How prepared was he and his department for that? For that $250 million cost, if that is what it was, could he outline to us and break down what it was spent on. Would some of that money not needed to have been incurred if he and his department had better anticipated that circumstance and those costs?

We're certainly very concerned about the ongoing fallout from both direction 99 and the High Court NZYQ decision and, in the context of consideration in detail here, the cost to the taxpayer on top of the fear in the community and the actual impact on people that have been victims of these released detainees and those that didn't go where they should have because of direction 99. The budgetary implication of that is also something we would appreciate the minister addressing.

See this speech in context