Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand today to state categorically that we will not be complicit in the Rudd government’s continued attempts to weaken the integrity of Australia’s migration programs and borders. We have always taken a strong stand on preserving the integrity of Australia’s migration programs. We believe in an orderly and properly managed immigration and humanitarian program and we will continue to ensure that Australia remains one of the most generous providers of humanitarian resettlement in the world. But we will do this in a way that does not encourage the abuse of Australia’s migration program and the abhorrent trade of people smuggling that endangers lives of those who seek to enter our great country illegally. Consequently, we need a range of policy measures that will maintain the integrity of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs.

The Rudd Labor government, on the other hand, have unravelled the bulk of the measures that were specifically designed to keep our borders secure. Instead of sending a strong message to people smugglers that they cannot restart their abhorrent trade, the Rudd Labor government’s constant watering down of these measures has sent the opposite message. Requiring the payment of the cost of detention is one of a number of strong measures that make it difficult for people smugglers to market Australia as a soft option.

The irony of this debate is that the policy of billing people for the cost of their detention was introduced in a bill in November 1992 by the then Labor government. Speaking during the introduction of the bill, Labor minister for immigration the Hon. Gerry Hand MP said, in his second reading speech:

A primary objective of the Migration Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the entry and presence in Australia of persons who are not Australian citizens.

I think it is important for us to remember that as we look at every piece of legislation that seeks to weaken that objective or to put decisions in the hands of people smugglers: it was a Labor government that introduced this policy in 1992, with the prime objective of regulating in the national interest the entry and presence in Australia of people who are not citizens.

Thus the coalition will patently oppose the Rudd Labor government’s decision to abolish detention debts. There are safeguards in the legislation to ensure asylum seekers who do not have the means to pay are given manageable repayment schedules or have their detention debts waived or written off. Those opposite would have people believe that the coalition is somehow intent on punishing refugees by loading them up with mountains of debt. Examples of many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been given. I suggest such comments are misleading.

The truth is, as the government knows only too well, that those applicants who are found to be refugees are not required to repay the cost of their detention. We fully support such exemptions and the use of the minister’s waiver powers. Improving any administrative arrangements in connection with the bill would be welcome. However, abolishing all detention debts will not act as a deterrent, in concert with other pieces of information, against abuse of our migration programs. It will not act as a deterrent against people smugglers, who are selling and exploiting Labor’s soft approach.

We believe in sending a clear and unambiguous message that people smuggling will not be tolerated in our nation and that the integrity of our migration and humanitarian programs must be maintained. We remain committed to genuine border protection and we will continue to oppose any policy changes by the Rudd Labor government which soften the approach, encourage people smugglers or make our borders less secure.

The members for Makin and Petrie came into the House today and said that the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, the Hon. Sharman Stone MP, was part of the first report on immigration detention in Australia and that she approved the report. Yet, if I look at the document, I note that membership of the committee included Dr Sharman Stone from 10 November 2008. She was not part of the committee when it heard evidence. She was not part of the committee when the report was drafted or when the report was finalised. She joined the committee afterwards, and therefore had no role in the production of this report—as opposed to what the members for Makin and Petrie imply. She was part of the second inquiry, and of course produced a dissenting report to that.

I also note that, on the eve of the Rudd government introducing the debate about the abolition of detention debt for asylum seekers arriving in unauthorised boats, the 22nd boat has entered Australian waters. It has been intercepted near Ashmore Reef with 49 passengers and four crew. Since the Rudd government came to power, almost 800 asylum seekers have arrived on Australian shores. Ever since the Rudd government softened its approach on border security and immigration, almost 800 asylum seekers have arrived by boat on our shores, and the Indonesian government, to their credit, have intercepted 1,000 more—all of this after the coalition’s policy reduced it to a trickle, to some tens in the final years. And here we are in the last 18 months facing 1,800.

Indeed, Indonesian authorities also detained 12 Iranian asylum seekers bound for Australia just recently, another credit to the Indonesian police. The 12 Iranians are reported to have told the police that they were hoping to travel to Australia to start a better life. And who would blame them? We have an outstanding life in our nation. We have an outstanding country, and we are generous to those who come here. But, in the face of such an overwhelming increase in boat people movements to Australia, when push factors have not increased—there is zero evidence for an increase in push factors for illegal immigrants coming to Australia—the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that Labor’s softened policy is acting as an encouragement.

And now this bill—in the face of the 22nd boat to arrive on our shore, 800 asylum seekers on our shores and 1,000 more stopped in Indonesia—wants to water down our nation’s border protection policy once again. May I contend most strongly in this, the House of Representatives, that now is not the time to further encourage people smuggling with additional enticements by way of abolishing detention debt, abolishing the 45-day rule for asylum seeking on shore and introducing new categories of protection visas to cater for those who currently receive access to ministerial intervention but do not meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees criteria as refugees. Now is not the time to soften our stand. Accordingly, we continue to call for a comprehensive inquiry into the pull factors now encouraging people smuggling into our nation, cognisant that the push factors have not changed.

I appreciate that there is great emotion in this debate. I appreciate that many members of parliament have represented those seeking asylum and seeking refugee status. But it is always important to go back to the facts. The UNHCR’s 2008 global trends reveals that Australia’s involvement in refugee resettlement is significant. Australia welcomed 11,006 of the 88,800 refugees resettled across the world during 2008. We welcomed 12.4 per cent of the global refugees resettled last year—second only to the United States, which alone conducted 68 per cent of the world’s refugee resettlement. But, in per capita terms, Australia has led the world for refugee resettlement. We are the most generous nation on the planet for resettling refugees.

Looking back at our migration program, we have resettled on average 12,000 people a year over the last 50 years through our humanitarian program. We are the most generous nation on earth. I am firmly of the view that we should continue to be that most generous nation on the earth, but we should continue to decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. The only deterrent to those who wish to enter Australia illegally is sound, strong policy, and my great fear, which is being realised every day, is that Labor is watering this down.

The reason why all we have is strong policy is that, between us and Afghanistan—half the world away—the only countries that have signed the 1951 refugee convention and the associated 1967 protocol are: Azerbaijan; ironically, Iran; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Tajikistan; Turkmenistan; Yemen; Cambodia; and Papua New Guinea. Between us and half a world away, that is all that have signed it. We know that many people-smuggling operations use land and sea bridges, predominantly through Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. These are countries that have not signed the 1951 convention, and there seems no indication from their current foreign policy that they intend to move to sign this convention and associated protocol. These countries are not predisposed to granting asylum to those seeking it, because they have not signed. Clearly, an appropriate response from this government would be to start engaging these countries to move towards signing the 1951 convention and associated protocol.

It is also important to remind the nation of the coalition’s long—and, I say, proud—history of resettling refugees who have been selected by the UNHCR and who have been found to be in great need. By 1947 Australia had accepted more than 170,000 refugees and displaced people, largely from Europe. By 2009 we had accepted and settled more than 680,000. As the UNHCR’s report shows, last year we were the most generous resettlement country per capita on the planet. In 1956 the Menzies government began to liberalise the White Australia policy by granting permanent resident status to non-Europeans who had arrived as refugees during the war. Further liberalisation took place in 1959 and 1960 under Menzies, and, of course, in 1966 Harold Holt removed the last vestiges of the White Australia policy. Although Australia had a long history of resettling refugees and displaced persons, a regular and planned humanitarian program did not commence until the Fraser Liberal government in 1977. For all of the hoo-ha of the Whitlam years, a permanent program began after he was thrown out.

The coalition’s commitment to a well-funded and managed refugee resettlement program that is fair, equitable and generous has never faltered, and it has always been a strong part of our policy platform. It was the coalition in government that was responsible for increasing the annual number of resettlement places to a minimum of 6,000, which many times has been substantially oversubscribed. Australia consistently ranks with the United States and Canada in the top three countries accepting those in need of resettlement. The resettlement services and support that we as a nation provide to refugees are clearly critical to their successful integration into our economic, social and political life and is second to none in the world. Australia’s settlement services for refugees and migrants have certainly evolved and changed over the last 60 years, from the provision of basic on-arrival accommodation and assistance to more intensive support programs targeted at meeting the specific needs and aims of those who have entered on humanitarian grounds.

The coalition in government implemented and expanded a range of settlement services, including integrated support for humanitarian entrants, translating services, English language classes, complex case management and grants based funding for projects to promote social cohesion and integration of migrant groups. The Adult Migrant English Program, AMEP, has been providing English classes to eligible adult migrants since 1948. Eligible migrants have a legislated entitlement to study English for up to 510 hours or until they reach functional English. Labor has now reduced this funding. The teaching of English to newly arrived migrants and those arriving in the refugee and humanitarian programs in particular is vital to their capacity to gain work and successfully integrate into our society. We are gravely concerned that this Labor government has cut funding to the Adult Migrant English Program by over $20 million in the 2009-10 budget. Not only has it gone soft on our borders, leading to a tidal wave of human misery being trafficked upon our shores, but it has also cut back the Adult Migrant English Program in the same breath. How you can soften policy, and allow a wave of people in, and not provide essential services is simply and utterly beyond me.

The budget also cut a further 400 staff members from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, bringing a total of 600 staff removed from the department in the past 18 months. Along with portfolio savings of $124 million the coalition is gravely concerned that the department will be under serious stress and the delivery of essential services to our humanitarian entrants will be jeopardised because of this.

We are a nation of migrants, a nation built on the backs of those who have come before. Those former migrants expect us to ensure integrity remains in our system. Our migration program is a nation-building program. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship estimates that there were approximately 25,700,000 movements across our border in the last financial year. That is one person either coming or going every second. The amount of movements across our borders is staggering. It is not wonder we call for a strong framework of checks and balances. It is no wonder we call on a strong policy platform that sends a very clear message to those who would peddle in the human misery of people smuggling. It is no wonder we call for a strong policy, combined with the strongest possible integrity of our migration and refugee system. It is no wonder we call for a strong commitment to financial resources to meet the needs of our resettlement program. This Labor government is softening our borders. It is providing encouragement to those who would traffic people. Push factors have not changed. Pull factors have: policy has been softened. A tidal wave of 800 boat people, including the 22nd boat recently arrived, has come across our shores with a thousand more being stopped in Indonesia. And until strong policy is restored, until this nation has the courage of its convictions to put up a strong policy fence and framework, we will never combat this insipid trade. I stand to state categorically that this bill cannot be supported.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak this evening on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. It is becoming increasingly apparent that holding people liable for their immigration detention costs is simply no longer justifiable—in fact, I understand that we are the only country in the world that holds people liable for their immigration detention costs. I am happy to be first for a lot of things in the world, on behalf of Australia, but that is not one that I am happy with. I am quite surprised to hear some of the speakers on the other side of the House defending this. I am a bit ashamed that we are the only country in the world that holds people liable for their immigration detention costs.

In the past four financial years, 17,355 detainees have been billed for time spent in detention, amounting to a total of over $170 million. However, a relatively small percentage of this debt has actually been recovered. In 2004-05, 5,542 detainees were invoiced for their time in detention. The total of this debt was approximately $65 million. The total debt recovered, both onshore and offshore, was $1,253,995. In percentage terms, this was merely 1.9 per cent.

In 2007-08, the number of detainees subject to monetary charges for time in detention was 2,386. These reduced numbers reflect the fact the Department of Immigration and Citizenship was detaining far fewer numbers of people than was the case in 2004-05. Nevertheless, out of a total bill of approximately $23 million, only $870,830 was recovered, representing only 3.2 per cent of the total charged. Given these figures, it is apparent that the cost of administering the system of detention debt recovery is greater than the amount that is actually recovered. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, has remarked:

It does seem to be a crazy situation to run a system to raise debt when it costs us as much to raise the debt as it does to generate income from it.

The majority of immigration debts have been written off because they are uneconomical to pursue, while a very small number of these debts have been waived in exceptional circumstances—however, not only is the recovery of detention debt uneconomical, it is also unjust. It is punitive and it has been found to cause emotional strain to former detainees and their families.

As I pointed out earlier, Australia is the only country that holds detainees liable for their detention costs. Not only are we the only country to hold detainees liable but as Azadeh Dastyari, of the Castan Centre for Human Rights, has noted, there is no other form of detention in Australia that imposes a charge on a person who is detained or incarcerated. Ms Dastyari stated:

Citizens and non-citizens who are detained as punishment for crimes are not made liable for the cost of their detention… Other detainees subjected to ‘administrative detention’ such as individuals suffering from mental health issues who are detained pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983 are not required to reimburse the Commonwealth for the cost of the deprivation to their liberty. Nor are detainees detained for quarantine reasons pursuant to the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth), required to pay for their segregation from the Australian community. Detention of non-citizens pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 remains the only form of detention in Australia that requires the detained to pay for their own detention.

The costs of detention are high, and these high costs tend to place emotional strain on both detainees and their families. The cost of one day in detention is $125.40. For one month this balloons to $3,762. For one year the cost is $45,144, and for five years it is $225,720. For families who are kept in detention, the figure is much higher—for example, an Iranian family who spent three years in Curtin Detention Centre in Western Australia were advised by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that they owed approximately $200,000 for their time in detention. There is the example of another family who were advised that their debt was more than $340,000. This amount of money will buy a house for a family in any of the outer stretches of suburbs of any of the Australian capital cities. Imagine the strain and stress of a debt that size faced by a family.

The Joint Standing Committee on Migration noted the adverse effects of detention debt, stating:

…detention debts are a source of substantial anxiety to ex-detainees, and may impede the capacity of the ex-detainees to establish a productive life, either in Australia or elsewhere.

The Joint Standing Committee on Migration also commented on:

… the limited earning capacity of many people on their release from detention, and the financial hardship that substantial debts caused.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has also expressed his concerns, noting:

Complaints to the Ombudsman’s office indicate that the size of some debts cause stress, anxiety and financial hardship to many individuals who are now living lawfully in the Australian community, as well as for those who have left Australia.

For many people who are currently burdened with these debts, the carriage of this bill will give them the chance to start life afresh and make a significant contribution to society.

The extinguishment of these debts will not be retrospective—that is, if any debts have already been paid, they will not be refundable, unless exceptional circumstances apply such as if the person was unlawfully detained. As I said, the amount of money involved is not that high anyway. Also, people who are removed from Australia will still be expected to pay for their own travel costs. Whilst detention debts will be abolished for many people, this bill will retain and clarify provisions of the act which relate to the liability of convicted illegal foreign fishers and convicted people smugglers for detention and transportation costs, contrary to the inference of the previous speaker. Additionally, section 262 in division 14 of part 2 of the act will be amended to allow the minister to determine the daily amount for keeping and maintaining a person in detention at a specified place in a specified period. This will ensure that the detention costs of illegal foreign fishers, convicted people smugglers and liable third parties are clearly specified.

Unlike many people who enter Australia and are detained, illegal foreign fishers and people smugglers have no intention of residing in Australia or make any contribution to this country—therefore, by continuing to charge these people for their time in detention, the Australian government is sending a clear message to these people that their actions will not be tolerated, whilst supporting the integrity of Australia’s border security regime. Since being elected, the government has taken a number of steps to improve Australia’s immigration policies. The decision to abolish detention debt for most of Australia’s detainees is a welcome step. I commend this bill to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have always deeply felt that at the core of any public policy should be the preservation of human dignity and human life and that placing these as first principles of public policy does not, in any way, detract from our responsibility in this place, particularly in relation to refugees. That responsibility is not diminished by undertaking those first principles, by government or by opposition benches, to implement and insist on a strong border protection policy. Citizens have a right to expect the government will maintain a strong border protection policy and to keep the country safe from foreign invasion, to protect Australian territorial waters and industrial interests. The difficulty with this issue rests with the ability to separate two key issues. The first is the protection of our borders and the second is the way we treat refugees or asylum seekers when they arrive in our territories and are found to be genuine refugees.

Too often these issues become clouded in the miasma of political debate, which leads to demonising people who arrive by boat seeking asylum. This process is aided by the mantra that they are illegal entrants and queuejumpers. The rejoinder is that Australia has long been a signatory to the international convention on refugees and there are strict guidelines to determine the validity of a claim for refugee status. In many conflict zones, queues do not exist and there are few stopping-off points between some of the conflict zones and Australia. Malaysia or Indonesia are the most likely destinations, but these countries are not signatories to the international convention on refugees and they have no regulatory framework to protect them. Indonesia is working towards signing the refugee convention in 2010. However, there is also a need for the development of a regulatory framework and that could take some time.

Many important changes to the immigration detention policies have been made in recent years, as my colleague the member for Kooyong very eloquently outlined to the House earlier today. These changes were made to ensure that the policy is administered more humanely. What we are debating here tody is a remnant of legislation that seeks to abolish billing refugees for accommodation in mandatory detention. It is important to stress, though, that the change to the act does not apply to illegal fishermen or to people smugglers who profit from their nefarious activities. They will continue to be billed.

In a recent report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration titled Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning, Julian Burnside QC is quoted as saying:

Australia is the only country in the world which charges innocent people the cost of incarcerating them.

This is not a distinction that is deserving of much merit.

No-one can condone the action of people smugglers. They trade on the desperation of people fleeing war, political persecution or religious intolerance, in the main, and there is a view that by maintaining this policy of charging it would deter further boats from coming to Australia and would send a signal to people smugglers. The fact is that this measure was implemented through a change to the Migration Act in 1992 to the effect that all unlawful noncitizens would bear primary responsibility for the cost of their detention. It was implemented, as one of my other colleagues said, under a Labor government and was carried on under the coalition. It was never intended to act as a deterrent, nor has it been demonstrated that it has any deterrent value. In fact, on the back of the Iraq war we saw a substantial wave of boat people arrive in 2001.

The boat arrivals are more likely to be linked to the escalation of war and conflict around the globe than with our domestic policy. Moreover, these waves should be kept in perspective and a few boatloads of people cannot be construed as a threat to national security, despite the hysterical headlines announcing every new boat arrival. The ensuing letter to the editor pages in our newspapers express concern that the new arrivals may be terrorists, may introduce unwanted diseases or are just economic refugees, and the more extravagant raise prejudices against people of particular religious beliefs.

The fact that all people arriving by boat seeking refugee status are placed in detention until health, security and identity checks are complete should allay most reasonable fears. With a combination, though, of hysterical headlines and at times disingenuous debate, it is unsurprising that there is public disquiet about these new arrivals. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr Richard Towle, who gave evidence before the Joint Committee on Migration, did say that it would be in the interests of refugees, advocates and the public to have greater clarity and transparency of the assessment process and of the regulatory and legislative framework. This, he argued, is particularly so with the regular arrivals who come with false documents or no documentation. I would certainly support any action which would make these processes more transparent and open to public scrutiny because it would remove some of those unwarranted fears.

To further address security fears, of the 5,986 security checks on boat arrivals in 2000 and 2002, the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation reported that no individual had been assessed as a security risk and, in 2004-2005, ASIO reported that two unauthorised arrivals, from a total of 4,223 assessments, gave rise to some concerns. I think that included all unlawful arrivals, not just those by boat.

The escalation of violence in Afghanistan, recent troubles in Sri Lanka and continuing brutalities in Burma are the main reasons for the stark choices asylum seekers confront: facing terror in their homelands or risking the chance of gaining passage on leaky boats. We witnessed the risks and the ensuring tragedy recently, when a boat carrying a number of refugees caught fire. The loss of life and serious injuries that followed shocked this nation.

The hysteria about the number of arrivals should be seen in the context of those current adverse events and in comparison to the numbers received by some of our closest allies. Indicative of escalating conflicts in many countries around the globe, refugee numbers increased in 2008 by 12 per cent worldwide. This followed a 20-year low in the number of refugees worldwide in 2006. The increase in 2007 came largely on the back of the Iraqi conflict and in 2008 it was driven by escalating troubles in Afghanistan and Somalia. The UNHCR reports that Australia is ranked 69th in per capita terms for hosting refugees, representing 0.2 per cent of the global total, but Australia is ranked first for its official refugee resettlement program, which is indeed very generous. We can be very proud of that record. In 2008, Australia recorded approximately 4,700 asylum claims, which is well below the 2000 and 2001 figures of 13,100 and 12,400 respectively. By contrast, Canada, a country of about 34 million people, registered 36,900 claims in 2008, an increase of 30 per cent on the 2007 claims.

I have worked over the past several years with my colleagues the member for McMillan, the member for Kooyong and others to change the Migration Act, including the release of families with children from detention centres, a reporting system to parliament by the Immigration Ombudsman at six-monthly intervals regarding people who are held in detention for lengthy periods and improved assessment processes to reduce the time people spend in detention. I welcome the bipartisan agreement of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration which, amongst other measures, recommended that the practice of charging refugees costs incurred while in immigration detention be discontinued. The agreement reads:

The Committee recommends that, as a priority, the Australian Government introduce legislation to repeal the liability of immigration detention costs.

The Committee further recommends that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation make the determination to waive existing detention debts for all current and former detainees, effective immediately, and that all reasonable efforts be made to advise existing debtors of this decision.

The cost of detention is about $125 a day. It applies to detention centres, residential centres and community detention. Spouses and dependent children are also liable for the charges. A one-year detention period would result in a charge of about $45,000. Given that many people were held in detention for periods of two to five years, the charges are very substantial, particularly in the case of a family. In one case outlined in the report, the family had incurred a debt of $340,000. According to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the total amount of debt recovered since 2004 has been low, at between one and four per cent. This year, the estimated cost of administration will be higher than the debts collected.

There were many submissions critical of this policy, with one witness branding it ‘manifestly harsh and unjust’. I have witnessed firsthand the trauma this policy causes asylum seekers, who barely out of detention receive a substantial bill which they have little hope of paying in the foreseeable future, if ever. It is distressing for them because they do not know that there might be mechanisms within this parliament to waive these fees unless somebody in the community who knows about it tells them. Many people in this place, I hazard to say, do not know about that.

On release, asylum seekers often find work that is poorly remunerated. The cumulative effects of years of trauma take their toll and further add to the difficulties many confront when released. The dishonour of knowing that they cannot pay any time in the foreseeable future causes a loss of dignity in people who have been accustomed to honouring their commitments. In any event, it contributes to the financial hardship faced by many refugees. It is very detrimental to a person’s attempt to settle into life in a new country.

Given that there is no demonstrated deterrent value in making this charge and the fact that in reality it is rarely collected, there can be only one reason for continuing such a policy, and that is a punitive one. I do not think that these are the kinds of people that we really need to further punish—I think they have been punished enough. The argument for abandoning this punitive measure was clearly articulated in 2006, when the coalition was in government, by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee report on the administration and operation of the Migration Act 1958. In relation to the detention costs being charged to asylum seekers, the report read:

The evidence clearly indicates that the imposition of detention costs is an extremely harsh policy and one that is likely to cause significant hardship to a large number of people. The imposition of a blanket policy without regard to individual circumstances is inherently unreasonable and may be so punitive in some cases as to effectively amount to a fine. The committee agrees—

and the committee is a bipartisan committee—

that it is a serious injustice to charge people for the cost of detention. This is particularly so in the case of unauthorised arrivals, many of whom have spent months and years in detention … the committee therefore recommends that it be abolished and all existing debts be waived.

Given that not one but two bipartisan committees have strongly recommended that the policy be discontinued, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that once again politics are played at the expense of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

In summary it is clear that the legislation which imposes a daily charge for asylum seekers being held in detention does not prevail in any other jurisdiction other than Australia. It does not apply to criminals or those held in other forms of detention. It has no demonstrated deterrent factor. It is a debt that is rarely collected. It hampers the resettlement of refugees. And it was the subject of two bipartisan inquiries, with unanimous recommendations to discontinue the charge. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suppose you could further add to that list the fact that, from this year’s figures, it is costing more to administer the collection of the debt than the income that it is deriving.

Given the thoroughness of the reports, I believe we should be supporting this legislation. It is time to move away from the dehumanising of people arriving in this country in boats seeking asylum. As someone said about recent boat arrivals, ‘It’s not a flood; it is a trickle.’ Ironically, while we are worrying about these few loads of boat people arriving, we are ignoring the real border protection issues. In Western Australia, we have the vast coastline of the Indian Ocean. It is home to immense gas reserves and it is rich in minerals, yet I believe this coastline does not receive the kind of attention or the protection that it merits. We should turn our minds to a serious debate about the real national security issues that effectively protect our borders.

Let me conclude by acknowledging the work of the standing committee on migration and the earlier work by the committee on legal and constitutional affairs for their thorough consideration of detention policies and the very careful considerations that have led to the legislative changes that are proposed in this bill.

I support the changes to the Migration Act to abolish detention charges for refugees.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by commending the contribution made by the member for Pearce on the migration bill. It has certainly been an interesting experience to hear the different speeches delivered from the other side of the parliament on the bill, but I will return to those contributions later. Firstly, this evening, I want to explore a particular topic relating to the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, which is before the House, and put a little context around it.

I turn to a definition of racism. Racism is a noun and it is defined as: ‘A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.’ That is from Dictionary.com. I am sorry that I have not referred to the Oxford or the Macquarie dictionaries. When we look at that definition and apply it to Australia’s history of racism, it provides an exploration of the dynamics of power and ignorance that have so shaped Australia’s history. The fundamental legal concept of modern Australia was based on this definition. Since 1788, there has been the idea of terra nullius. It is a legal concept that was applied in this part of the Commonwealth and is based on some racist assumptions.

I must admit that the Australian Labor Party has its roots in racism. In fact, it was one of the strongest organising forces in the Australian Labor Party. Disparate groups came together to form the Labor Party under the tree of knowledge at Barcaldine, in the suburbs of Sydney or anywhere that racism took place around Australia. For instance, there were elements of an anti-Chinese force in bringing people together to form the proud Australian Labor Party. Obviously this came out of the time when there were anti-Chinese riots and rallies. I read recently that every window of a Chinese business in Brisbane was smashed during some of those rallies in the 1890s. That is the history of the Australian Labor Party. It is not one that I am proud of but one that we must acknowledge in building a stronger party for the future. And we have done that. We have dealt with the ghosts of our past.

If we look at the institution that we are in today, we will see that one of the first things the Commonwealth of Australia did was to pass racist legislation—legislation that would not get off the ground at all in 2009. But 1901 was a different time and there was a different sense of what was right. In the past when I have touched on these topics in speeches, I have had people from the Labor Party say: ‘You can’t say that. You cannot talk about that history of the Australian Labor Party.’ But I always make a point of saying it—not dwelling on it, but acknowledging it—because that is the only way we are ever going to move on from this shameful legacy.

You do not have to look far to find racism, especially in Queensland—the state that I come from. It has probably got one of the worst legacies in terms of racism. There is the Palmer River Goldfield massacres where Chinese people were slaughtered by miners. There is also the treatment of Kanakas and the blackbirding that took place in the sugarcane plantations in Queensland. We can look to a more recent history, say, that of my grandfather’s time during World War II. A lot of American troops were based in Brisbane, particularly in my electorate where there was an airfield base, and there was segregation of the African-American service personnel; they were not allowed to go over the river. We can look at an even more recent time. Just a few weekends ago, on Saturday, 13 June, I was at the Pho Quang Monastery, a Vietnamese establishment in Inala. It is not in my electorate. I told the member for Oxley that it was actually in his electorate, but it is just over the border from mine. It was quite a poignant experience being in Oxley on that day, 13 June, because on 13 June, 11 years ago, 11 members of One Nation were elected to parliament.

I still have the horrific memory on that election night of that failed businesswoman from Ipswich striding through the tally room in that horrific yellow outfit. I remember it well and it still sends a chill up my spine. Even more recently—not 11 years ago but just a few years ago—after the September 11 horror, there was a firebombing of a mosque in my electorate by an idiot.

Obviously, Queensland does not have a particularly proud legacy when it comes to migration and racism but things have changed. In the small country town I grew up in there were not too many people who were not of Anglo-Celtic background. I remember the Yet Foys, who were successful businesspeople, and some other friends of mine, the Longs, who were Aboriginal-Chinese—which is not an uncommon history in country Queensland. It is a story that would break your heart if I told you but I will save that for another day.

That is Queensland’s background but we have moved on and we have changed. I look at the great work of a group in the Labor Party called Labor 4 Refugees in the lead up to the 2004 federal election. I want to particularly acknowledge the work of two young people who taught me so much, Matt Collins and Sarah Abbott. They had the courage of their convictions and tried to move the federal Labor Party and many other people to combat the ignorance that often comes with some of our policies and our ideas.

As a member of parliament from Queensland, I can proudly say that things are turning around from a state that at one time had the lowest percentage intake of refugees in Australia to a state that now has the highest percentage of refugees. We are changing our culture. We are shedding our redneck past. I look at the success stories such as good old white bread Toowoomba—with respect to the member for Groom—embracing a lot of Sudanese refugees. Places like Gatton that do not have a particularly multicultural past except for maybe Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English are now embracing people from all around the world. In my electorate one in three people are born overseas. So things are changing. We are able to shed our history and become a much more inclusive society.

I turn to address a couple of myths that were already largely rebutted by the member for Pearce but I will revisit some of those myths for the benefit of the people of my electorate. These are myths that were unfortunately raised again in this debate by people in that side of the parliament. The member for O’Connor used the term ‘queue jumpers’ again and again in his speech. I am not too sure who makes up his constituency or what he thinks they need to hear. He is obviously a man of convictions but I sometimes wonder where those convictions are spread. As the member for Pearce stated, there is no orderly place to queue in some of the hellholes around the world that attract the attention of the UNHCR or which are so disorganised that you cannot even get the UNHCR in there to talk about forming a queue.

That term is still out in the common parlance but anyone who understands world affairs would know that there is no queue. As the member for Pearce said, they are not illegal refugees—they are refugees. If we are going to talk about people that are illegal obviously we would be talking about the vast majority of people in Australia who overstay their welcome. They do not come on boats. They come on planes and they stay in hotels. And if we want to be accurate, they normally come from the United Kingdom or the United States—but obviously that is not what people are talking about around the barbeques, especially if a fear campaign starts.

Of those people—the queue jumpers or illegal refugees or whatever you call them—how many do we end up sending home? Is it 100 per cent of them? Is it 50 or 20 per cent? No. It is more like one per cent at best—not even one per cent. Most of them are found to be genuine and have come from places of horror and anguish. A country as lucky as Australia does have the heart and can normally find a place for them at the table. They are some of the myths I wanted to dispel.

I also want dispel another myth that has not really got a full head of steam but I want to touch on it now—maybe I am starting this myth right here, right now. The myth is that this legislation is part of a Welsh conspiracy, because there is a suggestion that the Welsh are taking over the Commonwealth government. I do not know Prime Minister Rudd’s ancestry and whether there is any Welsh blood there but certainly Julia Gillard is a well-known Welsh immigrant. The next highest person in the government would be Chris Evans—also a Welsh immigrant. Number four would be Stephen Conroy. He is Irish but I have it on good authority that nine months before he was born his parents were on holiday in Wales. So I did want to knock that Welsh conspiracy theory on the head as well—the suggestion that this legislation is all about making sure more Welsh people can come here. I stress for any Welsh people listening that I am joking.

This legislation before the House is good commonsense legislation. It is a good commonsense approach to a furphy that is out there. It is about ending this facade where we make people that have landed on our shores pay for the daily maintenance for each day of that non-citizens detention and also for the cost of their transport. As speakers before me stated, this does not apply to everyone. If we are talking about illegal fishers or people smugglers this is not legislation that applies to them. We can look at the facts to see why this commonsense legislation is so important.

During 2006-07 and 2007-08 the immigration detention debt raised was $54.3 million. That is obviously quite a significant amount of money. In tough economic times $54.3 million is something that I am sure the Treasurer would appreciate. How much of that was actually paid back by these people who we slap the debt on? About $1.8 million or 3.3 per cent was actually recovered. Unsurprisingly, $48.2 million was written off by the department because it was uneconomical to pursue these amounts of money, and $4 million of that was waived.

I take the member for Pearce’s point that not everyone knows about that particular avenue. For the refugees I see in my electorate, irrespective of how they got there, the first thing they want to do is get work, get a roof over their heads and give their kids an opportunity in life that maybe they did not have. That is why this legislation is such common sense. I see that the cost of administering these detention debts was approximately $709,000. In terms of the use of taxpayer dollars, pursuing this facade for the sake of a political purpose, which is really what this was all about, is ludicrous—bad politics, bad government. That is why I am proud to speak on this legislation.

I am proud to have spoken after the member for Pearce and the member for Kooyong. I did not actually hear the member for McMillan; I am not sure if he had spoken previously.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Broadbent interjecting

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not yet. In relation to the member for Pearce and the member for Kooyong, I am going to do something a little bit bad, I guess—that is, to talk about their courage and their inspiration to all of the House as politicians of conviction. I especially say to the member for Kooyong how much I will miss him and his inspiration. He will be sorely missed. Big shoes to fill for the person who steps up in his electorate, or perhaps not so much big shoes to fill, but a moral void to fill. I wonder if that person is going to measure up. I hope so. I guess it is not a good thing when the people on this side of the House praise those on the other side of the House, but I guess the member for Kooyong has always been happy to paddle his own boat and he will survive any criticism that comes from me praising him.

It is tough times for those opposite because we have some of the people of conviction are leaving; not just the member for Kooyong but also the member for Higgins. Despite my criticisms of some of his policies, I would not doubt that he is a man of convictions and he seems to be a compassionate man. I know my trade union colleagues will not forgive me for that, but the reality is he does seem to be a half decent man with some compassion for people. Maybe at Christmas his older brother makes sure that he does not forget that. There is the member for Bradfield. The member for Wentworth seems to be having some trouble at the moment as well; I am not sure whether his days are numbered. I hope that the tussle that goes on in that party room includes people who can make sure common sense prevails when it comes to dealing with people. A fear campaign is an easy one to run. We know that. Fear is a much more powerful force in politics than hope. I am sure that the member for Brand would remember from running election campaigns in the past that fear unfortunately is much more powerful than hope and common sense and education.

It is important that those opposite do find their moral compass, do find the people like the member for Kooyong who can guide them through some of these tougher policy issues. If you do not have a good moral compass, obviously it is hard to find what you stand for as a party. If you do not have a good moral compass, you start going further and further south and thinking that that is normal. I guess the only good point about going further and further south is, if you go far enough south, everywhere is north if you are standing at the South Pole. Even magnetic north would be north of you if you go far enough south. I hope that the battles that take place opposite result in a Liberal Party that has a good, clear sense of direction because the Australian government is all the richer for having a strong opposition that believes dearly in certain things.

I find this bill particularly important as I represent a multicultural electorate. Unfortunately, in the last election campaign the race card was played in my electorate. The repercussions are still being felt. People were hurt in the school ground because of the myths and lies that were peddled because of politics. I am sure many MPs have received emails about people stepping out of boats and into $30,000 payments because they have arrived at our shores. You have seen the same emails, you know they come from Canada or somewhere else and have no relevance to Australia at all. Hopefully that sort of misinformation will not take place and we can have a vote on this legislation and start that journey towards Australia being a much prouder multicultural community, because we do get it right. The rest of the world—especially Europe, that multicultural melting pot—looks to us and says, ‘How do you get it so right?’ So this is about making it better. We do get it right mostly, and we are an inspiration for the UNHCR about how to get it right. I commend the legislation to the House.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. As the deputy chair of the current joint standing committee on migration, I welcome this bill as the implementation of one of the recommendations of the committee’s report of December 2008 entitled Immigration detention in Australia. But before I proceed, I want to make it clear—in fairness to the member for Murray, who has sustained some criticism from the other side—that the member for Murray did not join our committee until November 2008 and the report was handed down in December 2008. So the member for Murray was not part of the deliberations of the committee.

This report looked at the criteria for release from detention, and recommendation 18, which dealt with the detention costs, said:

The Committee recommends that, as a priority, the Australian Government introduce legislation to repeal the liability of immigration detention costs.

The Committee further recommends that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation make the determination to waive existing detention debts for all current and former detainees, effective immediately, and that all reasonable efforts be made to advise existing debtors of this decision.

This is one of those rare occasions since I was elected to this place in 1996 that a recommendation made in a report from one of the many committees upon which I have served is actually the subject of a bill in this chamber. Although I note that there are many hardworking and diligent public servants who take note of our committee reports and recommendations, and often put in place those recommendations that can be implemented without need of legislative amendment—and I want to recognise their efforts—I do welcome the opportunity to actually see a recommendation from a committee put into legislation.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Migration Act 1958 to remove the requirement that certain persons held in immigration detention in Australia be liable for the costs of their detention. At the same time, the bill will also extinguish all immigration detention debts outstanding at the time of commencement of this legislation.

In the course of many public hearings across Australia, our committee heard evidence from many individuals as well as many highly regarded service providers within the community. These organisations included A Just Australia, Amnesty International, the Asylum Seekers Centre, the Australian Red Cross, Balmain for Refugees, the House of Welcome, the Mercy Refugee Service, the Immigration Detention Advisory Group, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, the Detention Health Advisory Group, the Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project, the Law Institute of Victoria, Liberty Victoria, Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre Inc, the Justice Project, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University of Technology, Centrecare, Project SafeCom, Southern Community Advisory Legal and Educational Services Community Legal Centre, the Uniting Church in Australia, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Australian Human Rights Commission, Get-up!, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Legal Aid New South Wales and the Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors. All in all, the committee actually took over 139 submissions from various individuals and community organisations. These organisations gave evidence regarding the concerns of refugees and the burden and punitive impact of detention debt experienced by those refugees and their families.

I point out these are people whom we have found to be genuine refugees. We should remember that these people left their homes, fleeing from prosecution and violence, and were often traumatised by their journey here to Australia. Under the act, a noncitizen who was detained by the Australian government is liable to pay the Commonwealth the cost of his or her immigration detention and, where applicable, that of their families. The debt began to accumulate as soon as they were placed in detention. Initially, this provision was intended to be a cost-recovery measure by the then Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Gerry Hand. At the time of its introduction in 1992 by the Keating Labor government, the intent of the provision was to ensure that all unlawful noncitizens would bear the primary responsibility for the expenditure associated with their detention. Specifically, section 209 of the act was introduced to minimise the costs to the Australian community of the detention, maintenance and removal or deportations of unlawful noncitizens.

A further objective of the policy was to require former detainees to pay their detention debt to Australia, or make arrangements for repayment, as a condition for the grant of a visa for lawful re-entry into Australia sometime in the future. This objective was the subject in provisions under the Migration Regulations 1994. This particular provision was not only punitive but also a curious policy, in that it actually set up a financial barrier that effectively prevented ex-detainees who may have wished to follow the appropriate legal mechanisms to migrate to Australia sometime in the future. This prevented them from doing so. The detention debt against their name acts as a real barrier to their lawful application. So this can be seen as a confusing policy. If we want prospective immigrants to make a lawful application to come to Australia, why should we make it even harder for people to follow the lawful process? Under the policy as it stood, costs of detention were recovered only once the detention was ended and total costs were calculable. The exceptions were if a person in detention chose to pay these costs, partly or in full, before release or if their valuables had been seized and applied towards the payment of the incurred costs.

Over the years since 1992, the operation of the detention debt provisions has been the subject of several reviews which have raised the same concerns as those raised by our 2008 Joint Standing Committee on Migration inquiry. These concerns included fairness and equity and recovery and cost effectiveness of the implementation of this policy. In 2006, during the time of the Howard coalition government, the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee looked at the administration and operation of the Migration Act and reported under the title Administration and operation of the Migration Act 1958. Senators on this committee, when considering the impact of detention debt, concluded at page 207 of the report:

The evidence clearly indicates that the imposition of detention costs is an extremely harsh policy and one that is likely to cause significant hardship to a large number of people. The imposition of a blanket policy without regard to individual circumstances is inherently unreasonable and may be so punitive in some cases as to effectively amount to a fine. The committee agrees that it is a serious injustice to charge people for the cost of detention. This is particularly so in the case of unauthorised arrivals, many of whom have spent months and years in detention … the committee therefore recommends that it be abolished and all existing debts be waived.

The Senate committee recommended that the imposition of detention debt be discontinued except in instances of abuse of process or where applicants acted in bad faith. That was in 2006.

Last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration found that there was consensus of opinion condemning the policy as punitive and discriminatory. I remind the House that we had significant organisations giving evidence to the committee. We also found that submissions to the committee expressed concerns regarding the impact of detention debt on ex-detainees and in particular the burden on mental wellbeing, the ability to repay the debt and the restrictions a debt could place on options for returning to Australia on a substantive visa. Our 2008 committee also noted the detrimental flow-on effects for families and dependents and the ability of people to progress their lives once in Australia upon release from detention.

I point out that the debt was imposed upon people who we Australians had decided were indeed genuine refugees. We made it very onerous for these often traumatised families to make a new start here in Australia. We burdened them with debts to begin life in their new country and these debts often amounted to hundreds or thousands of dollars.

In addition, this provision also proved to be difficult for government to administer. The committee noted that less than 2.5 per cent of the detention debt invoiced since 2004-05 had been recovered, with the vast majority of debt having been waived or written off as unrecoverable. It became clear to our committee that this provision, which was initially a cost-saving device, could not fulfil its original intent. Our committee concluded that the practice of applying detention charges would not appear to provide any substantial revenue or contribute in any way to offsetting the costs. In practice, recovery of many detention debts was not pursued but waived or written off. When a debt is written off, this means that a decision is made not to pursue recovery of the debt. However, at some time in the future the Commonwealth could choose to execute debt recovery. When a detention debt is waived, the debt is extinguished.

Under the current arrangements, an unlawful non-citizen in immigration detention is charged a daily set maintenance amount for the entirety of their detention. As at June 2008, the charge per individual, including spouses and dependent children in migration detention, was $125.40 per day. Unlawful non-citizens who are removed or deported from Australia are also currently liable to pay for the cost of their removal, but this will remain unchanged. In the financial year 2008, nearly $3.5 million of detention debt was waived for 140 formers detainees. Write offs were much more commonly employed, however. For the same period, just over $19.2 million was written off for 1,743 individuals formerly in detention.

In the last four financial years, 495 individual debts amounting to over $6 million were waived. For the same period, 10,580 individual debts amounting to just under $133 million were written off. In the last four financial years, a total of 17,355 detainees were invoiced with detention debts amounting to a sum of just over $170 million. The total amount of debt recovered since 2004 has remained disproportionately low—between one and four per cent of the total debts incurred. Since 2004-05, less than 2.5 per cent of the detention debt invoiced has been recovered and in 2007-08 only $870,000 of $23 million of incurred debt was recovered by the government.

While figures are not available for the annual administrative cost of assessing which debts will be written off or waived or for the cost of debt recovery for Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Department of Finance and Administration, it is expected that the cost is significant. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has said that it seems that the cost of administering the scheme to collect the debt either outweighs or is close to a break-even point in terms of the money brought in. It seems to be a crazy situation to run a system to collect debt when it costs us as much to collect the debt as it does to generate income from it. As a cost-saving measure, the policy of charging detainees the cost of their detention has not delivered on its purpose. It is a further argument that this onerous provision should be repealed.

The committee heard a range of criticisms through the inquiry, particularly from the many community organisations that provide assistance and give support to migrant families and refugee families. Many condemned the provisions as punitive and discriminatory and many pointed out that they added to the trauma for people in detention and their families. Many described the provisions as being manifestly harsh and unjust and many pointed out that they caused unnecessary financial hardship to people struggling to establish themselves in Australia.

Further, we learnt that Australia appears to be the only country in the world to put costs for immigration detention upon detainees. Yet, as we have noted, the practice of applying detention charges does not provide any substantial revenue or contribute in any way to offsetting the cost of detention. As we have pointed out, it is likely that the administrative costs outweigh or are approximately equal to the debts recovered. As a cost-saving measure, this provision has clearly failed.

The evidence before the committee also indicated that the imposition of detention costs is an extremely harsh policy and one that can be shown to have caused significant personal hardship to a large number of people who are trying to make a new life for their families in Australia. At this point I would like to acknowledge the work of the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre in my electorate and to acknowledge the leadership of Kamal and his dedicated team as they work to assist many new immigrants and refugees settle in my own local community area. It is also seen as a serious injustice to charge people for the cost of detention. This is particularly so in the case of those unauthorised arrivals who have spent months and years in detention, often after being traumatised by the experience of their journeys to Australia as they fled from persecution and violence.

Some in this place have put an argument that this provision should be maintained because it acts as a deterrent to potential unlawful arrivals in the future. However, during the course of the inquiry this was shown not to be the case for the simple reason that unlawful arrivals were not aware of the provision. Indeed, there were many members in this parliament who were not aware of these provisions until the advent of this amendment bill. I wish to make this point clear for the benefit of my constituents. This provision under division 10 part 2 of the act was never intended to be a deterrent. It was purely a cost-saving measure of the Keating Labor government and it has never worked as a cost-saving measure, as we have seen—it costs more in administration to try and recover the debt than the debt is worth.

This provision has never worked as a deterrent, either. It was never intended to be a deterrent. Potential refugees and unlawful arrivals never knew about possible detention costs. Therefore, it could not have been a deterrent. Deterrent measures are by necessity front-loaded at the beginning of a process. In this case, the detention debt was one of the last measures unfairly imposed upon unsuspecting illegal arrivals, many of whom were later found to be genuine refugees. It was never intended to be a deterrent and it certainly has not worked as a deterrent since its inclusion in the act in 1992.

The Joint Standing Committee on Migration called in its report for: the practice of charging for periods of immigration detention to be abolished; all existing debts, including those of people who have entered into arrangements to repay debts, and all write offs to be extinguished, effective immediately; the movements alert list to be amended to reflect these changes; legislation to this effect to be introduced as a priority; and every attempt to be made to notify all existing and ex-detainees with debts of these changes.

I wish to make it clear, again, to the people of my electorate: how people come to this country is one issue; how we as Australians decide to treat them when they get here is entirely another issue. I am delighted to support the amendments to repeal this legislation. This has been an unfair provision since 1992. As I said, it is an unfair provision and the amendments repeal the detention costs and waive the existing detention debts. I support these amendments because they are fair, they are just and their repeal will give those Australians, those families, those men and women who have come to this country to start a new life—those people we Australians have found to be fair dinkum refugees—a fair start in their new homeland. I support these amendments because they reinforce the values that, to me, uphold what it is to be an Australian. I think one of the good things about Australia that unites us all, and that makes us proud to be Aussies, is that we do believe in a fair go. We do believe in playing fair, in being fair dinkum to others and in giving people that fair go and a fair start. These are sound amendments. This bill is good policy and I warmly commend it to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. As we have heard, this bill removes financial liability for detention and related costs for certain people and extinguishes existing debts to the government incurred through detention and transportation. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration heard it costs around $125 a day, as the previous member has just said, to hold a person in detention. As such, an estimated $350 million will be written off by this federal government through these changes. As a former chair of this Joint Standing Committee on Migration and as a member of the committee until November last year, these are matters which I am familiar with and have a longstanding interest in.

The coalition was and remains unashamedly tough on border protection. The move by the Labor government to abolish detention debt is just another in a long line of policy shifts continuing to weaken Australia’s strong immigration system. I have previously noted the serious political, economic and social issues facing other countries around the world which may have been inundated with illegal immigrants through people smuggling. That is what the coalition’s policy was designed to avoid: the mass illegal immigration crises that face several European nations. The coalition policy did work. It was highly successful in stemming the tide of unlawful arrivals, particularly by boat, allowing us to welcome thousands of genuine refugees from throughout the world.

The Rudd government will have us believe that the detention debt is being extinguished because it is simply ineffective and people just do not pay. It is true that only 2.5 per cent of the detention debts invoiced since 2005 have actually been collected. In fact, around $1.8 million of the $54 million debt that occurred in 2006-07 and 2007-08 was recovered. But it is that the detention debt policy acts as a deterrent. This is where I have a different point of view from others, as you have just heard. It is one of the many deterrents that should be embedded in our system.

This move forms part of a bigger picture and must be seen in its overall context. It is just another example of the Rudd government’s lax approach to protecting Australia’s borders. In light of the government’s weak position on border protection, any deterrent is better than none. With the raft of changes to immigration, Labor has given the green light to people smugglers, and Australia’s borders are once again opened for business. Since November 2007, the statistics speak for themselves. People smugglers are once again operating a boom business because Australia is seen as a soft touch. The existing framework for detention debt collection provides the means for the department of immigration to make arrangements for payment. In many cases, it will not be granted until such payment arrangements are in place. The existing legislation has safeguards in place to protect those people who have no means to pay. Those people are able to structure manageable and affordable repayments. In many cases, fees are waived. It is a welcome relief that the government has retained the detention debt obligations for illegal fishermen, people smugglers and deported noncitizens. They should have to pay for their detention and transport costs.

Since taking government the Labor Party has done little else to deter people smugglers from testing the Australian waters once again. In fact, it has done quite the opposite. The Rudd government wants Australians to believe that its softening on border protection is creating ‘a fair and more humane system’. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, it was in 1992, under the previous Labor government of Paul Keating—and under a good old leftie in the form of Gerry Hand—that the detention debt provisions were introduced into the Migration Reform Act. The message the Labor government has sent is that, if you can get here, you can stay here. I repeat this. The message now sent out by this Labor government to all those who would come here unlawfully is that, if you can get here, you can stay here because we will give you a visa. That is a great pull factor, because all they know now is that if they get on that leaky little boat and they get to the Australian shores then they will be taken off to Christmas Island and eventually they will get their visa. People smugglers, particularly those in Indonesia, have heard that message loud and clear. That is not the integrity that we want in our migration system. We were very proud of the integrity that the Australian migration system had until now.

Let us examine some of the facts. As you know, the Rudd government closed the processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. They have abolished temporary protection visas. Asylum seekers can access funds for advice and assistance. Asylum seekers do not have to be held in detention, because the minister for immigration has told the department that officers have to justify why they are detaining someone, not presume detention is the option. Remember, it is the Labor Party who brought in mandatory detention under Gerry Hand. The onus of proof has shifted. It is this relaxing of the requirements that the people smugglers have tuned into, and they are now dreaming of dollars.

On top of closing detention facilities and abolishing TPVs, the government has cut funding to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, to border protection and to Customs. Immigration alone has lost some 600 staff. This puts the department under increasing pressure at a time when it can least afford it, stretching resources thin and leaving it without the means to tackle the people-smuggling epidemic. In any case, the minister has given every indication that he does not trust the decisions of the department. While the coalition supports ministerial intervention in circumstances where it is warranted, it is concerned that Minister Evans seems to be doing it with gay abandon. The minister has overturned more than 1,000 decisions of the tribunal and/or courts between September 2007 and March 2009. With an intervention rate of 25 per cent, he is leagues ahead of his predecessors, who averaged a mere two to five per cent. I must qualify that before I move on. There is a role for ministerial intervention for fairness, but this seems somewhat out of kilter. Sometimes tribunals and the appeal mechanisms do not actually get it right, and it is good to know that the executive of government does have some flexibility.

The Indonesian ambassador has said that people smugglers are using Mr Rudd’s soft touch as a marketing ploy. That is the ambassador. We all remember the interview on the ABC with an Indonesian asylum seeker who said that coming to Australia was now seen as much easier. The International Organisation for Migration’s Chief of Mission in Indonesia, Steve Cook, has said that people smugglers had taken note of Australia’s policy changes and were ‘testing the envelope’, in his words. The Australian Federal Police reportedly warned the government that its softening of border protection laws would encourage people smugglers. So it has been warned. Around 800 asylum seekers have arrived on Prime Minister Rudd’s watch since he softened border protection policies in August 2008. Between 2002 and 2005 only one boat arrived in Australia. One reason why people come by boat—and not everybody understands this—is that people who come by boat have a greater success rate in getting a visa than those who come by plane and go through Villawood detention centre et cetera. So a boat landing if you come here unlawfully is a far better option for success in getting a visa.

That softening sent out a strong message, and it has worked for the people smugglers. But this government chooses to pass the buck and find every excuse in the book for the increased arrivals other than its own policy. For example, it says there is dislocation in nearby countries—such as Burma, Sri Lanka, the Middle East and Afghanistan—but this was the case previously. We do know—and the Federal Police have executed warrants and the state police have been involved—that some of the so-called Sri Lankan asylum seekers were Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam operatives coming to Australia to help raise money for their cause. It is a very serious case and some people misrepresent themselves.

People smuggling cannot be condoned. Those who have any sympathy with it should remember the tragic explosion off Western Australia’s coast in April on the SIEV 36, which was carrying asylum seekers. That burnt boat was an example of people smuggling gone wrong and of lives being put in danger. As we know, several people died. It is the sordid make-up of people smugglers. I think the Prime Minister even called them evil. These criminals put lives at risk and exploit vulnerable people merely to line their own pockets. The influx of asylum seekers is stretching resources at Christmas Island. As the shadow minister for foreign affairs, my colleague Julie Bishop, pointed out in Western Australia recently, the government has been caught completely off guard because of its softening of border protection and it is struggling to deal with the arrivals.

Where is the money going to come from to build the additional infrastructure at Christmas Island in the current climate? The government has already saddled Australians with $315 billion in debt, and we know there is no end in sight. In last month’s budget the Treasurer allocated $14 million to voluntary return for those found not to meet the criteria for visas. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young—the infamous Senator Sarah Hanson-Young—said:

Detention debts have been a flagrant form of adding insult to injury to those who come to Australia seeking our assistance and protection.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind that senator that the coalition has a long and proud history of resettling genuine refugees who have been found to have been suffering the most appalling circumstances and who are indeed in urgent need of protection. In government the coalition increased the annual number of resettlement places by 6,000. Australia is among the most generous nations in the world in taking in genuine refugees. Together with the United States and Canada, Australia has become a safe haven for thousands of refugees. In 2006-07 Australia settled some 9,600 people. In fact, the average number of humanitarian entrants to Australia every year is more than 14,000—or thereabouts, depending on the circumstances. But we know that those who come by boat or come illegally actually take the place of those who are in the queue to be settled here as genuine asylum seekers or refugees.

The report recently presented by the migration committee reiterates the intention. It recommends people in detention be released into the community before identity and security checks are completed. Furthermore, it is recommended that asylum seekers be given the right to work, temporary accommodation, income support and furniture before processing. They probably received the bonus as well, like the half a million other temporary visa holders with work rights who were eligible for the last cash splash.

A fact that is not widely known is that in the May federal budget some $4 million was put aside so that those coming to Australia unlawfully did not have to wait for the 45 days, so they could apply for Centrelink and Medicare benefits immediately. I am out there in my electorate trying to get for older people, people on low incomes and people at risk money from Centrelink and the support that they need, but they are now in a queue with these people that have had the 45-day rule waived. That does not go down very well with people. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that much of the talk in the front bar of the hotels in and around my electorate is that people are pretty unhappy with this change of rule. The government are either oblivious to the sentiment of the wider Australian community or they do not care. The truth is they are not serious about keeping Australian borders strong or about maintaining a credible and respectable migration system. I thank the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight so my voice joins those opposing the changes that have been proposed by the government today in the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. I welcome the member for Canning’s wise remarks. I think he made some excellent points about border protection. Indeed, it does seem that the debate that we are having about this legislation is somewhat of a furphy as it appears that the government is struggling to portray to its left-wing constituency that it is doing something tough to repeal the strong border protection regime of the Howard government.

So we have this piece of legislation before us today, which is an attempt to portray the government as somehow unwinding the Howard government legacy. There are a number of problems with that theory of the government. The first one is that this legislation was the product of a Labor government. Indeed, this was a product of the Hawke government. In question time today, in answering a question about the government’s legislative agenda, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government told the House that this bill was an important plank of the government’s legislative agenda. He said this would undo an injustice that had been created in our system. He neglected to mention that this was the product of a Labor government and a Labor minister attempting to deal and wrestle with very serious border protection challenges at the time. Indeed, the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Gerry Hand, made several remarks at the time including that the primary objective of the Migration Act is ‘to regulate, in the national interest, the entry and presence in Australia of persons who are not Australian citizens’. We all warmly welcome Minister Gerry Hand’s remarks in that regard.

Underscoring the seriousness of this debate and the signals that the government is sending to the broader community, to people smugglers and to people abroad who are watching events here in Australia, it is important to note that in recent times there has been a surge in arrivals in Australia. Indeed, on the eve of this legislation being introduced abolishing detention debt we saw another arrival—an interception on Ashmore Reef of 49 passengers and four crew. Almost 800 asylum seekers have arrived by boat since last August, since the Rudd government softened the regime, with, as we know, 1,000 intercepted on Australia’s behalf by the Indonesians. It does appear that people smugglers have developed the view that they are back in business as we have seen a big surge in arrivals in Australia. The Prime Minister has expressed his view, describing people smugglers as the ‘scum of the earth’, and we support and welcome the Prime Minister’s comment in relation to people smugglers because they are indeed the scum of the earth who operate without any regard for the safety and wellbeing of people and for the very difficult circumstances that the people whom they are purporting to transport to a better life find themselves in.

If you look at the Howard government’s strong border protection policy and the integrity of the borders during that era, you see that we had a world-leading standard. One of the members here remarked that we were the only nation to seek to charge a debt in relation to a person’s accommodation while they were awaiting processing of their application. We were one of the few nations in the world to have a very strong border protection regime that actually worked. That has been noted by many countries in Europe which face challenges with migration and border security and have sought out Australia as a model for investigation. They saw Australia under the Howard government as a place which had successfully changed border protection measures to ensure that illegal arrivals dropped off. Of course, we did see during the period of the Howard government a 20-year low in arrivals, which underscores how seriously we took border protection and what a record we produced.

Addressing the legislation before us, the reason that I say this debate is somewhat of a furphy is that the purpose of this legislation is to remove the government’s ability to recover a debt from people who are found to be refugees; however, among the provisions that already exist in the act there is a provision for the minister to waive the requirement and there are other provisions for the debt to be waived. We know most of all of the moneys sought are actually waved. Less than 2.5 per cent of the debts that have been levied since 2004-05 have been recovered. The rest have been waived or written off. That is an exceptionally important statistic for us to note. Of course we understand this is not a measure designed to collect that money. Why then would we say that this is important and why would we seek to continue the operation of the act?

My answer to that would have a number of points. Firstly, we have already seen that the government has moved in a number of ways to soften the border protection regime that had been put into place under the previous government, sending out further signals to people smugglers and to others who watch these events—and they do watch these events—that we are open for business and we are a soft touch. So there is a continuing theme that is being built up that somehow Australia is again a destination. Many members here would not be convinced by that argument. Many members here would challenge that, saying, ‘Look, the current legislation is really a complete waste of time.’ I would question that. I feel that this is an important signal to those people who are given asylum in Australia. I think it is important to understand that. We levy people in this country for education. We load up our young people with higher education contribution debts in recognition of the fact that debt is an important concept: you are getting something of value.

When you are given the gift of staying in this country after leaving a very difficult part of the world—and the gift is ours to give on recognition that you are a genuine refugee and you have met genuine criteria—there is a cost associated with that. That cost is borne by the Australian taxpayers.

In the application of some of these migration policies there is a disconnect between the Australian government and the Australian people, and that is because it is the Australian people who pay the bills. The Australian people pay the taxes in order to pay the bills. So while there is a good argument, a good contention, that people in very distressed situations who have arrived here with nothing ought not to be laden with debt—that is a fair proposition that most people would agree with—it is important that those refugees recognise that there is a cost being borne by the Australian taxpayer. I think the current operation of the act goes some way to saying that.

When a genuine refugee arrives here, is granted asylum and applies to have their debt waived, that is a good system. Further, they recognise that the Australian people—the taxpayers of Australia—have said, ‘We agree that you have come from a difficult part of the world. We have paid for your accommodation and all the expenses of your internment here; now, go and make something of yourself.’ If I was a refugee I feel that I would be very grateful to the people who had paid that money. Refugees would not have a way of paying that, and certainly we do not expect it, and that is why we have a situation where only 2.5 per cent of the debt is recovered. So the question we have to ask is: what problem is this bill trying to solve? If only 2.5 per cent of the debt is being recovered then there are not an inordinate number of refugees who are being unfairly burdened with debt and who are struggling to cope with the system. That is not the problem.

Of course members would say—and we have heard some of the arguments here—that the problem is that if we keep the act as it is it would not be cost-effective; it does not do anything, so why not just get rid of it? I wish I heard that argument in relation to more pieces of Commonwealth legislation, because there are plenty of pieces of Commonwealth legislation which do not do anything or which cause a great deal of grievance to the Australian people. But we do not hear that argument made very often, especially in relation to small business, to entrepreneurship and to people trying to struggle to get ahead for themselves and their families. We rarely hear the argument that there is too much legislation or that legislation is ineffective, inefficient or needs to be removed. In fact, I never hear that in this chamber. So it is interesting to hear that argument expounded in relation to this bill.

I feel that the passing of this bill through this House and the Senate and the enacting of it would send a further signal that there is a change of government and a change of system in Australia. It could lead to more arrivals. It could signal to people smugglers that they are more open to carry out business under this government and therefore they should send more people at great risk—great peril—to Australia. I feel that that would not be a good outcome for Australia. I feel it would not be a good outcome for genuine refugees. I feel that we ought to pause and consider this very carefully.

I think we ought to be committed to strong border protection here in Australia. I will stand up in this place over many years to oppose changes that will weaken the integrity of our borders and encourage back into business these people smugglers, whom the Prime Minister has rightly labelled the scum of the earth. We have to take very seriously that there has been a big surge in the number of arrivals in the past year. We have had 13 boatloads—580 people—intercepted off Australian waters since 2009. That compares to seven boats and 161 people in 2008. This represents an approximately 360 per cent increase. Examining that evidence, we now know we have a greater challenge in front of us.

With this legislation we are unwinding measures for no good reason—for no real reason. Many members are getting up and talking about the awful debt that we are burdening arrivals with, which is a complete furphy when almost all of these debts are waived. When I hear people putting forward that furphy at a time when we face great challenges to the integrity of our borders, I feel that this whole debate has been constructed in a completely phoney way by a government that is seeking to show its supporters that it is doing something or anything in order to continue to get their political support, when actually very little is changing through this legislation. I am sure I would have the support of some left-wing activists in that argument.

I do want to dismiss the idea—it was a contention that was built in the lifetime of the Howard government—that somehow we are a mean nation and that we do not take our obligations as a global citizen well. That contention was expounded, built and activated. Certainly it was brought up throughout the election campaign so that people could mobilise their supporters. But actually I think it is incredibly important for us to note in this debate that, per capita, Australia has the third biggest refugee resettlement program in the world. We are a generous nation and it is wrong to label us as mean or tricky.

We have, per capita, the third biggest refugee resettlement program in the world. This year we will settle in our country 13,750 people from some of the darkest corners of the planet. Six thousand of those will be refugees who are judged by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be in urgent need of resettlement. We do not want to encourage any abuse of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs. None of these 13,750 people whom, as I have said, we will resettle this year could afford to pay a people smuggler. I believe that our resettlement program, and those people, must remain our highest priorities.

Examining all of the arguments and hearing many of the positions that have been put in relation to this bill, I am more convinced than ever that this will only go to weaken our border integrity. It will show that Australia has a soft touch in relation to people smuggling, and I am unconvinced that this will do anything to help genuine people, who ought to be very much the focus of our concern.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. From the outset, I express my complete disgust at the Rudd Labor government’s continued attempts to weaken the integrity of Australia’s borders. One of the things that we as Australians have to understand is that we live on an island that has been subjected to significant pressures from offshore over many decades. Whilst the purpose of this bill is to amend the Migration Act to remove the requirement that certain people held in immigration detention in Australia are liable for the cost of their detention, it does not take into account—whilst it might be ideologically approved in some members’ minds on the opposite side—the significant problems that this creates for genuine refugees offshore who are trying to come into this country through legitimate means.

You can understand why the people who come in on the boats—with the irresponsible people smugglers who bring these people from mainly Indonesia to our shores in an attempt to get them into our country illegally under a system whereby they receive remuneration for doing so—would be clapping their hands at this particular time, knowing full well that the current government has relaxed the very significant penalties that were introduced and policed by the former, Howard government. Those penalties were envisioned in 1992 by the former Labor government and the former Labor Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Gerry Hand. To his credit, as the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship said in her speech, Gerry Hand saw the threat that a continued stream of unauthorised arrivals placed on Australia’s humanitarian capacity. The member for Mitchell made reference to that and so did Julia Gillard, the Deputy Prime Minister, when she, as shadow minister for immigration under the leadership of, I think, Simon Crean, prepared the ALP policy for border protection in 2004.

There was no ALP policy to speak of in 2007, which is interesting, but the Deputy Prime Minister, in her policy, made the following points that were very relevant to what the opposition is concerned about today—that is, moving away from the continuation of temporary protection visas. She said there should be a continuation of mandatory detention; the introduction of a coastguard; increased penalties for people smuggling, including 20-year jail terms and $1 million fines; confiscation of boats; streamlining of the Australian processing regime to make it the same as that applying in refugee camps to help remove the motivation for asylum seekers to risk their lives in the journey to Australia; and so on. It was all centred around the very policies that were introduced and tightened up by the former, Howard government following the original concern of the then Labor government in 1992 about people coming into this country illegally.

We all know that at present not all persons unlawfully in Australia are liable for the cost of their detention. The intention of the charges is to ensure that all unlawful noncitizens bear primary responsibility for the costs associated with their detention, deportation or removal. That was not a comment by a member from this side of the House; that was a comment by the then minister for immigration, Gerry Hand, in 1992 when he was speaking to the bill. It was made abundantly clear in the explanatory memorandum to the Migration Reform Act 1992, which the minister introduced.

The coalition has always taken a very strong stand on preserving the integrity of Australia’s migration programs. We believe in an orderly and properly managed immigration and humanitarian program and we will continue to ensure that Australia remains one of the most generous providers of humanitarian resettlement in the world, as was mentioned by the member for Mitchell, but we will do this in a way that does not encourage abuse of Australia’s migration program and the barbaric people-smuggling trade that endangers the lives of people who seek to enter Australia illegally—and I emphasise the word ‘illegally’. As part of that balanced approach to immigration, the coalition believes that we need a range of policy measures that maintain the integrity of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs. That is what it is about: the integrity of the existing migration and humanitarian programs.

The Rudd Labor government, on the other hand, has in this bill unravelled all the measures designed to keep our borders secure and, instead, is sending a very strong message to people smugglers and, indeed, to the people seeking to come into this country illegally—not through the organised process that is available to them. It is also reinforcing the message to people smugglers that they can restart their abhorrent trade, which was stopped as a result of the policies of the previous government in terms of putting people in detention when they came into this country illegally from offshore.

Requiring the payment of the cost of detention is one of the measures that the previous government adhered to, along with others. It makes it very difficult for people smugglers to market Australia as a soft option, because it sends a very strong message to them and to the people they are carrying on their boats that there is a cost associated with it: you will be put in detention and you will be billed for that cost.

The coalition is going to oppose the current government’s decision to abolish detention debts, because there are safeguards in the legislation to ensure that any genuine asylum seekers who do not have the means to pay are given manageable repayment schedules or have their detention debts waived or written off. That is already there, so I cannot see why we are going down the path we are going down and putting our borders at risk for a variety of reasons by waiving any debts that people may have.

It is interesting that we are doing this because there is an issue that I want to raise in this debate that politicians from both sides of the House may have forgotten about or have not yet decided is important enough to do something about. It relates to people coming to this country, and I will mention that and read some correspondence on that very shortly.

Improving the administrative arrangements is of course always welcomed by any government of any description in this great place, because there are always administrative problems that need to be tidied up. The legislative process in this House does not always put legislation out into the community that is 100 per cent foolproof. Sometimes the advice that we get from the bureaucrats who put this legislation together in the form of bills is not always right, and in many cases it is not always justified or, in some instances, humane. You certainly have to make sure that any legislative process that occurs here acts as a deterrent against abuse of our migration programs or against people smugglers who are selling the ALP’s soft approach to this problem.

It is distressing from the point of view of those people who have a passionate view about the protection of Australia’s borders that at this particular time we see a record number of illegal boat arrivals. The coalition believes that all government policies must send a clear and unambiguous message that people smuggling will not be tolerated in Australia and that the integrity of our migration and humanitarian program must be maintained.

I raised an issue in my contribution earlier that I said is very important in terms of people coming into this country. It is centred on the orderly way in which people should be allowed to come into the country. I am not talking about the illegals that come on the boats. They are illegals, regardless of what some people might say—and I notice with some satisfaction the smirks that are coming from people from the ministers’ offices here in this chamber to record what is being said.

For over three years now I have been involved in a very, very serious situation in trying to assist a local family to obtain permanent residency in Australia for their elderly parents. The amount of red tape that has to be navigated to gain permanent residency for people who have come, or are attempting to come, to Australia legitimately through the front door is not only insurmountable but also extremely expensive. People wishing to gain legitimate entry to Australia—as an example, a parent—are facing waiting times of up to 12 years or are required to pay fees in excess of $50,000 for the privilege of permanent residency and access to our social security system. Here we are, talking about waiving the debts of people that have arrived illegally in this country and charging people who have arrived legitimately $50,000 to get some permanent status here.

I would just like to read a letter from one of my constituents, who wrote to the Hon. Senator Christopher Evans, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, about this situation. He said:

Dear Mr Christopher Evans,

I John El Hazouri of 42 Dutton Rd Buxton NSW 2571, the son of my elderly parents Elias El Hazzouri, 76 and Barbara El Hazzouri, 72 am writing to you on behalf of our family asking for your help and support in regards to an application for my parents becoming permanent Australian residents due to extenuating circumstances, such as their deteriorating medical conditions, their dependability on us as care takers and their hardship & living conditions if they were to return back home to Lebanon.

I will not go on with the history of when they came into Australia because it turns out that—and this is all in a letter to the minister and I have made representations on their behalf—they did in fact overstay their visa and, having done that, through the family they then decided to make the appropriate approaches to their federal members, and their state member, I might add. I have received a letter of support from the Hon. Phillip Costa MP, who is a minister in the Rees New South Wales government. He is the member for Wollondilly and a great bloke to work with. He and I have been cooperatively working together to try to get permanent residency for this elderly couple. Their sons and daughter have all become Australian citizens since they came into this country, and good Australian citizens.

I would just like to describe from this letter the background of this elderly couple. The letter from one of the sons goes on to say:

They were living in the centre of 35 villages all with different religions causing continuous conflict and instability in the region. They faced a dreadful time during the war, having to fear for their lives as they run from place to place trying to protect them selves. Living conditions were and still are sub-standard making it difficult for them to return to the village especially with the heavy undulating nature of the surrounding landscape. They would have to walk up a steep 1.5km incline just to get to the public road in the aim of getting assistance due to any health or other issues. In this case my mother suffers from osteoarthritis in both knees which produce heavy swelling in her legs, making it hard to walk short distances without assistance. My father also has diabetes and osteoarthritis in his knees and right shoulder. It was also financially difficult from my parents, struggling to pay for daily necessities let alone medication and treatment.

We tried to support them before, sending money overseas but they were regularly targeted by armed people when they went to withdraw it from the bank, which happened to many other people. We also have sisters in Lebanon who live too far apart and can hardly take care of themselves and their families, which would make their life harder if they were to also take care of my parents. I strongly believe that they wont be capable of looking after my parents compared with the supervision and assistance we can provide them on a daily basis. We also include a doctors report for my parents current health, recent photos of the house they used to live in and a general sketch of my parents village to further explain this issue.

What has happened since then—and this was written on 7 December 2007—is that unfortunately the father has passed away. Once again I have made further representations to the current minister.

Debate interrupted.