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

Before I call the member for Cowan, can I say to the House that I was due to speak in continuance of my contribution yesterday. I am unable to do so, obviously, because I cannot be in two seats at the one time, so I will be seeking leave to speak at a later date.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I might on that point, Mr Deputy Speaker, confirm the understanding that of course leave will be given by this side of the House when your turn to speak on the bill comes.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the parliamentary secretary.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. If members were expecting me to stand up and support this bill then they would certainly be sadly mistaken. I have no intention of speaking on behalf of a measure that I believe weakens the borders of this country and the integrity of the immigration system. I do, however, stand by the decisions and actions of the Howard government in the strengthening of not only our borders but also the integrity of the immigration system. That was a hallmark of that coalition government. There is no doubt that the coalition has always taken a strong stand on border protection and a strong stand against people smuggling and those that attempt to work around the policies of the government of the day with regard to the numbers of refugees and where they come from. I appreciate that on occasion those decisions were not popular, but those decisions by a strong government were important to ensure that it was the government that made those decisions about who came to this country and of course the circumstances under which they came.

In the context of 2009, we currently see Labor’s weak and equivocal border and immigration policies, which have resulted in additional boat traffic coming to Australia. I see this bill, which seeks to remove the possibility of immigration debt, as being from the same policy playbook that took away temporary protection visas and granted legal representation to those in detention. I see these sweeping gestures as recklessly sending the message that we are not hard on illegal immigration as we once were.

To emphasise this point, let us consider the boats that come from Afghanistan. I mean by that those that walk or ride out of Afghanistan, move through a neighbouring country and hop on a plane to fly to Malaysia or Indonesia before travelling on a boat to where they can take another boat from an Indonesian island to Australia. A number of things worry me about that whole business. Firstly, here is a group of men that leave their families behind when they leave their country. They are also a group of men who have decided not to join the fight themselves against the Taliban, choosing instead to leave the fighting to others, including Australian servicemen. They have decided instead to move through a different country, not stopping in Pakistan or elsewhere but buying a ticket for a plane to fly them out. They decide to move on, not settle in that country or even apply for refugee status from that country. They make those decisions in every country they move through and in my, and many of my constituent’s, views, this greatly undermines their claim for legitimacy as refugees.

It is worth contrasting the circumstances of those that travel so far by multiple transport options with the circumstances of those that do not have the money to fly and motor by boat and to pay the smugglers. If you do not have that capacity you are like the people who languish in the refugee camps on the Thailand border with Burma. Those that languish in those camps are the ones that wait patiently for their opportunity. They are the real thing: they are exactly the sort of people that we should have in this country as refugees. They are the sort of people who are legitimate refugees, such as the Karen people.

The point is that the immigration system must be managed in an orderly manner. The immigration and humanitarian programs must always be controlled, uninfluenced by factors beyond the control of the government of the day. Australia has a proud record of humanitarian resettlement, but the coalition has worked hard to discourage the abuse of the migration program and also to discourage the smugglers of people.

To ensure the ongoing integrity of the immigration system and to make sure that those that languish in refugee camps are resettled promptly, the Liberal and National parties have a history of initiating and managing policies that safeguard the immigration system. The coalition will stand by detention debt. It is part of the stand we make to ensure that the people smugglers do not have any more evidence that the attitude of the Australian government has changed.

It is important to comment upon the outcomes that are to be achieved. As I have stated, we want to be able to maintain complete control over the number of people that come to Australia and to determine where they come from. On this point, I would also say that there are a number of groups that have fitted into Australia very well. This, after all, is a country with Judaeo-Christian values and institutions. Consequently, the measure of success and participation revolves around such principles. I include among those principles democracy, the equality of genders, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Religions or peoples that do not agree with such principles are not going to fit in. This is a point worth making, as governments need to plan to have a harmonious society where new arrivals can fit in, not where those who have lived here for longer have to adapt or go out of their way not to offend minority groups.

I hold up the Vietnamese as an example of successful immigration. Fleeing an oppressive regime, the Vietnamese, who are Buddhists and Roman Catholics, came to this country and have been successful. They have worked hard and taken the opportunities that this country has held out to them. Existing Australians did not have to modify our rules or the institutions of our society. Instead, the Vietnamese embraced the opportunities and revelled in the political, social and economic benefits that Australia held out to them—that is one point. On another point, it is vital to discourage people from risking their lives and the lives of their children—from the risk of drowning—by coming here on boats. If they do not believe that jumping the queue will be successful, then they will not take the chance. This will reduce the chances of loss of life.

On another occasion I have stood in this chamber and been heckled by some of those opposite for my views on these matters. I of course have no interest in saying what they want me to say or what others think I should say; I take these opportunities to say what needs to be said. The reality is that this chamber is dominated by the populous states of the eastern seaboard—it is dominated by members representing electorates in states like New South Wales and Victoria. As representatives of inner city seats in particular, they reflect the views of their constituents, who will never see a boat landing on the shores of their state. Hobby issues abound in these places among people who are sufficiently comfortable in their secure existences and who will never have to confront the realities of what is happening in the bigger states.

That being said, there is some support for this bill across the political spectrum and across the nation, but I utterly refute the suggestion that the bill has comprehensive support amongst the Australian people. Indeed, if the many people of the Cowan electorate who have approached me over recent months are representative of the nation, I am not only comfortable with but completely confident in standing against this bill. There is no doubt that the subject of queue-jumping people—boat people—is raised with me regularly, but, consistent with the issue concerning this bill, the other great concern in my electorate is accountability. By that I mean, for example, that, when my constituents speak to me of the outcomes stemming from crime, they want offenders to be accountable for their actions. Consistent with that theme, the same level of accountability is also required of the people in the boats, who jump the queues. If you do the wrong thing, you should expect a consequence. The ability to impose a debt for and in conjunction with detention is an important tool in deterring illegal immigrants. The removal of that capacity is nothing more than a further encouragement to those who wish to sidestep our rules and policies, stepping into the queue in front of those who are in circumstances of desperation in refugee camps.

Those who say that our position is all about punishing refugees and loading them with debt are incorrect in such an assertion. There is no proposal to impose a debt on those found to be genuine refugees. As all members are aware, the bills for genuine refugees are waived. My personal view is that more could be done to recover the costs of detention, particularly through recovery plans. Therefore, it is my contention that the teeth need to be sharpened on the existing arrangements regarding detention debt.

For those who have been listening to what I have said and for those who might choose in the future to check out what I said, I am certainly very keen that it be understood how clear I am on this matter. It is my view that detention debt needs to be maintained and that the arrangements for border control and immigration integrity need to be restored to what existed under the last coalition government. In those days, everyone knew where they stood. The smugglers and their clients knew the risks, they knew the costs and they knew that the government of Australia under John Howard did have tough borders and controls in place.

To further make clear my position on matters related to this: I am not against refugees being resettled in Australia. We should do our bit. We know that there have been success stories in the past and that there will be more in the future. I see that immigration has been at its most successful when those that have come as individuals or groups have fitted into our society. The values and institutions of our society are consistent with Christianity, with Buddhism and with those religions and faiths that recognise democracy, equality of the genders and freedom of religion.

I make this emphasis: that this is a great country that has always stood up for the weak, the defenceless and the besieged. The strength of our country is in our traditions, our institutions and our values. The will of our country to act when the hard decisions need to be made comes from what I believe is a collective faith in the great Australian culture. It is a majority culture that is always grounded in a belief that the democratic tradition is supreme. I believe that this majority culture will forever be guided only by our secular laws. It is a majority culture that supports those who aspire to improve themselves while also being there to support those who need it and cannot provide for themselves. It is a majority culture that has a strong belief in the principle of personal responsibility and that all citizens and residents have rights but never without responsibilities. This country has a majority culture of Judaeo-Christian values. There is nothing wrong with this and nothing to be apologised for.

Given my views, it is my belief that refugees from Burma, including its ethnic minorities, are likely to fit and have already fitted into this country very well. In the electorate of Cowan, there are many Burmese, including Karen and other ethnic minorities from Burma, who have adapted to life in Australia and are doing well. As I said previously, the Vietnamese have also prospered. They came out from under the yoke of an oppressive regime, came to live under the freedom offered by this country and have prospered through the opportunities made available. I have travelled to Vietnam and I therefore appreciate the difference between what the Vietnamese character of hard work can achieve in Australia and how the potential of the Vietnamese people is being held back in their homeland.

I would now like to turn my attention to the closely related matter of citizenship. The former Prime Minister was much maligned for the citizenship test, yet as members of parliament we know what happens at citizenship ceremonies. When some people take the oath or affirmation, sometimes they do not speak the words and sometimes, by the look on their faces, we cannot be sure that they actually comprehend the commitment they are making. I think that by having such a test and training we can ensure that new citizens understand that they not only have the rights that come with being an Australian citizen but they also have the responsibilities.

By responsibilities I include the need to follow the laws of this country. That is very important. Members of this parliament would be aware that noncitizens, if they commit crimes with certain penalties, can be deported after serving their sentence. I personally favour an extension of that capacity. This is my personal opinion. Those who have dual citizenship, taking our citizenship as their second nation, should also be exposed to the removal of our citizenship if they commit such crimes. True accountability would therefore be achieved and it would be a powerful incentive for those with dual citizenship to act lawfully at all times. I emphasise that this is a personal view, at the risk of being attacked by the government and the Labor Party, who are the party of conformity and the crushing of dissent and, by consequence, free thought.

I have ranged somewhat widely in this debate; however, I have been very clear on my views on this bill and the damage that I believe it will cause to the integrity of the immigration system. I do not believe that further weakening of the immigration laws will have any more effect than sending a message of having a softer border to those who seek to benefit. I believe in stronger borders but I also believe in the acceptance of refugees. I believe in powerful deterrents but as a means to preserve our borders, to maintain control of our immigration and to ensure that people who think of jumping the queue believe that the risks, including that of drowning, are too great and therefore decide not to take that course of action. Above all, I believe in maintaining detention debt and the raft of features of the former coalition government’s immigration measures to ensure that we will forever decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am opposed very strongly to the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 which send this message to the world: ‘Come over here. We are, in fact, lowering our border protection policy. Anyone who wants to come here can come here.’ By abolishing the debts of former detainees, the taxpayer of Australia is saying to these people, who broke our law in coming to Australia, that it was, in a retrospective sense, the right thing to do.

We must have border policies with integrity; we must have border policies with compassion. The former, Howard Liberal-National Party government was a government that said to the world that the only people who were going to be allowed to come to Australia were people who the people of Australia wanted to come here. We had a policy with a very strong deterrent. In fact, the number of boats arriving diminished to zero. The current government has sent the message to the world that Australia is open to the world and the message to people smugglers: ‘Bring the boats over here.’ Since that message has got out to people who trade in people, people smugglers, 22 boats have arrived. The election of the Rudd government was good news for people smugglers, good news for people who want to jump the queue and good news for people who want to circumvent the immigration system.

During the height of the controversy over our detention policies when we were in government, I was privileged to visit the detention centre at Baxter in South Australia. I spoke to some detainees. One particular family was quite outraged over the fact that they were in detention. They apparently flew from Jordan to Jakarta using their passports; they threw away their passports when they got to Jakarta and negotiated a package. For them it was a commercial transaction. They had paid US$20,000 to people smugglers to come to Australia and they were outraged. They felt that their contractual rights had been broken because they ended up in the Baxter detention centre—because they had broken the laws of Australia. I do not know what ultimately happened to that particular family. They certainly seemed to be nice people and it was good to sit down and talk with them. You can understand that they paid US$20,000 to come to Australia and ended up in detention.

Having said that, should we be watering down our policies? Should we be making it easier for people to evade their financial obligations to the Australian people? Under the former Howard Liberal-National Party government the reason we had such effective border protection policies was that we told the world: ‘Come over here illegally and we’ll lock you up. We’ll lock you up while your matter is being processed.’ When people are in detention it is a very expensive process. Why on earth should the taxpayers of Australia, through the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, take on the financial cost of those people who, in fact, ended up in detention only because they broke the laws of Australia?

The government is totally out of touch on this issue. I challenge the government to consult with the Australian people on this issue. I would encourage government members to walk down the main street of any town or city in Australia and ask people: do you believe that the people who were in detention, people who jumped the queue, people who broke Australia’s laws, people who arrived on boats, should have their detention debt waived? Already this government has built up a huge debt for future generations of Australians—a government debt of more than $315 billion. They are mortgaging the future of young Australians; they are mortgaging the future of children and Australians not yet born, through their typical borrow-and-spend policies that we have seen during their so-called spending packages, which have been outlined.

But they are going further now. They are saying to people who were illegally in Australia, people who broke our immigration laws and ended up in detention as a result of their breaching the laws of Australia, that the taxpayers of Australia should add further to the debt that each of us has—and it is now close to $10,000 for every man woman and child in Australia as a result of the spending policy of this government. They are actually adding more to that debt as a result of the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009.

We have more than a million people knocking on the door of Australia to come here every year. We are a country that has freedom, stability and a way of life that makes us the envy of people throughout the world. We are a country which has the rule of law. We are a young country, and yet I am told that we are possibly the sixth oldest democracy in the world. The reason for that is that we have since day 1 had a system of evolving constitutional development. People have always had democratic rights in Australia. We have the right to choose the government that we want at state or federal level, and whether or not we argue with the outcome, we certainly cannot argue with the process. It is no wonder that people seek to come from around the world to join our Australian family. We are a nation of immigrants, along with our Indigenous people. Together we have very successfully forged a society where people come from around the world to help create an Australian that is, as I said, a country which is the envy of people throughout the world. So I am not surprised that a million people seek to come to join us.

We ought to have an immigration policy which has integrity. Under the former Howard Liberal-National government that is exactly what we had. We said to the world that we are a welcoming and compassionate society. People can apply to come and we have a range of categories under which we accept people. I think we also took a highest number of refugees per capita than any country in the world other than Canada. So we did have in place a policy which brought in the people we needed. Our birth rate was lower than it should be and we actually had to top-up the population by inviting people from around the world. But you need a migration system with integrity.

You also need a migration system with compassion. The people who got locked up in the various detention centres, by and large, were people who broke the law. They were overstayers or they were people who arrived on boats or people who were queue jumpers—people who certainly did not deserve any extra consideration from the Australian people. Certainly they are not people who deserve to have their detention debts taken up by the Australian people. They certainly do not deserve to have their detention debts waived in a way that the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 seeks to do.

When you look at what this country has achieved and the wonderful contribution that migrants have made you can see how really important it is for us to gain people from around the world. We have had many migrants who have been leading Australians. Some have been Australians of the Year. They have contributed to building this country and making it even better than it was. But we are concerned about the integrity of our border protection policies when the government is effectively saying to people who owe the taxpayers of Australia a lot of money, because they were necessarily detained, that somehow the Australian taxpayer is going to pick up the cost of that. That is a policy which, I believe, the people of Australia would very strongly reject. It is important that we have sensible processes in place and for those people who do claim to be refugees it is vital that their claims be processed as quickly as possible.

When I was visiting a detention centre I spoke to the administration. I discovered that there were people who claimed to be Afghans but who actually had Pakistani nationality. They might have been ethnic Afghans but they held Pakistani passports and were Pakistani citizens. It was only when a former Pakistani High Commissioner went to this particular detention centre that these people admitted to being Pakistani and not Afghans, and then they were repatriated voluntarily to their home country.

The reason that a substantial number of people spent as long as they did in detention was because they would not tell the immigration authorities where they were from or what their history was. They had thrown away their papers and, effectively, they challenged the department to find out all of the necessary details about them. They would not cooperate, and that was why they continued in custody. This is exactly where they should be, and where most Australians should say they should be until their case is able to be appropriately dealt with. Overwhelmingly, the cases of those people who were in detention who did cooperate were expeditiously dealt with so that we were able to determine whether they were in fact genuine refugees or not.

We have a situation at the moment where the government is sending, as a result of this bill, a message of encouragement to those people who organise leaky and rotten boats, those people who solicit for desperate clients, those people who schedule the dodgy voyages across treacherous seas, those people who are people smugglers, who traffic in people—one of the most iniquitous and evil occupations anywhere in the world—that this is yet another encouragement for them to go out there and con even more people into seeking to come to Australia. This bill is absolutely appalling. It indicates how completely this government is out of touch. The sad thing about this particular bill is that it will further encourage people to come. We will have more boats arriving off the Australian coastline and it means that Australia is seen around the world as a country which is a soft touch.

I think that the government ought to reconsider this strongly. The government tells us that most of the money being waived would not have been recovered in any event, but the fact that it remains a debt on the books, I think, sends a powerful and compelling message to people smugglers and their clients around the world. Australia has very strong border protection policies, but the passage of this bill, along with other policies of the current government, indicates that the strong border protection policies we once had are in fact dissolving.

The abolition of the detention debt system is like taking away one of the arrows in the quiver of our border protection system, thereby weakening the whole system and in fact tearing up the integrity of the system. The Liberal-National opposition is committed to the protection of Australia’s borders, the protection of our way of life and the protection of what we are as a country. The detention debt system sends a very clear message to those planning unauthorised arrivals into Australia that there is much more to consider before attempting such a venture.

I oppose any legislation which will weaken our border protection, any legislation which encourages people smugglers, any change in the law which undermines the very effective policy which was inherited by this government but which is now being torn up by it. I think it is an absolute tragedy that, given the success of a number of immigration ministers in the Liberal-National government in reducing and eliminating the number of boats arriving, the government is in effect saying to people around the world, ‘Come to any harbour in Australia. We’ll only lock you up for a little while.’ And then, with the abolition of detention debt, you will find that people ultimately will not be out of pocket for breaking the law of Australia. This bill is a despicable bill. It is a bill which is completely out of touch with the thinking of ordinary, decent Australians. This bill is one of the reasons why I think this government will be in diabolical trouble at the next election, as indeed it deserves to be.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 for good and sensible reasons which have caused the opposition to say that we will be voting against the bill. If you look at the analysis that the Bills Digest has done of the amount of debt that is incurred by people who are locked up for breaking migration laws and you look at the amount of money that is actually recovered, you will find that, by and large, the majority of the amounts of money that are incurred by way of detention expenses or charges are either written off or waived. So the argument concerning this bill is not about whether or not people who are found subsequently to be legitimate refugees are penalised; the argument is about the signal that is being sent to the people smugglers.

If you look at the way in which the people-smuggling business ramped up in the nineties and became of almost epidemic proportions, you will find that the action that the Howard government took sent a very strong message. We said very firmly that we would have strong border protection laws and that we would use offshore screening of people who claim to be refugees so as not to see the rorting of our court system that went on previously, where people would destroy their documents of identification and claim to be different nationalities from the ones that they were. There was no way of proving it one way or the other and they continued to churn through and clog up our legal system. We sent out a very strong message that Australia was very serious about saying, ‘If you want to come to this country then you have to come in the proper, legitimate ways.’ Where people were found to be refugees, they gained that status and then came to Australia to live. In addition to that, we have the refugee quota, which makes us a very generous nation in terms of the number of refugees we take. When you look at the per capita analysis, we are perhaps the most generous country in the world.

It is important that we do protect our borders and also protect the people who become the cargo of people smugglers—those people who conduct that horrendous trade in people. In 2001, we took that very strong stand and it became an election issue. If you look at the 1990s, you will see that thousands of illegal immigrants came by boat to this country. After we won the election in 2001 the number of boats and people that arrived by that method in 2002-03 was nil. It stopped. For the next years they were very small numbers. In 2003-04 three boats came, with 82 people. In 2004-05: nil. Again, we won that election and said that we were strong, that we would continue to protect our borders. In 2005-06 eight boats came, 61 people. In 2007-08 three boats came. But, in August 2008, the current government abolished temporary protection visas and sent a signal that said Australia was again to become a soft touch. Straight away the boats started to come. The unscrupulous people who trade in human lives were again setting up their trade. They saw the signal and said, ‘Australia’s a soft touch.’ Temporary protection visas were gone. So, since August 2008, we have had 22 boats, bringing 839 people—an enormous increase in trafficking.

By allowing this legislation to pass, or if the legislation is passed, it sends another signal: that we are again taking away from the strong stance that we have had. In practical terms it makes very little difference at all. Only 3.3 per cent of all the debts that are incurred are actually recovered. The biggest proportion of them are written off. Being written off does not mean to say that they disappear. If circumstances arose where it was shown that the people who have incurred those debts could indeed pay them, then they can be revived. The only way they totally cannot be revived is if they are waived by the finance minister pursuant to the Financial Management and Accountability Act.

The Bills Digest, which has done a very good analysis of the bill, points out:

Departmental policy is that consideration should be given to writing off debts if the debtor:

resides overseas and cannot be traced or

is known to be destitute and there is no prospect of their financial situation improving in the near future.

The debt is waived by the minister on moral grounds rather than on financial grounds where it is seen that there is an obligation that it should be waived:

… where it has been found that person was lawfully in Australia and should not have been detained, or when it is considered that repayment of a person’s debt would cause them undue financial hardship …

In those circumstances the debt can be and very often is waived.

So the central analysis of this bill is the signal that it sends to people smugglers to again bring their boats, putting at risk the lives of people who are willing to pay them large sums of money to enable them to make those dangerous crossings. So the opposition, in choosing to oppose this bill, has chosen to do so in the national interest. It is not a decision that has been taken for any other reason. Australia believes that, by having strong border protection laws and by having a strong message that is sent out and known by people who would be traders in human cargo, the likelihood of their being successful is not very great and they are less likely to trade in that way. So it is very important from an opposition’s point of view that we continue to argue very strongly that it is in the national interest to have strong border protection laws, and it is in the interests of the people who would have their lives placed at risk by being the cargo of the people smugglers that we are opposing the bill and will be voting against it.

I know that there are some who think that leaving in place the provisions that allow the fees to be collected—and they are in the vicinity of about $124 a day—is somehow a harsh or unusual thing to do. I do not believe it is. I think it is a fair and reasonable system, one that was first put in place by the Labor government in 1992 and continued by us. But the most important issue is that it would be sending a signal to the people smugglers if we do not oppose this bill and say that, when we are back in government, this would be our policy. So I simply say that, in opposing the bill and giving my support to the opposition’s position that we are opposing the legislation, I do so because I believe it is in the national interest.

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

Before I begin my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 I would like to send my best wishes to Dr Mal Washer, who is in a Canberra hospital today after emergency surgery on his appendix. So we send him all the best. I know he would be sitting here beside us right now if he could be.

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

I thank the member for McMillan for that kind thought. I am sure that all members in this House wish Dr Mal Washer all the best for a speedy recovery.

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

I know he will be listening now and will have just heard the contribution from the member for Mackellar. People who are listening to and watching this broadcast would know her better as Bronwyn Bishop. I stand in total opposition to the presentation that the member for Mackellar has just given. There would be many who would ask, ‘ Why would it be that Russell Broadbent and Bronwyn Bishop are at odds when the member for Mackellar is a friend, a parliamentary colleague and, more than that, a warrior in marginal seats who proudly boasts that the only time he wins his electorate is when she has been involved in the campaign?’ It is because I find that this legislation was wrongheaded when it was introduced by Gerry Hand as the then minister in the Keating government, not the Hawke government—let us not blame Mr Hawke for things that he did not do. I find the repeal of these laws by this legislation right, just and the right thing for this parliament to do.

It is very difficult to oppose your own side. I did that once before, hoping never to have to do it again. There is a process that I have to undertake with regard to doing this. I have to go to my leader and say, ‘Leader, I cannot support you on this bill.’ I have to tell my leader that I think this bill is merciless, unfair, unjust and ineffectual. As the member for Mackellar has just stated, the figures do not add up. I am from a business background and I know that when it costs you more to collect the debt than the price of the debt you do not pursue it. This parliament should not be pursuing these debts. This legislation has come out of a process of this parliament, but I will speak to that in a few moments.

Then, after I have been to the leader, I have to go to my whip and explain that I will not be supporting this legislation. Then—the hardest thing of all—I have to go to my party room and stand before my friends and colleagues, who, along with the rest of the people of this nation, I have the highest respect for, and tell every one of them that I cannot support them on the position of the leadership. In the great Menzies tradition, I can do that. In the process of speaking to my whip, the member for Fairfax, Alex Somlyay, said to me: ‘Russell, you passed this legislation. You voted for this legislation in 1992.’ What do I know of 1992? A lot. I remember 1992 very, very well. All I would have heard of that legislation when it was introduced by Gerry Hand, the minister, would have been the motion ‘that this legislation be moved for a third time’ and it going through on the voices.

God forgive me that I was part of the parliament that did that, which caused so much distress to so many families over such a long period of time. It was wrong in the Hawke years and it was wrong in the Howard years, and the wrong will be righted today. The debts against some of our most vulnerable people will be removed, will be waived. It is the Australian thing to do. It is about fairness, justice and rightness.

In 1992, Victoria was a basket case. Australia had just removed its most popular Prime Minister ever in Bob Hawke. I stood on the other side of this parliament with a senior minister, a friend of mine, who was in tears that his Prime Minister was being replaced. It was a time of high drama, very similar to now, except that, in my electorate of Corinella, 30 per cent of the kids could not get a job, 20 per cent of the population could not hold on to their job, mortgage rates had soared to 18 per cent and interest rates for small business were 22 per cent. Yes, I remember 1992 very, very well. We were in the midst of a war in the Middle East—does this sound familiar?—we were in a major recession and there were major issues.

Is this a big issue for this nation? No. Compared with what is happening today in this House and what has happened and is happening around the world, it is nothing. But what is it to the people that it affects? It is everything. It is their wellbeing and, to many, it is their honour—after all they have been through and all the detention, we give them a bill! Goodness gracious!

I remember 1992 very, very well. In remembering my time in this place before, I remember that I also stood up in my party room around that time and suggested to John Hewson some thoughts on the politics of Fightback! and where we might end up. That was then reported by Laurie Oakes in the Bulletin, and I was called to account for those remarks. I was called to 104 Exhibition Street in Victoria, to the state director’s office, where for one hour I was thrown around that office. What he was talking to me about was party unity, sticking behind the leader and doing the right thing. Do you know who that state director was—do you have any idea? That state director was Petro Georgiou.

This is very hard for us to do. It should never be misunderstood—when we stand in a place like this to oppose our own party, we do it with great regret and great grief. But when there is a bigger issue that the nation needs to address, an issue that the soul of the nation needs repealed—the something that was that should not be—then it is time to state your case, as I have.

If you want a forensic analysis of this issue, go to the member for Kooyong’s speech. It is all there. If you want a heartfelt analysis of the issue, go to Judi Moylan’s address of last night. If you want to know how this came about, go to the speech of the member for Hughes, Danna Vale, of last night, and look at the forensic work of both committees but especially the most recent committee. Look at the evidence of the people that addressed that committee, and remember that committee proceedings are equal to the proceedings of this House. You cannot go into a parliamentary committee and mislead that committee. Important issues are raised, and issues are worked through methodically, usually with a brief from a minister.

I said before I have high regard for the members of this House, and all of the Australian people also have my respect. That is why, when I stand in this House and talk about these issues, I know that my colleagues on both sides of the House and in the Senate have closely looked at this issue, and they came up with a recommendation on the part of the parliament.

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bipartisan.

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

It was a bipartisan statement, and that bipartisan statement said, ‘This should be removed; this part of the legislation should be repealed.’ They did not do it lightly. Last night, the member for Hughes listed all of the people that the migration committee spoke to and she acknowledged the interests and exchanges that she had as a member of parliament on that committee in coming to the position that she came to—out of the experience of speaking to the people that this either directly or indirectly affected.

It is a process of the parliament that that committee report was picked up by this government and brought into this House for legislative change. Members of this House, I feel like I am standing on solid ground because I am standing on that committee report. My personal feelings on this issue are probably well known by all, but this legislation has come out of sincere hard work and deliberation by a committee of this House, and it decided on all reasonable terms that this is the right way to go on this issue—Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning.

I do not have to go through the arguments, because I sat here when Peter Costello stood in this House just the other week and, to the applause of the chamber, told us just how important it is to be a parliamentarian, each individual; the responsibilities we have to the nation; and how this parliamentary process is important. We have been reminded recently that we are one of the oldest democracies and we have been reminded that, among all of the blessings of this nation, we have stable government. We saw the government change in this nation without one shot being fired and with hardly a word in anger. This is where we have our word in anger; this is where we confront the issues of the day.

That is why I stand today to support the government on this issue. I do not expect all of my colleagues to agree with me on any issue that comes up. But, on this issue, I have form; I will admit that. I have form, and I have never been more proud of that form or of those who walk with me on that road. There have to be some that will stand up for the most vulnerable in our community and consider their position, whoever they are, and the fact that they are Australians, however they have come to contribute to this House. So there is a reason why I remember everything that has happened to me in this place and who I have walked with and where we will go together. But most of all I am here today to see this legislation go through. I will watch it go through the Senate. And I will see people, Australians, relieved of a burden that should never, in the history of this nation, have been placed on them in the first place.

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

The salient point that I was making yesterday in my speech on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 is this: the government and some coalition dissenters think it appropriate to waive debt and extend outrageous privileges to people who have bypassed the orderly refugee process and have entered Australia illegally but that makes it extremely difficult for the people who do the right thing in their attempts to join family members who have become outstanding, proud Australian citizens. Interestingly, when the critics in our community complained to me about the Howard government’s treatment of illegal entrants into our country, not one of them took up my suggestion that they practise the courage of their convictions by filling out the appropriate forms and putting up their own money to sponsor these law-breakers.

The previous speaker, the member for McMillan, made a very significant contribution. Whilst I respect my parliamentary colleagues’ right to exercise their individual choice of support or dissent, which may be opposite to the majority view of our great democratic party, I do not necessarily agree with him. But I am also mindful of the right to do so, which is the strength of the Liberal Party of which they are part. I commend the previous speaker, my parliamentary colleague, for his strong stand on the basis of the principles and integrity that he has practised throughout his whole political career. Whilst, as I said, I do not necessarily agree with some of his views from time to time, I respect his right to not only stand up for what he believes in but do so in the manner in which he did. I thank the parliament for allowing me to conclude the contribution I started yesterday.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin my contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 by making two points which shape my view. The first is that this is an amendment to the Migration Act 1958 to remove the requirement that certain persons held in detention are liable for their cost of detention. Importantly, this excludes people smugglers and illegal fishers, who will still be liable for costs of detention and removal. So the minister may determine the amount people smugglers and illegal fishers will be charged and it cannot be more than the actual cost. I start with that point because I have listened closely to the debate and there have been references to people smugglers and illegal fishers. This amendment very much excludes those involved in those illegal acts and therefore any reference to people smugglers or illegal fishers is misleading and is being used to mislead and send incorrect messages.

The second point that shapes my view is in relation to debt collection. Any family or business in Australia when seeking to collect debts does their best to do so. But a strike rate of failure to collect debts of 97.5 per cent would send a message, I think, to every family and every business in this country that this policy is failing. It is a policy that is not hard in the paradigm that I have been hearing of hard versus soft; it is a policy that is failing within a paradigm of successful, considered policy versus ill-thought-through and failing policy.

It is that paradigm shift that I want people in this place to consider when they decide how they will vote in this debate. I have heard plenty of references to the messages of a softening of policy. I do not consider it hard policy that has seen a 97.5 per cent failure rate of debt collection. What I see is a stupid policy; a policy that is failing and that has been failing since it was introduced. If we are to have messages that are clear not only to the Australian nation but also to the potential people smugglers and illegal fishers, then I would hope the hard message is a policy that works, that is sensible and that has the unity of the nation in delivering a really clear strategic set of principles on how we deliver migration policy in this land.

What I see as those general underlying principles are, hopefully, a point of unity for everyone in this chamber. I see a migration policy that has places where we deal with people who arrive here legally or illegally—by whatever means they get here—swiftly, and sort out as quickly and as compassionately as we can, with as much justice as possible for all involved, who is in and who is out. Those who are in we try to get in as quickly as possible and provide a range of welcoming services to encourage them into being good, wholesome Australian citizens building a better country. Those who are out we deal with as compassionately and swiftly as possible and hopefully return them safely to the place they came from.

The story of migration policy over at least the last decade is a sordid one—and this is not a reference to one side of politics only. I think there are many lessons for all with regard to migration policy. There is a difference between real and sensible policy and flag-waving and sloganeering in migration policy—and the latter has got to stop. What we get is a worse Australia. In many cases we get broken Australians who have gone through an extraordinary process to legally qualify as Australians. We have people and politicians behaving badly, at times using sloganeering in migration policy to send messages of fear and messages that are simply incorrect as to how migration policy and how migration processes work within this land.

I do not agree with what I have heard as being the concerns with this policy. I think it is a sensible step forward. I do not see it as sending the wrong message—that it is in some way a softening of migration policy in this land. We had a debt collection scheme that had a 97.5 per cent failure rate. I think it is a cleaning up of what is an unsuccessful, ill-considered policy. It is actually a step forward in putting in place a strategy and an overall policy that deals with people quickly, compassionately and in the interests of building a better Australia.

I challenge some of those paradigms that we have heard in debate today. The sloganeering that this is somehow a softening of a somehow hard policy is wrong. If this is a paradigm that says rural Australians in particular have a hardline opinion on this, I think that is wrong as well. I represent a rural and regional electorate and I think the prevailing view when you get into a sensible discussion with people on this issue is that people want common sense, pragmatic policy to be produced by this place. They do not want the sloganeering. They do not want policy being used for political measures at the expense of good policy. I think we all have a role in this place to oblige that view and to do what we can to deliver the best policy outcomes. Then if there is a need for them to be explained within communities that is our role as local members of parliament—not to cash in on the political fear messages that can at times be used quite successfully in this very vexed area of migration policy.

I support the legislation. I hope it is part of a further reform package in which we start to see not only compassion and justice but also swift action in dealing with people no matter whether they are right or wrong or in or out with regard to being a future citizen of Australia. I hope this legislation is part of a suite of reforms whereby we start to see not just the hard messages from government. I do not think that is the problem as long as the hard messages of government are strategic, compassionate and just for all Australians—from the individuals who are involved in detention centres right through to people who have a very limited understanding of migration policy generally. I do not see a disconnect between those two if the government is delivering good sensible policy outcomes.

There are dangers in migration policy and one that we have seen exhibited again today is by all but four members of parliament. It is to the credit of those four members for holding the line on this issue. I think we are seeing once again the unfortunate side of parliamentary process, which is that the lesser policy outcome that is being argued for is what is perceived to be the greater priority. That is political sloganeering, positioning or however you want to define it; it is the ugly side of the political process.

Our job in this place is to deliver the best policy outcome. This legislation is a sensible policy change, because what has been in place since 1992 has been failing. I would ask those who are trying to argue differently to explain how a 95 per cent failure rate is somehow a hard, sensible policy for the future.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak briefly to the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, and I will be supporting it. I believe that many of the things that the member for Lyne just mentioned need to be considered, particularly in relation to the failed nature of the current policy, not only in economic terms but also in social terms. It has essentially failed. It has delivered wrong and quite inappropriate messages about what Australia is attempting to do with people who have come here from other nations and who have been placed in very adverse circumstances. So I will be supporting the legislation on those grounds.

I congratulate the members for Kooyong, Pearce, McMillan and Hughes for the position that they are taking. It is very important that our parliaments allow people with strong convictions to state those convictions and stand up for them. I understand all the ramifications for them within the parties and the party arrangements. I can see the logic that is built into those systems in a perverse sense, but I think there are times when members of the parties need to stand up for the principles and views that they actually believe in. I know that government will probably use this situation as some sort of wedge and say that the Leader of the Opposition has lost control of his people. I would suggest to the government that this is not an issue on which they should do that; this is an issue on which these people should feel support for what they believe in. If the government runs the line that this is all about Malcolm Turnbull losing control of his people, in the community’s eyes it will be to the detriment of the government. It is probably a shame that from time to time people within the government do not stand up for some of the principles that they believe in and that are tested in this parliament.

I heard the member for Hume, Alby Schultz, speaking on this legislation. Although I did not hear the first part of his speech, I do not think Alby will be voting in support of the amendment. I was pleased to hear him speak of the member for McMillan in the way in which he did. He actually recognised that we can have differences in this building and that those differences are quite valid and part of our democratic processes. We can respect one another even though we do not agree with one another on particular issues. I appreciate the point that he was making.

I see days like these as being quite special. I think one of the great failings of our Westminster system is that it is based on right and wrong, black and white, yes or no. That is a failing. We all get criticised about our voting patterns. In terms of the people within the parties, there should be a capacity for them to abstain if they do not agree with either side, or if they do not agree with some particular nonsense that is going on—as went on yesterday and has been going on all week from both sides—or if they want to cross the floor and vote for something they believe in.

I had a good friend in the state parliament who was within the National Party at the time and who left parliament because he felt that he was voting for things that he did not agree with. In the end, that became too much for him. It is a tribute to him that his principles overruled his political career. As I said, I congratulate the four members, who are in the chamber, on their position. I know that Petro is not standing again. I have admired his contributions. I have not always agreed with him and no doubt he has not agreed with me. But I know that he and the members for Hughes, Pearce and McMillan actually believe in what they say they believe in. It is not cast in some sort of party guernsey—the propaganda that comes out from time to time from all the major political parties.

On a slightly different note, I will make some comments about why people are coming here. Why are we debating a bill such as this? Why have we had to put in place some of the previous legislation that has failed? Some of the very obvious reasons are that, in the countries the people come from, there may well have been persecution, or there may well have been abject poverty or starvation. There could be a whole range of things that are driving people to leave their homes and, in a lot of cases, their families. During Refugee Week last week I went to a very nice luncheon in Armidale where there were people from a whole range of different backgrounds.

One of the issues that I would like to raise, and I raised it in Main Committee only last week, is in relation to the situation occurring in Zimbabwe. As we all know, there has been a despot running Zimbabwe for quite some time. There have been changes within the governmental structure in the last 12 months and there has been an incredible, economic catastrophe occurring within that nation.

Most of the developed countries are, in essence, penalising Zimbabwe because of the Mugabe factor. I have spoken to people who live in Zimbabwe or who have been in Zimbabwe in recent months, and they have been talking to people mainly from the Tsvangirai faction of the new government—the national unity government I think they call it. The plea being made is that we really should not ignore Zimbabwe in an economic or financial sense because, long term, Mugabe will use the fact that the economy maintains a collapsing shape as an instrument against the, what I call, ‘good forces’ in that particular country. There is a plea that Australia and other parts of the developed world should look to assist Zimbabwe. The plea from the Tsvangirai group in the national government is that if at all possible we should assist those people, otherwise this tragedy will just perpetuate itself, and what is a magnificent country in terms of people, scenery and agricultural production will continue to spiral downward.

The Sudan is another example of where there have been historical differences over many, many centuries between various tribes and religious groups. But one of the things that I have mentioned in this place before is that the Sudan has very, very fertile soils. I raise this issue because we are moving to a carbon economy, and I do not think anybody has taken into account what a carbon economy overlaid on our normal economy, particularly in terms of food production, will actually mean to people who are in dire circumstances in poor countries. I think we really need to examine some of those issues. The Sudan, for instance, has 100 million acres of very rich, black soils. It does not have a lot of rainfall but has similar rainfall to that around Narrabri in New South Wales, which is a little bit north of my electorate. The Sudan has similar soils to Australia and with Australian technologies, for instance, the country of Sudan could produce six times what Australia produces.

Many of us would think that countries in many parts of Africa are struggling with food production. The Sudan, irrespective of Zimbabwe, Botswana, Mozambique and other countries that are considered by others in the world to be dry land environments, has massive potential to produce food for itself. We tend, more often than not, to respond to a famine or a tragedy in a country by just sending over a boatload of food, which then collapses any domestic markets that may be operating within those particular countries. If you overlay a carbon economy on that as well, particularly in Australia’s sense where we are so far from these countries and include the carbon footprint costs of transporting food around the world, we really need to go back and have a close look at things.

Even the starch content of wheat, as the member for Pearce would know, is carbon. Who pays for that and at what price? Which economy does it work within? I do not know the answers to these sorts of things but I think we should at least have a close look at them. In conclusion—and I have spoken for longer than I intended to—I, again, announce my support for the amendments, and thank the government and recognise those in the opposition who are standing up for the principles that they believe in on this particular issue.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank the members for their contributions in this debate. I will take up the admonishment of the member for New England. I do not want to belabour the point of divisions in the coalition. I just want to recognise the particular contributions of the members for Kooyong, Pearce, Hughes and McMillan.

Only yesterday, I spoke to two visiting schools from my electorate, Auburn West Public School and Granville South Public School. I gave them the same message that I give to every school that comes to this parliament, which is that parliament is not just about question time and the rancour of the day, the exhibitionism and the attempts to get on top of one another. Parliament is based on a large degree of cooperation. People work through committee processes. The government of the day does not usually exercise its majority position. Both sides seek compromise and seek accommodation to get a majority report which has an effect on the government. That is an important part of the debate. It is a point that those four speakers clearly stressed.

The joint committee on migration matters gave serious consideration to these matters. It heard witnesses, listened to individuals and examined the realities. They did not come to the debate with rhetoric, scare tactics and a lack of information. So I want to very much recognise the contributions of those four members. Often in parliamentary life we do not agree with our party. If anyone says that they agree all the time, they are liars. But very rarely do we see people who have the courage to take that to its ultimate limit. I recognise their role in these matters.

I will not reiterate the nature of the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. We have been through that. Essentially, the bill seeks to clearly drive home that a fair and effective immigration detention policy and strong border security are not incompatible with fairness. I note, as I did a moment ago, that in introducing this legislation the government has accepted and acted upon the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Committee on Migration report of last December, the first of three reports from its current inquiry, Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning.

This resolution was unanimous—and I stress that it was unanimous. People who are now trying to disassociate themselves from it, run into the corner, hide away and say that they were not part of it could have—as done in this other report by that committee, Immigration detention in Australia: community based alternativesput in minority reports or put in dissenting comments. That did not happen. For people to come in here many months later and say that somehow they were not watching the game, they missed out on being part of it all or they have had second thoughts because new realities have emerged is absolutely ridiculous.

In making its unanimous recommendation, the committee commented on the administrative inefficiencies of the policy, noting that less than three per cent of the detention debt invoiced since 2004-05 has been collected. This was during the period of the previous government. The level of waivers and written-off debts has nothing to do with whether the Labor Party or the Liberal Party have been in government. It has been a reality throughout the time that this system has operated. Less than three per cent has been recovered. The reality is that the policy is ineffective. It is all right to say, ‘We’re going to look tough; we’re going to hold the line; we’re going to talk a lot of rhetoric on these issues.’ But the policy is ineffective—everyone knows that.

That committee—and I say again that it was unanimous—said:

The practice of applying detention charges would not appear to provide any substantial revenue or contribute in any way to offsetting the costs of the detention policy. Further, it is likely that the administrative costs outweigh or are approximately equal to debts recovered.

This conclusion is further supported by recent information. We note that in regard to the 2008-09 year the cost to the department of administering detention debts will be approximately $709,000. I heard one of the opposition members saying, ‘Oh, we’ll have some system that will not cost anything to collect money.’ That is preposterous. Realistically, people do not walk up and give you the money. We have to pursue it, and it costs money; it costs taxpayers money. This year, the cost for this year will be $709,000, and $477,000 has been recovered.

The joint committee also focused on the adverse impact of detention debt on those who either remained in Australia or who had connections to the country, citing concerns about:

… 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.

The following concerns were raised with the committee:

… 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 …

The committee made particular reference to the adverse impact detention debt often had on the mental health of former detainees, noting that the imposition of a significant debt often prolonged or exacerbated mental health problems. The committee referred to the limited earning capacity of many people on their release from detention, and the financial hardship that substantial debts caused.

I particularly note, as I did when introducing this bill last week, that unanimous recommendation 18 to repeal the liability for immigration detention costs had the support of all coalition members on the committee—most notably, the opposition immigration spokesperson, Dr Sharman Stone. I note that there was some suggestion from the members opposite that the member for Murray had not in fact endorsed the committee report. I think that I dealt with that earlier. I also wonder about the member for Murray’s interview on Sky News on 2 December 2008. When asked if she welcomed the report’s recommendations, the member for Murray said, ‘I do.’ That sounds like an endorsement as far as I am concerned. In the context of the unanimous and bipartisan recommendation of the committee, it is extremely disappointing that the opposition has decided to oppose the bill.

Much has been made of the fact that the detention debt was introduced by Labor in 1992. That is correct. But we are happy to acknowledge and act when a policy is not working. On any estimation, this policy has failed. The opposition may be content to stick with failed and punitive policies like detention debt and temporary protection visas, but this government is interested in good public policy, not the politics of scare mongering.

The opposition’s stated rationale for opposing the bill is simply not supported by fact. The bill does not represent a softening of Australia’s border security. Firstly, let us make it clear that the broader argument that there is any cause and effect relationship between the movement of asylum seekers and our domestic immigration policies is false. Dr Rosalind Richardson of Charles Sturt University has studied the issue—she has actually done some work on it. She interviewed asylum seekers and asked about these matters in a systemic way. She found that none of the people interviewed arrived in Australia with any detailed understanding of Australia’s immigration policies.

Secondly, while the opposition may prefer denial and obfuscation, the facts demonstrate that push factors are driving irregular movement to Australia. The majority—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know a bit about what is going on, my friend, when we turn to this argument by the opposition that the world is beautiful, there are no push factors and people are coming here simply because they understand our policy. Those of us who take some interest in world events know that in Sadr City 100 people were murdered in a bomb attack. We know that this week the Speaker of the Somalia Parliament has called for foreign intervention to protect them from foreign extremists. We appreciate, as I said last week, that the conclusion of the civil war in Sri Lanka means that there are enormous pressures for Tamil movement to this country. Only today, I received correspondence from the Tamil Federation of Australia appealing for help for three doctors who have been detained by the Sri Lankan government.

I notice that there was another bombing in Taza near Kirkuk the other week. There are estimates of 67 dead and 200 wounded. We are looking at Iran today. Surely the struggle over democracy in that country is going to have some impact in the long term. And that is not to deny the suppression of human rights over the last three decades there. Another speaker spoke about Morgan Tsvangirai. What happened in the last fortnight? He went to London and was booed down by expatriates there because of the failures of the coalition government. I do not lessen his effort, but that is the reality.

I had the opportunity last weekend during Refugee Week to go to Adelaide to hear an impressive young woman from Sierra Leone talk about not only why she came to this country but more importantly the continued suffering of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea. I also had the opportunity on the weekend to go to a Karen function. There are no push factors according to them; it is all to do with Australian law. The reality is that there has been a tax imposed on the Karen people over the last fortnight and hundreds of thousands are being forced to move. According to the opposition, there was nothing happening in the Swat Valley in the last few months. It has all been peaceful. There have been no attacks; there have been no people relocated. Quite frankly, if the lead spokesman over there says that we are unaware of the world’s realities, I say that there is a clear push factor in the number of boats coming to this country.

Another important point is that the irregular movements of people are not isolated to Australia. If it is about Australian laws, one would see a correlation between Australian demand and our laws. In actual fact, by world standards, despite the fact that one-third of those people who are refugee humanitarian claimants are in our part of the world, the numbers we are receiving are minimal. I refer to figures overseas: Europe had 330,000 claimants in the year 2008; 36,000 people arrived in Italy alone—and that is why Italy is negotiating with Libya and why Gaddafi was there the other week being welcomed and back-slapped by Prime Minister Berlusconi; 15,000 refugees arrived in Greece; and 13,000 arrived in Spain. Even Malta, under huge pressure on this matter, had 2,700 arrivals. You have heard those figures. The figure for Australia was 161 claimants in the same period.

The UNHCR report 2008 global trends: refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced and stateless persons shows there were 42 million people forcibly displaced around the world in 2008, including 15.2 million refugees. The UNHCR report shows that asylum claims increased worldwide by 28 per cent last year. There is supposedly no push factor; it is all about Australian law! They are the international figures. The United States received nearly 50,000 claimants, Canada received 35,000 and South Africa received 207,000. The UNHCR’s report demonstrates not only that 4,750 people seeking asylum in Australia in 2008 was relatively small in global terms but also that the increase in people seeking asylum in Australia is part of a worldwide trend driven by insecurity, persecution and conflict.

Australia is not immune from these trends. On the narrow argument put forward by the opposition, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the existence of detention debts is any sort of deterrent to unauthorised boat arrivals. This is in fact a totally illogical argument, soundly dismissed by the member for Hughes in the course of this debate. It has been a longstanding departmental policy, under both the former government and this government, that if a person is granted a protection visa or humanitarian visa, in keeping with the spirit of the UN convention the debt is written off and no further action is taken to recover the detention debt. In accordance with that policy, any detention debt raised by unauthorised boat arrivals who are subsequently granted a protection or humanitarian visa is not pursued—as I say, a policy decades long under both governments. Around 90 per cent of unauthorised boat arrivals whose claims were considered were granted protection visas. It is very difficult to see how a policy that does not apply to the vast majority of unauthorised boat people can act as any deterrent whatsoever.

I turn now to some of the points raised during the debate. It was very disappointing to listen to the member for Murray trying to justify a backflip on this issue. As has been mentioned numerous times in debate, as a member of the committee she endorsed the call for the abolition of detention debt. Now, without any proof or logic, she claims that the changes she supported are encouraging people smugglers. I would have thought she might have found that conclusion at the time. As I have just outlined, this is an argument defective in every respect. Yesterday the member claimed ‘the department should get its act together’ on administering detention debt. I am curious about this argument. Any private company acting in accordance with prudent financial management principles faced with this rate of recovery would have abandoned this program years ago. The member argued that the image of former detainees laden with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt being unable to move on with their lives was a furphy. The member obviously did not pay attention to evidence before the committee. The committee’s first report refers to two cases. The Refugee Action Committee reported the case of the accumulated debt for a family held in detention:

After six years in a detention centre and another three years living as a refugee in Melbourne, Hossein … an Iranian refugee, has been advised by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that he owes an amount of $200,000 which represents the cost of keeping his wife, daughter and son locked up in the Curtin Detention  Centre in Western Australia for three years.

The committee report also referred to a case highlighted by the Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma, which described a family who had been advised in the year ended June 2007 that their debt was more than $340,000. But that is apparently easy for them to manage—no problems. That does not sound like a furphy to me. We do not expect much from the member for Murray these days. The opposition spokesperson on immigration and citizenship has been eager to play politics with the immigration issue. The member infamously laid blame for the five deaths on the SIEV 36 within hours of the explosion on the government. I recognise that the Leader of the Opposition was not impressed with that argument and did not associate himself with it.

Not only does the member play politics but she continually gets facts wrong. It is hard to determine whether this is through incompetence or by design. The member has repeatedly made false claims about Labor cutting resources for border protection when in fact the Rudd Labor government has increased border security resources. The government announced a massive $1.3 billion package in this year’s budget to further strengthen Australia’s border protection and national security regime. The member for Murray will also explain to us why Christmas Island was being built in the first place if the then government’s policies were going to lead to nobody coming here and why that public money was expended when she knew that the policy was going to end because of their actions.

Of this $1.3 billion, $654 million is specifically dedicated to a whole-of-government strategy to combat people-smuggling. The federal budget provides $654 million of funding to (1) increase and extend our sea and aerial surveillance capacity, including two additional surveillance aircraft, and (2) strengthen Australia’s engagement with our regional partners and international organisations so we can work together to address this global problem. I note there the recent announcement of the extradition of a major people smuggler, who was hanging around having coffees in restaurants and cafes in Indonesia for who knows how many years under the previous government and who has now been brought back here. That is the result of the policy of cooperation with the Indonesian and other regional governments. Finally, that amount of money will go to strengthen our legal and prosecution capacity and enhance regional cooperation on people-smuggling laws.

But that is not all that the member for Murray gets wrong. She comments on the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s exercise of ministerial discretion, a thing close to the heart of the member for Berowra, a long-term campaigner for ministerial discretion. One day she is claiming the minister is ambivalent about exercising the powers; the next day she suggests he exercises the powers too often. Like most of what she has said today, it is very confused indeed. I am not sure where the member for Murray is getting her figures from but for the record in 2006-07, the last financial year of the previous government, the rate of approvals was 31 per cent. She might be surprised to know that for December 2007 to May 2009 there is a very interesting figure—31 per cent still. The member for Murray should aim for a bit of consistency. Yesterday the member was critical of the government’s announced changes to the 45-day rule, yet only a few months ago, when again sitting on that joint committee, the shadow immigration minister and another coalition member expressed concerns about a lack of access to work rights and Medicare. The member for Murray expressed concerns that we were not being liberal enough. She said:

I also share Danna’s concern about the employment situation, because a lot of the people on bridging visas who have health costs, in particular, are in a great deal of strife when it comes to being able to manage their own affairs. What are you doing about access to Medicare for health costs for people on bridging visas?

Later she said:

Evidence has been from both the NGOs and from the people on bridging visas themselves, and of course we do not have any ability to work out what numbers we are talking about …

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you have been ridiculed by a number of speakers in regard to your repudiation of your own report.

As I said earlier, it is difficult to determine whether the member’s inconsistency is symptomatic of incompetence or by design. Perhaps one or two backflips could be described as purely incompetent. Simple incompetence can generally be forgiven but not tolerated. However, the litany of misrepresentations, unexplained backflips and inflammatory statements outlined here, which have become the hallmark of the member, signal something far more troublesome. They signal three things. Firstly, it is a coalition without principles determined to use immigration policy for its own nefarious political purposes—nothing particularly new there. Secondly, it is a coalition without direction—nothing you couldn’t have read in every press report this week. Thirdly and most worryingly for the Australian public, they signal it is a coalition without any immigration policy other than the policy of division, a topic that those opposite are well versed in.

I want to briefly turn to one person who had the courage to stand totally behind the previous government. Firstly, I note the shadow spokesperson equivocates. She disassociates herself from some policies and then she crawls back, having put them forward. But the member for Mitchell was more courageous in this debate. He defended rigorously all the policies of the previous government. He justified, by implication and sometimes categorically, the detention of Cornelia Rau and that of Australian citizen Vivian Alvarez Solon and that of Tony Tran, the husband of an Australian citizen wrongfully detained for five years and assaulted while in detention. The Commonwealth Ombudsman identified, during this glorious decade-long policy position, 247 cases where people were detained who were ‘not unlawful’. The Rudd government are currently going through the process of compensating those people. We know that $311 million-plus was spent on the offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and on Manus Island. Despite the rhetoric of ‘we are going to decide who goes where’, we know that essentially in total 60 per cent of those people came to this country afterwards. I support the bill before the House. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.