Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I stand today to speak in favour of the motion that I have laid before the parliament, seconded by the member for Cook, the shadow minister for immigration. Can I just say at the beginning what a fantastic job the member for Cook has done and is doing in highlighting Labor’s failed approach to Australia’s border security. This motion very much concentrates on a direct consequence of Labor’s mismanagement of Australia’s borders—that is, the decision, the ambush announcement, by the Prime Minister on 18 October this year, a mere month ago, to establish a detention facility at Inverbrackie, in the Adelaide Hills.

I will just indulge the House briefly to step through the potted history of this decision and this announcement by the Prime Minister and her minister, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, on 18 October. On 17 October, the Prime Minister visited the Adelaide Hills, unbeknownst to the state Labor Premier—and anyone else, in fact—to have a photo opportunity for the beginning of the parliamentary sitting week. That was pretty unremarkable; prime ministers do that from time to time. They usually tell their Premier friends, particularly when they are of the same political colour, but on this occasion that did not happen. I think that has more to do with the next bit of the story than anything else.

On 17 October, that lovely Sunday in the Adelaide Hills, instead of consulting with the Adelaide Hills community or telling the Adelaide Hills community what was coming, the Prime Minister was silent. She did not say a word. She did not mention a thing. And then she came to this place the next day, some 1,300 or 1,400 kilometres away from the Adelaide Hills, and with her minister, just before question time, an hour after ringing the Premier of South Australia—in fact, she did not even ring the Premier of South Australia; she left that to her minister, thus the respect she has for Premier Mike Rann—with half an hour’s notice to the local mayor, she announced that the Inverbrackie defence housing would be turned into a detention facility for what they describe as a cohort of low-security asylum seekers.

That sent a massive shock wave through my community, so much so that an action group was formed. Members of the action group are here in parliament today. Five members of the action group have come at their own expense to parliament today to make the point that they should be listened to. And that is exactly what this motion seeks to do: force this government to do what it should have done in the first place, and that is listen to the people of Woodside and the Adelaide Hills.

Since that time, we have had all these mealy-mouthed suggestions that there are consultations going on. There has been an advisory group established that meets once a week, with a couple of locals on it. There has been a visit by the minister, which was comic in its outcome, where he visited the Adelaide Hills to consult. He went to Inverbrackie in the dark of night to do a tour but actually failed to get to Woodside. He could not quite get the extra three kilometres down the road, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you know just how close that is and how ridiculous it was of the minister to fail to get to Woodside on that day. Instead, he had a meeting with a hand-picked group of five or six locals and the local council to tell them what the government had already decided. I think that speaks volumes of the way that this government has handled this process. It has been a disgrace.

Since that time, of course, we have had the Prime Minister visit Adelaide to go to the new Adelaide Oval grandstand. She was able to get there, but she was not able to get 40 minutes up the hill to visit the people of Woodside. It is a great honour to have five of those people in the gallery today, trying to get this government to listen, trying to get this government to support this—I think—very worthwhile motion, which would see the Joint Standing Committee on Migration have a look at the issues in relation to the decision by this government.

I know the next speaker on the list for this debate, the member for Hindmarsh, is a great advocate of community consultation. I remember many occasions on which he, when it came to the issue of noise around Adelaide Airport, was on Adelaide radio saying endlessly that the community should be consulted. I am sure that in his remarks the member for Hindmarsh will acknowledge the fact that communities should be consulted when decisions like this are made. But, unfortunately, in this case the government has not seen it right to consult with the community, which is going to be affected so greatly by this decision.

The response we have had from the Labor ministers and the Labor government has been remarkable. You had the Minister for Trade, the clown, jester of the parliament, on TV with the member for Cook debating this issue and accusing the locals of being hysterical. So it seems that before the election, when the Prime Minister was trying to cultivate those who are worried about this issue because she has completely lost control of Australia’s borders, it was okay to express concerns about this issue. But after the election, according to the Minister for Trade, these people are ‘hysterical’. It is just not good enough. Now, today, we have had the great snub by the Prime Minister. Five locals have given up their time and money to fly to Canberra because the Prime Minister would not go to them. They have come to see the Prime Minister and there was an indication on Friday that she would see the locals from Woodside. Then, this morning, we had a phone call to say that she will not see them—after it was reported in the Advertiser and after the suggestion was made in the Advertiser that she would see them to calm their nerves. She has now deliberately snubbed them. It is just not good enough and the parliament should not stand for it. In this new parliament, with its new paradigm of openness and of letting the sun shine in over the parliament, it should shine in this Thursday morning when this motion is put to a vote. We should support this motion because it is a good one. It is a motion that the government should itself move. It is a motion about talking to people. Last week we spent a lot of time talking about a motion to talk to people, and we would expect that the Greens, given that they moved that motion last week, and the government supported it, would understand the very need for this motion here today.

The people of the Adelaide Hills are suffering under the direct consequences of decisions made by this government, because they have lost control of Australia’s borders. Every day Labor sets a new record on boat arrivals, and that is a point that has been very well made by the shadow minister for immigration. This is an issue that the government has lost control of and the consequences will be felt very much by my community. The motion very simply asks for the Joint Standing Committee on Migration to inquire into whether or not this is a suitable site to locate a detention facility for family groups. The impacts of the operation of this facility on the local community, including health, education, recreation, transport, police and community services are issues. These are questions that they would have liked to ask the Prime Minister, but she will not meet with them. She refuses to see them. The Adelaide Hills is a good enough location for a photo opportunity, but it is not good enough to talk to the locals when she is up there. We hear in the Adelaide media that the Prime Minister is going to spend Christmas in Adelaide. So we are hoping that over Christmas at the Woodside pub on Boxing Day watching the first ball of the Boxing Day test she can come out and sit down with the locals and work through these issues with them. Before she rushes ahead with this centre she should answer some of these questions.

I say again: I know the member for Hindmarsh is the next speaker and he has been long and loud on community consultation when it come to airport noise. I would hope that the member for Hindmarsh does not now back away from his view that the community should be listened to when it comes to the impacts on their community. I am sure he will not. His former employer was in the paper not a month ago—some of us have got staff connections, but we do not always go into that. The member for Hindmarsh does have a history with Nick Bolkus, a former Labor immigration minister, and the member for Hindmarsh, as a good man, will recognise that Nick Bolkus said that this was not the right place to have an immigration facility. He refused it. He said no to the department when they recommended it, and this government should say no again.

This motion should be supported because it does what the government should have done in the first place. They should have listened to this community. They should still listen to this community. They should answer the questions which are so relevant to this community about the impact on it—about the impact on their school services, their health services, their security and the so-called economic benefits we keep hearing about. This government should listen. This Prime Minister should show some courage. She should front up and talk to these people before it is too late. This motion should be supported. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I regret that we have an issue here that is not being treated by the opposition with the seriousness that it deserves, and it is a serious issue. One might have thought that they could have made a valuable contribution towards the consultations, towards the department of immigration’s management of operations on the ground and especially towards the government’s existing and ongoing consultation with the local community groups, representatives and residents. Yes, I am all for consultation, as the member said. I always have been when it comes to issues in my electorate, and I am sure the member for Mayo is doing the same in his electorate. Regrettably, though, we see in this motion the same kind of fishing expedition that we have seen in other opposition motions to form investigative committees which are nothing but fishing expeditions for political purposes and will not contribute towards a positive outcome.

I would like to refer to the member’s motion. It calls for an investigation into the suitability of the site, but by what criteria? Where are the criteria? There are none. What is the impact on the local community, the economy and small businesses? The department will be increasing economic activity, we hear. We already know this. This increase is said to be good for the coffers of local businesses, so that question is answered. With regard to the cost and level of services to be provided at the facility, how does the member think this information will be sourced? How does he think that a committee will dig out this information? They would ask the minister and the department. That is the obvious course of action. They would ask a question and, if that is all they would do, I do not know why you would need a committee for this purpose. Just ask the question and be done with it, and do not waste our time. It would be a similar situation to seek information on potential risks, although what risks the member is referring to I do not know.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Morrison interjecting

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

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

Order! The honourable members for Cook and Mayo will cease interjecting.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member’s motion requests public hearings in the Onkaparinga Valley. We are already doing this. Sorry; you are only catching up. The minister has already been on the ground, inspecting the site, consulting with local representatives and establishing communications, issue identification and problem-solving arrangements. The minister has already met with people in an initial series of stakeholder meetings and announced the creation of the position of community liaison officer. He has also set up the community reference group, which is already meeting.

The motion calls on the would-be committee to undertake public hearings. The government has already gone one better than that. The community could have a group of Liberal backbenchers swanning around the beautiful Onkaparinga Valley, looking for someone to talk to, because that is what they will be doing. We already have the minister himself speaking at a forum on Wednesday, 24 November—that is, in two days time.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When was it announced?

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

Order! The honourable member for Mayo had his turn a moment ago.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What would the community prefer? Would it prefer the Liberal backbench committee getting over there some time over the summer or the minister in two days time? And, yes, matters concerning education, health services, fire safety, security, jobs and other issues are expected to be discussed, and there should be consultations.

I am suggesting that the government, through the minister, is well on top of everything that this member is calling for in his motion. It has already happened, is continuing to happen or is happening. The motion does nothing but waste backbenchers’ time—even though I am sure they would all be most welcome in South Australia over the December-January period, regardless. I encourage them to pop in and try some of the wine at Bird in the Hand, just up the road from the area we are discussing. We have lots of great spots, which all the backbenchers, and ministers for that matter, would be most welcome to visit.

There is a more serious issue in this and I am concerned not by this motion per se about the consultation but by what this type of grandstanding may be doing in the community. We heard on the weekend of the distribution of highly negative material—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

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

Order! The member for Mayo.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

being distributed in the Adelaide Hills—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

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

The member for Mayo should not ignore the chair.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by a political group calling on people to take action. I assume that is action against the facility and all people connected to it.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

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

I warn the honourable member for Mayo!

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This was reported on the weekend on radio, it was reported in print and it was reported on TV news. I am concerned that upstanding members of the community, people who were raising legitimate concerns, seeking information, as they are all entitled to do, are going to be tarred with an extremist brush. That is serious. I certainly hope that the member himself is not encouraging those reactions to what the government is doing. I am sure he is not. But I hope he does not encourage this extremism, especially where it is negative, destructive and against the law. I am sure he is not. I would suggest that the opposition reflect on matters at hand with a cool head. I would suggest that they lead by encouraging calmness and rational thought and not inflame the situation. That is what we do not want to see, the stuff we saw on TV this weekend.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

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

The honourable member for Mayo will cease interjecting, otherwise I will ask him to leave the Main Committee for 15 minutes.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be more than happy to discuss my experiences in my area within South Australia because there was wave after wave of migrants of non-English-speaking people coming in and residing, studying and working in and around Adelaide’s western suburbs. This is a phenomenon that has happened for the better part of half a century in the electorate of Hindmarsh. It was evident when I was a child. I was the son of people who migrated as newcomers to this country. I attended school at Cowandilla Primary School and every week it had loads of people enrolling at school that could not speak a word of English, that were brand-new arrivals. And this is continuing today at Cowandilla Primary School.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s this got to do with consultation?

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an example of how it does work. I was one of those kids that was brought up in that environment. Subsequent decades brought more waves of migrants. They brought the Vietnamese, they brought a whole range of people from all over the world, wave after wave. As I said, Cowandilla, my own primary school, continues to have enrolments of kids from non-English-speaking backgrounds. The enrolment is 338 and 231 are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, there are 22 Aboriginal enrolments and nine new rival program classes are run per week.

I understand the logic of the people of the Woodside area that new challenges will diminish the resources and energy that can be applied to the existing challenges, but the fact of the matter is that in Cowandilla’s case we coped. More than that, as I have indicated, we actually thrived. This issue is different, of course. With the department of immigration, there will be additional support, additional resources, and additional education personnel and the like. They will be picking up the tab as well.

In terms of the area and the impact on the area, migration has been a blessing in this country. Adelaide’s western suburbs were great when I was growing up. If you want a window into the past, have a quick look at my maiden speech and how much the place has changed over time. It is an even better area now: it is more diverse, more interesting and more enjoyable because of the people there and the different cultures, experiences and perspectives that they give our community.

So I encourage the member for Mayo to be positive and to try and create a positive atmosphere out of it and at the same time do all that we can to consult with the community and ensure that these fears are erased. Your community leaders have already met with the minister; communication is open. I encourage people to express their views with the minister over time. They are there to resolve these issues with a cool head with the department of immigration and the minister. I acknowledge that this is a change but all I can talk about is my experiences and it is likely to be positive change socially and economically.

The opposition’s reflex opposition to this government’s initiative is exactly identical to their opposition to other government initiatives. It is a tactic which is repeated week after week to frustrate anything that the government is doing. I cannot support their tactic and their hypocrisy on this obstructionism that they embody.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a government that is in panic, and it is in panic because of its own failed policies.

Labor want to turn this into a race debate. We just saw that then from the member for Hindmarsh, turning this into a debate about immigration when this debate today is about an arrogant government flailing from their own policy failures and forcing a decision on a local community. I welcome those in the gallery today from the community of Woodside who out of their own pockets have come to get what they could not get in Woodside—meetings with the government and particularly a meeting with the Prime Minister. I note today that the Prime Minister has scurried away, despite the fact that she has been in Adelaide on numerous occasions and could have met with the good people of Woodside but has refused to.

This government needs to face up to its own failures. The people of Woodside are not only standing up for their community but I believe they are standing up for people around the country, because this will not be the last set of beds opened by this government in the detention network. There have been some 1,800 to 1,900 people who have arrived illegally by boat since the election. The government have announced around 3,000 new beds and they will be exhausted in very short order. So the processes established by which this government arrogantly and in a panic imposes these matters on people in our community is a matter that is worthy of debate.

Where the government has failed to consult, the parliament should act. That is what this motion is about. The parliament should act. The parliament should call on the minister to come into the House of Representatives this week and give a statement on the broader failures of this government that have led to this situation occurring in the first place. But the government should also agree to the motion put forward by the member for Mayo that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which is a bipartisan committee representing members from all over this parliament, including formerly the member for Melbourne Ports, who is sitting opposite here today and who did work on that committee. It is chaired by a government member and includes members from the Greens, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the Senate and the House. This is a committee that can go and do what the government failed to do, and that is to talk to the people of Woodside—to go and hear what their concerns are.

When I was in Woodside recently—and those in the government did their usual thing of trying to accuse the coalition of being racists, basically, in considering the legitimate concerns of people in the community—these were some of the concerns put to me: they were concerned about the future of the Inverbrackie base and want an answer to that; they were concerned about the location of demountables on the school playground as a result of having to cater for additional students at the school, which will take away the play area for their children; they were concerned about whether there would be counsellors placed in the schools who would be able to address the concerns of parents and their children and who would deal with the inevitable situations that would arise from these matters; and they were concerned about bushfire risk and the lack of a plan—and I understand there is still the lack of a plan to deal with a catastrophic bushfire event—where you have 400 people in a centre in a very hazardous zone, none of whom can respond directly to any English directions. That is a concern that this government should be concerned about.

They were concerned that the alternative uses of this facility for supported accommodation for people with disabilities had not been assessed or considered. The need for social housing in this community—and there are quite a number of people in the Adelaide Hills in need of this, I am told—was also ignored. The potential for this facility to be used as a women’s refuge for women who are fleeing domestic violence was also discounted. There were concerns that the $10 million that is going to be spent on this facility could be better spent on the Mount Barker hospital. People were concerned that the site was chosen without any discussion about what the alternative sites were other than in this facility, and that remains the issue. We do not know what the alternatives were; the government will not release the list of alternatives. They are not prepared to stump up and explain their decisions to this community.

This community was also concerned about access to health services and whether there would be a two-tiered health service in Inverbrackie and Woodside: a substandard service for those who live in Woodside and the Adelaide Hills and another standard for those who will be detained as part of the Inverbrackie detention centre. These are very legitimate and reasonable concerns. This motion put forward by the member for Mayo, who I commend for his advocacy in this parliament on behalf his community, is simply designed to give people a say and to force this government not simply and arrogantly to impose decisions on a community. It is because of their failures, and let us not forget that they are their failures that have created the need for this facility. More beds and a never-never solution in East Timor are no solution. What this government needs is to put a real solution on the table for their border protection failures. The minister should come into the House this week before the parliament rises and stump up with his plan. I am ready to put mine forward and the people of Australia can decide. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I come to this debate with some background in what it is like to grow up in a community which has been, over many generations, the beneficiary of people who have come to our country with a suitcase full of photos and a heart full of hope in search of refuge from wars and persecution. They have come to a community which has, on the whole, received them with open arms and benefited from the great contribution they have made to our community in the Illawarra and the greater Throsby region.

I agree with some of the comments that were made by members opposite that there is a need for a debate on immigration in this country, that there is a need for a debate around refugees in this country, but that debate should be based on facts. It is a debate which should be cognisant of the fact that we live in a region which is beset by international turmoil, by wars and by dislocated populations. It should be cognisant of the fact that, as the UNHCR has reported, there has been an overall increase in the number of displaced persons in the world, in our region—by over 12 per cent between the years 2007 and 2008 alone. Indeed, over 35 million people are believed to be displaced. We have an obligation as a community to deal, in a responsible way and with regional solutions, with the plight of unfortunate people who are being displaced in our region. We do need a debate on how, in this country and this region, we deal with those problems. We need a debate which is cognisant of the fact that the majority of people who are in our detention centres at the moment did not come by boat. You could be forgiven, if you listened to the rhetoric and the debate of those opposite, for thinking that the majority of people have come to us by boat. They have not come by boat; they have come by plane, with valid visas. After arriving in a plane, with a valid visa, they have sought asylum or refuge. That is what led them into a detention centre. The motion we are debating is yet more of the politics of fear from the member for Mayo and the coalition.

Prior to the election campaign, the Prime Minister proposed seeking a long-term solution, a bipartisan solution, to deal with asylum seekers and to end the politics of fear and division that the coalition has been practising.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this related to the motion?

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo asks me how it is related. I sat through and listened to the speech by the shadow immigration spokesperson, the member for Cook, and I am sure other members in this chamber would be forgiven for being confused as to whether this was a debate about a particular site in Inverbrackie or whether it was a debate about immigration policy.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was all red faced. He had a red face.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was red-faced rhetoric; that is right. It was a debate which was an opportunity for him to spread more of the politics of fear and confusion. We are seeing that as a result of this motion. The coalition has to come clean on whether it opposes the housing of families and children in community based accommodation or whether it wants these families to remain in detention centres. And that goes to the nub of the proposition. Do the opposition want these people to remain in detention centres or do they want them to be in community based facilities? There was a bipartisan position from 2005 that it would be better for women and children not to be in long-term detention centres but to be in more community based facilities. But we see through this episode perhaps a reversal of that bipartisan position.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Danby interjecting

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. Having received a full briefing from the department, it is reprehensible for the member for Mayo to continue to spread fear and misinformation in his community and to seek to exploit the fears for some political advantage. Holding an inquiry, as the member is proposing, would simply be another stunt to stir up community concerns. Any genuine concerns that the community may have are being dealt with systematically by the department and by the minister, and that is indeed the appropriate way for those concerns to be dealt with. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo’s motion is full of common sense, and sadly it is required, as the Labor government continues to make ill-conceived decisions which show their lack of concern for the welfare of communities and for people within Australia. Their lack of planning and consultation can be shown in the latest announcement of a detention centre at Inverbrackie in South Australia. Concerned community residents have formed a group called the Woodside Community Action Group and they were here earlier today. They are worried about the severe ramifications that this centre will have on this community unless serious action is taken. Community groups in the area are calling the government sneaky and untrusting and the groups believe the government are not capable of thinking through the consequences that could affect the fabric of the community.

On 18 October 2010, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced a $9.7 million detention facility which would accommodate 400 people, consisting of family groups who are undergoing refugee status assessment. But the government did not consult with the community around the proposed detention centre when making their plans. Neither did they consult the state government of South Australia or the Adelaide Hills Council. The Prime Minister did not even mention the plan when she visited the Adelaide Hills on Sunday, 17 October, the very day before the announcement was made. The government only consulted the Department of Defence.

The government’s lack of concern for the community was shown in a radio interview with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, on Friday, 22 October 2010. When he was asked whether the final decision had been made and if the community was now expected to simply accept the plans, Mr Bowen answered:

… we’ve made a decision that this is an appropriate site. We’re more than happy to sit down with the local community and sort through their concerns but we’re implementing the decision that’s been made.

The minister went on to confirm that the government did not have concern for the community with the following statement:

I understand people’s concerns but at the end of the day this is of course a Commonwealth responsibility to make sure that people are accommodated. It’s Commonwealth land and it’s land which is very suitable for this purpose.

In other words, the land belongs to the government and they will do whatever they like with it without concern for those living in the area or the local governments in place.

Where is the detailed plan for this centre? It has been announced that detainees will be low-risk clients who were assessed for their suitability for placement while on Christmas Island and other places, but it does not give any other details. What ages will they be? All the government have said is that families will arrive. What will be the impact on local health services, education, recreation, transport, police and other community services? There are no concrete answers to these questions, which shows a lack of planning by the government. The government do not even have a plan for the duration of the facility’s usage. It has been said that Inverbrackie is intended to be a medium- to long-term facility but that detention facilities are always driven by the number of people who need to be detained.

Has the government thought through any of these questions or are they simply doing what they want to do because it suits them? A further inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration should be undertaken as a matter of priority for a government which has clearly failed to gain community support, come up with a detailed plan and fully assess the issues and concerns of the community involved.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been called late into this debate and am pleased to take part as a former chairman of the parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The opposition has made this motion, which claims that the government has not consulted on the development of this centre, into a political issue that is not based on fact. The brief I received from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship indicates that he has met a number of times with people from Woodside and that Woodside residents are going to have further opportunities to meet with him. As the member for Hindmarsh said earlier when he was in the chair, the mayors of the local area will also be meeting with him on Wednesday, 24 November.

This motion needs to be seen in a wider context. The real issue is not some faux concern about consultation. It is another attempt by the opposition to use its old faithful political weapon: hysteria about unauthorised boat arrivals. Debates surrounding unauthorised boat arrivals in this country have had many low points, but some of the worst occurred during the recent election campaign. We all remember the opposition’s extraordinary ads with red arrows pointing at hordes of people coming from Asia and the Middle East to our shores. Who can forget the overblown rhetoric of the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, that Australia is suffering a ‘passive invasion’? We have 13½ thousand people who are part of an authorised refugee program, and that overall number is not altered. Those who come by boat—there are no extra people who become refugees—are but part of that small segment of our migration program.

The debate descended into the downright bizarre when the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, suggested that he would establish a ‘boat phone’ to turn boats back. Of course, he would not do that. We all know that the rhetoric of the member for Warringah is worse than what he would actually do. He would not drag women and children back out to sea. But slogans and publicity stunts are what we have come to expect of the opposition, rather than measured and sensible responses to the issues facing our country.

The government is developing a policy response to this issue that is focused on regional engagement. We will only be able to successfully manage this issue of unauthorised arrivals by working with our neighbours—those countries through which the vast majority of unauthorised arrivals transit. This policy will not necessarily be a quick fix, but it will achieve a lasting result. As I said previously, every person who is seriously involved in the asylum seeker issue knows that the central issue is what happens in Indonesia. The government in Indonesia is democratic and the best friend Australia has ever had. Indonesia has an excellent President and an excellent foreign minister. The possible passage by the Indonesian parliament of legislation giving sentences to people smugglers is much more germane to people in Adelaide who are upset about unauthorised arrivals than is this hysterical motion.

We also must remember the context. Around the world approximately 42 million people were forcibly displaced as a result of conflict during 2009. Developing countries host 80 per cent of the world’s refugees. Australia received 6,170 unauthorised arrivals in 2009, which is 1.6 per cent of the world total. Please, let us place this debate in some context. As I said, we had 13½ thousand asylum seekers in our humanitarian program. The people who come as unauthorised arrivals are subtracted from that 13½ thousand, so there are no extra people coming to Australia—something I hope the member for Mayo and the member for Cook point out to people in the Adelaide Hills.

I cannot understand the opposition’s policy on this. I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration when the shadow minister for migration, the member for Murray, voted in 2009 at the committee for asylum seekers to be treated more humanely and more rationally. She voted for that policy. That was the time when the opposition ought to have been up there demanding any changes they wanted to make to our migration policy, to the way we receive asylum seekers, rather than making people hysterical for political purposes during an election and when we actually have to deal with a group of asylum seekers who need to be housed in a particular centre in Adelaide.

Our policy is about ensuring that Australia retains its rightful role of welcoming a reasonable number of the world’s refugees while maintaining the security of our borders. Our policies will achieve this; cheap slogans will not.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.