Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are 18,153 houses available for Defence families right now—15,770 of them are owned or leased by the Defence Housing Authority or DHA, and 2,383 were owned by the Department of Defence as at Halloween last year, 31 October. Of the 2,383 houses owned by the department, 20 per cent or 446 are not being used to house Defence families. They are either vacant, being renovated or being used for other purposes. It may come as a surprise to the people of this nation but those purposes now include housing irregular maritime arrivals—boat people, those seeking refugee status. Indeed, 81 of the Defence houses in Inverbrackie in South Australia are being used for this purpose. This motion therefore calls on the government now, today, to cease using Defence houses as an immigration detention facility, to hand over all house management to the Defence Housing Authority and to state categorically, without equivocation, that Defence houses will be used for Defence personnel, their spouses, families and children and not as detention facilities for the ever increasing number of IMAs.

By way of history, it is a statement of fact that during the 2010 federal election a ministerial submission from the Department of Defence to the then Minister for Defence outlined plans to shift Defence families from their homes in order to house those seeking asylum, or IMAs. The letter was obtained by the Australian newspaper. The submission went into significant detail about how this might be accomplished and included time lines, costs and the proposal to transfer Defence land to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Reports suggested that 162 Defence members and their families would have to move to inferior housing to make way for those seeking asylum at Darwin’s Berrimah Defence establishment. Clearly, and as was to be expected, this was later refuted by the government.

The government, in shock and denial, said the proposal came from the Department of Defence. It is clearly obvious to even the most casual observer of such matters that the Department of Defence would be the last to propose such an idea without ministerial authority. It is ludicrous and indeed misleading to suggest otherwise. Many have tried in the past to persuade Defence to give up or otherwise sell off surplus land or assets, and those people will testify quite clearly that it is like pushing a very large rock uphill. To think for one moment that Defence would voluntarily suggest that it would give up its land to another department is simply fooling ourselves and treating the Australian people like mugs. The Labor government’s defence on the matter during the election campaign was similarly weak. It failed to categorically rule out the prospect of ever using any more Defence housing for accommodating asylum seekers.

I could go on, but let me put on the record, clearly and unequivocally, for the Australian people: the coalition will not move Defence families from their homes in order to house those seeking asylum. I cannot think of anything worse for Defence families and members, their children and their spouses—having already given so much to serve our land and its uniform—than having, in effect, to pay for the Labor government’s failed border protection policy by having to leave their homes. The coalition will not put up with it. We will not stand for it. We will fight assiduously against it.

It has long been said, with regard to managing our borders, that the coalition had a problem and created a solution—to the point where, on 24 November 2007, only four children were in detention. That number is now over 600, where the current government abandoned the solution and created a massive problem—pull factors that have now pulled over 200 boats and nearly 8,000 people to our shores seeking asylum.

The problem is getting bigger, and there is no solution. In the words of the Prime Minister, in a different life, maybe: ‘Another boat, another policy failure.’ Every day we hear that the Christmas Island detention facility is at or over capacity. Thousands more people seeking asylum are moved onshore and housed in motels, all at taxpayer expense. It was only a week ago that the Gillard Labor government said that an additional $290 million would be needed to fund its failed border protection policy, in addition to the $470 million already budgeted—almost $¾ billion for a problem they created. Can you imagine what $¾ billion could actually fund? It could almost fund half the levy this government is going to foist on the Australian population. By comparison, the coalition, in its last year of government, spent less than $100 million.

This is a failure of this government of the most categorical terms. Defence families, defence land and defence housing are now paying the price for that failure. Given that the Gillard Labor government seems quite unwilling to adopt the coalition’s highly successful border protection policies, measures now need to be taken to ensure that defence families are not left to pay for the failures of this government.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like Tampa.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is for this reason that I call on the Gillard Labor government to immediately provide a guarantee—immediately, member for Page—in this parliament to the people of this nation, to all defence personnel and to their families that they will not be required to move from their homes for the purposes of the accommodation of those seeking asylum. Members of the ADF and their families need that level of categorical assurance. They deserve that assurance from this government. After all, we do not know whether or not this policy is still being kicked around in the back halls of Russell Hill and in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

In the middle of last year, when the issue hit the radio waves, the ministerial submission went as far as to list possible sites in Western Australia and Victoria that may be suitable. In fact, none of them are suitable, but the plans were well developed. In July last year it was reported by senior Defence sources that plans were well advanced for Maygar Barracks in Broadmeadow, outside Melbourne, to accept irregular maritime arrivals. At that time a Defence spokesman said:

The government has repeatedly acknowledged that as part of its routine and prudent contingency planning, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has for some time been exploring additional temporary accommodation options to house families and vulnerable asylum-seekers.

If we cut through all the spin it is quite clear that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and, indeed, this government, knows it is running out of space to house those seeking asylum. They desperately need additional accommodation for the thousands and thousands now being brought to the mainland. If the boats keep coming—and I guarantee you they will, because there is no deterrent; only a massive policy framework that is acting as a magnet to pull them here—there is a very real prospect that this government will run out of options and will seek further defence houses to house those seeking asylum.

That is why this motion calls on the Gillard Labor government to transfer all defence housing stock management to Defence Housing Australia—transfer it all—because this government cannot be trusted to have over 2,300 defence houses that the minister can grab at will, whereas he cannot grab those houses that are currently being owned and run by DHA. The temptation must be removed from this bad government: 2,383 houses owned by Defence, 1,937 occupied, leaving 446 right now—20 per cent—that I am sure this government is eyeing warily and greedily to try to deal with the problem of those seeking asylum, which is getting out of control.

Currently 81 houses in Inverbrackie, South Australia, are being used for this purpose—defence houses being used as a detention centre. Clearly this is the thin end of the wedge. In a question on notice to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel on 17 November 2010, the minister was asked why the housing stock was not transferred from Defence to DHA. The answer was that ‘commercial arrangements did not allow for it’. The real answer, of course—and we all know it—is that if you hand it over to DHA, the Gillard government cannot get its grubby paws on it to use it for ulterior motives other than housing defence families. It is that simple.

The Department of Defence, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Materiel have recently been in the spotlight over a growing list of scandalous equipment problems that have developed on their watch. Most notable and most parlous is the state of the Royal Australian Navy, where there is no amphibious capability available right now. Can you imagine if Cyclone Yasi had struck Townsville or Cairns and an amphibious ship could not be launched? There would be no hospital facilities offshore, no helicopter facility offshore and no mass movement of transport and goods offshore. This is the state Defence has got into because of what this government has done to it. The last thing we need to do is compound the problems the department is dealing with because this government cannot continue to control its borders.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise tonight to speak against this motion by the member for Fadden because, text aside, this motion is not really about defence housing. It is a proxy debate. It is a base attempt by the opposition to play wedge politics and pit one section of the community against another. It is a continuation of the strategy we have seen from the coalition that has seen them propose stripping millions of dollars in funding to schools in Indonesia, which is against our national and economic security interests, against the future interests of thousands of Indonesian children and against the right thing to do.

This short-sighted approach to foreign aid and defence policy is truly gobsmacking because it overlooks the fact that we are a wealthy nation. It overlooks the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we can support those in need in Australia and we can support those in need in our region. It also overlooks the fact that poverty breeds terrorism. And what is the best way of eliminating poverty and the cycle of disadvantage? It is education. Education is the great empowerer. It opens up opportunities like nothing else. It builds self-esteem and it provides choice—not that this message is particularly dear to the coalition’s heart given its track record in education when it was in government.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Robert interjecting

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are hurt by that comment because you know it is true and the fact that this government has made the biggest investment in education in this country ever.

I would also like to use this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship for last week’s release of The people of Australia: Australia’s multicultural policy. The policy includes the following four key principles: that we as Australians will celebrate and value Australia’s cultural diversity within the broader aims of national unity; that we will strengthen the government’s commitment to social inclusion, social cohesion and responsive government services; that we welcome the trade and investment benefits of diversity, and these have been significant over the years and will be significant in the future; and that we promote the understanding and acceptance of cultural diversity while responding to attitudes and actions of intolerance and discrimination with strength. The policy also outlines rights and responsibilities that are enshrined in our citizenship pledge—loyalty to Australia and its people; the need to uphold our laws and democracy; and the need to respect our rights and liberties.

Tonight when I was on ABC24 I was asked by a journalist if we should have a debate about multiculturalism in this country. I believe we should have a debate and in the process celebrate the fact that we have been a great success in national cohesion. You only need to look at what is happening in Europe to compare how we have gone on multiculturalism. I think that is because most Australians are tolerant, and that is because we have managed our migration policy very carefully. We have not ghettoised populations. We have social cohesion and national cohesion. That is because it has been very carefully managed and because Australians are tolerant.

It is also, most importantly, because leadership has been shown on this issue over many years and by successive Liberal and Labor governments. The Prime Minister was today lauding the achievements of the Menzies government and also the Fraser government in showing leadership on this issue.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You missed the Howard government.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because I did not see much leadership happening there. That debate requires leadership to ensure that discussions are constructive, productive and acknowledge the significant contribution made by all Australians, no matter what our backgrounds are, because apart from our Indigenous brothers and sisters we are all migrants. My father’s family came out from China and Germany in the 1850s and my mother’s family came out from Ireland and Scotland in the late 1800s.

However, if members of the opposition had their way the debate would focus on the most base of propositions. Some have stated that Islam is a problem and, if reports out of shadow cabinet are to be believed, there is a genuine strategy and a genuine attempt to play to Islamophobia. I am glad that some in the opposition have the moral strength to stand against this and I would be keen to know the member’s thoughts on this matter. This is an attempt to play a very nasty game of politics in this House. It has nothing to do with Defence housing. It is not an attempt to show genuine leadership or to deal with genuine concerns.

I refuse to play this game. I do not agree that moving families to more appropriate accommodation is a soft option. I do not agree that showing compassion is the same as showing weakness. This is pure rhetoric. This is the most base of politics. No member of the Defence Force is without a home because of the decision to use some sites to accommodate asylum seekers. The Gillard government has a deep commitment to those men and women who serve in the Defence Force and it will not overlook the need for homes for defence personnel and their families. It is a government priority to house members of the Defence Force, and I have just been advised that we are building more Defence housing throughout the nation. It is coming on at a great speed, isn’t it?

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member has noted, Defence Housing Australia is the dedicated manager of housing for Defence Force personnel and their families. It is also important to note that they provide homes for the members and families of the Customs service office as well as for employees of the Maritime Safety Authority. However, the Department of Defence retains ownership of houses on military bases or in remote locations. Those houses intended for Defence Force personnel and their families are all managed by DHA.

Defence Housing has a very high standard for homes intended for defence families and it has come a long way since the days when my husband was an Army brat and his dad was in the Army in the sixties, seventies and early eighties. In the sixties things were pretty basic, and his family of eight—six kids, a mum and a dad—were often crammed into small houses with just a few rooms. I have seen some of those that still exist. They have now been extended and renovated and are up to scratch. Things are very different today. We have a number of friends in defence. Their housing has been incredibly comfortable and it gradually improves as they work their way up the ranks. They do not have any complaints about it except the usual complaints about bits and pieces here and there. Generally it is comfortable and decent. It is like an average suburban home. The places that do not meet this standard are handed back to Defence and those surplus to requirement are also handed back and are then refurbished or demolished.

The houses in Inverbrackie were found not to be suitable for DHA purposes; that is why they went back into the system. In the first instance, the housing was used for a community group and then, late last year, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced that the housing would be used to accommodate up to 400 low-risk asylum seeker family members. This announcement was in the context of the government expanding its residence determination program to move significant numbers of children and vulnerable family groups out of immigration detention facilities and into community based accommodation. I want to commend the government and the minister for this decision. I understand that by June-July this year the bulk of the 1,000 or so unaccompanied minors and vulnerable families will be moved out of detention. In making the decision on housing, the government made sure there would be no impact on defence families. Not one member of the Defence Force missed out on a home because of this decision—not one. All this information would have been available; it is easy to find out.

So I return to my original point: what is this motion actually about? I ask the member to come clean on what he really wants to do with this motion, because it is not about a lack of housing for defence personnel, it is not about a concern that Defence cannot manage housing or a challenge to the DHA over its management and it is not about any actual attempt take a home from a defence family. This is absolutely about wedge politics. This is absolutely about lowest common denominator politics.

I would love to live in a world where these sorts of measures were not needed; however, we do not live in such a world. Therefore, we must have an approach to this matter that protects our national sovereignty and meets our obligations to the international community. I believe that we as a nation are capable of showing compassion without showing weakness.

This motion is just glib. It does not address any actual problem, nor does it show leadership on this issue. I call upon the opposition to stop playing these games. I urge them to treat asylum seekers with some degree of compassion and not to look to score political points on what is a difficult and complex policy issue. That is why I am speaking against this motion.

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

I welcome this opportunity to comment on the very fine motion before the chamber. Having served a short 15 years in the Australian Army I am most familiar with Defence housing. There have always been issues with regard to Defence housing, and there have always been shortages at various times, which saw the temporary rental allowance come into it. That is something that has not been broached by the other side in the very limited and inexperienced way that their argument has been put.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

As I was saying before the suspension, there are a great many issues surrounding this motion. Whilst the government has told us that the 81 houses in Inverbrackie are surplus to requirements, we know that there are 490-odd houses around the country that are not currently being occupied. I wonder about the temporary rental allowance situation in these places. Are the people who could be in these Defence houses merely being pushed over to continue on the Defence budget bottom line by being given TRA when this Defence controlled housing is just being pushed over to the department of immigration? I wonder whether that is the case, because that certainly has not been made clear by the government at all.

Obviously a big part of the need for this motion comes from the pressure on Defence housing as a consequence of the government’s failed border protection policies. It only stands to reason that, when you break a working system of border control which then has the effect of encouraging more people to make a perilous journey by boat to Australia, you are then going to be faced with the question of what you are going to do with these people. More people come by boat and more people move to Christmas Island. When Christmas Island is overflowing in the manner it has been, what is the next step? Clearly this is the next step.

We need to look beyond Inverbrackie and ask: what is the government going to do with those 492 Defence houses that are unoccupied? The question I posed before is: what is the situation regarding TRA? Have Defence Force members been forced to go and look for their own housing using temporary rental allowance because houses that were available are just being shifted over to immigration, saving a bit on the immigration department’s bottom line and lifting a bit on the Defence bottom line?

I know and we all know that housing affordability in this country remains a concern for many of our citizens. I think a lot of people would be saying that, if there are Defence houses around, what is the government’s plan and why is the government not thinking about making them available to current Australian citizens? I know my colleague the member for Solomon has made this point on a number of occasions. What about the 400 houses in Darwin that are in this Defence owned category? Wouldn’t the right thing be to hand them over for rental to Australian citizens who are already doing it tough? I wonder if this is a matter of priorities. I wonder how much of the additional cost of the government’s failed border protection and immigration policies is being disguised in costs under the Defence portfolio by using the houses in Inverbrackie. What is the future for Defence owned houses? Defence Housing Authority stock cannot be touched by government but Defence housing is fully controlled by the department and can be diverted to other causes.

We know that there are an ever-increasing number of illegal boat arrivals and that Christmas Island has become massively overcrowded. The facility was originally designed to accommodate 750 people at most, but it has expanded and is currently housing around 2,700. The government, to try to cover its embarrassment and deal with the consequences of this failure, is looking to book out maybe some more entire hotels in various locations around the country to house people arriving illegally. We have even heard of people being housed in shipping containers in Darwin.

In Western Australia we know the government has been forced to shell out an estimated $5 million per year to house illegal arrivals at the former mining camp in Leonora. Of course, it needed to be upgraded—since the time it was occupied by miners—to make sure it was up to the relevant standard. When we look at the 1,500-person detention facility at Northam—a plan about which the government remained silent before the election in August last year—there was no consultation whatsoever before the decision was made.

We understand that ABC radio reports in Western Australia last week suggested work at Northam is running behind schedule and it looks like—even in this epitome of the government’s failure to control our borders—the government will not even be able to bring this in under budget or at least on time. However, the boats keep coming and the costs keep mounting.

In 2010-11 the government will spend more than $760 million on people arriving illegally to Australia. We recall that in 2007, at the time of the last government, the cost was about $100 million. It is estimated that every person who arrives illegally to this country by boat costs taxpayers around $150,000. None of that will be helped by the ‘East Timor solution’. That dead duck is not going to fly any time soon—it has certainly been roundly dismissed by the elected representatives of East Timor. It would probably be as successful as the citizens’ assembly that the former Deputy Prime Minister raised.

We had the opportunity back in 2007 when the detention system—the immigration and the border patrol system—was working. The boats had slowed to just about nothing. We had a functioning facility on Nauru that could have been used. This need by the government to co-opt defence housing for immigration is a demonstration of the failure of the border control system. Then there was the refusal to use Nauru, and it has been compounded the whole way along. The East Timorese Council of Ministers has rejected the plan for a regional detention centre and, whilst the government has allegedly drawn up a document for ongoing discussions, it really does not look like going anywhere. What a shame that is, given that we had Nauru as an option. There are so many opportunities that this government has dismissed for political expediency’s sake. The sorts of problems we face now and the waste of money that has epitomised the failure of border control have been so pointless. If the government had just left things as they were, none of this would have been required.

I recall that the previous speaker spoke about compassion. What I would say about compassion is this: when you take people coming off the boats and the priority begins to be those people, what about all the other people who are stuck in refugee camps who just have to wait a little longer or delay for another year, or maybe not even come at all? What about the people who do not have the money to pay the people-smugglers or to fly on commercial airlines to Malaysia and then see the people-smugglers? What about the people stuck behind the wire in refugee camps somewhere who do not have the money to jump the queue and come here illegally? They wait. That is not compassion; that is a disgrace. That is the problem with what the government has done over the last three years. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To help those in need, to extend compassion, and to be concerned for the unfortunate is what being a ‘mate’ is all about. But, in recent weeks, I fear that those opposite have stepped away from this. They have stepped away from a recognition that our nation is strongest when we help those in need. From Simpson and his donkey to the willingness of Queenslanders to help one another in the recent floods, there is nothing more Australian than helping someone in need.

We can have strong border security while showing compassion for those who seek to claim refuge in our great nation. Those opposite, for the sake of political gain, would have us believe that is not true. They seek to gain advantage from the misfortune of others. As Mike Carlton, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald and summing up a grubby week for the opposition, put it, ‘This is One Nation stuff with a Liberal Party blue ribbon wrapped around it.’

Let us make clear that the motion as moved by the member for Fadden is not about concern for the great men and women of the Australian Defence Force. As my colleague the member for Canberra has already made clear, Defence families are not worse off because of a decision to use some Defence properties to house asylum seekers, to allow children to gain an education while their families’ claim for refugee status is being assessed. Instead, this motion is about tapping the same vein that the shadow minister for immigration wanted his cabinet to tap: ‘Let’s make political capital from Muslim migrants,’ he told his colleagues.

Those opposite would well remember from their days on the Treasury benches that Defence Housing Australia hands back houses to the Department of Defence all the time. An assessment is regularly made to ensure that all homes available for Defence families meet the high standards set. If a DHA house does not meet that standard or is no longer needed, it is given back to Defence.

That is exactly what happened with the 50 or so houses used to house asylum seekers at Inverbrackie: 50 houses deemed unsuitable for Defence were put to use housing people seeking refuge in Australia. Those opposite would have us believe that no house owned either by Defence or by DHA should be put to a use other than to house Defence families. They take a very purist line on that in this motion. But they forget that, when they were in government, they rented DHA homes to non-Defence families. In 2003, the then minister responsible, in answer to a question on notice from the former Labor member for Cowan, Mr Graham Edwards, a man greatly missed in this place, informed the House that up to 862 DHA houses were being leased to private individuals—that is, 862 houses that one presumes met the high standard required by DHA for Defence family homes—yet those in the Liberal Party and the National Party voiced no objection at the time. I do not recall the mover of this motion stepping forward or his political forebears stepping forward to say that it was inappropriate then. But it is inappropriate now. Perhaps the rule is that it is okay to use Defence homes for non-defence personnel as long as they are Christian.

Those opposite well know that Defence families are not being disadvantaged by this decision. Indeed, they could learn a thing or two from the children at Inverbrackie, and perhaps those local children at Inverbrackie might help those in the Liberal and National parties find their compassion gene again. Jasmin Gallagher-Bohn, an 11 year-old living in Inverbrackie, was quoted in the local Hills and Valley Messenger on 16 November 2010 as wanting to help the refugees who would be settling in Inverbrackie. She told the Messenger, ‘It made me think about what happens to them (refugees) and how lucky we are.’

A story from Adelaide Now on 20 December 2010 recorded that schoolchildren in Inverbrackie were getting on well with their new classmates. Immigration officials were quoted as saying there were no major problems with resettlement in Inverbrackie. The director of Catholic welfare group Centacare Adelaide, Dale West, said:

“Once these people actually move in, they become human faces.”

He went on to say:

“Not many people can look at an 11-year-old girl whose got one arm because she’s had the other one ripped off in Sri Lanka and say: ‘Go away, we don’t want you’.”

A story from Adelaide Now on 28 January this year headlined ‘Hills school welcomes asylum seeker children’ said the following:

Woodside Primary principal John Balnaves said the school was excited to welcome its newest additions.

“The students here are really great, fantastic and caring kids,” Mr Balnaves said. “The Inverbrackie children will find they’re coming in to a good environment with people watching out for them.”

He said the existing students were looking forward to meeting their new classmates, with some already interacting with the Inverbrackie children when they delivered shoebox care packages to their peers for Christmas.

But what we saw from the opposition in relation to Inverbrackie and the announcement by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship that those facilities would be used and families released into community detention was hysteria and the glorification of policies that the Australian people know have long failed.

The shadow immigration minister wants to return to the Howard government’s policy of detaining asylum seekers in high-security detention centres, as occurred at Port Hedland or Curtin immigration detention facilities in the earlier part of this decade. Under the Howard government, one child was held in a Port Hedland immigration detention centre for five years, five months and 20 days. As the father of a boy who turned four on the weekend, I struggle to imagine the notion of a child incarcerated in a Hedland detention centre for more than five years. This is the legacy that even Prime Minister John Howard walked away from in 2005, but it is a legacy that those opposite would have us return to. Indeed, only late last year the shadow immigration minister was trumpeting the Howard government’s record of moving children from behind razor wire—even if it did come after nine years in government—and yet now he is suggesting that families and children should be placed back into high-security facilities.

I cannot let this issue pass without noting the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on Inverbrackie. His clear insinuation last year after speaking to a community forum in the Adelaide Hills was that asylum seekers who do manage to make it to our shores should be placed in very uncomfortable conditions—the better to send a message to people smugglers. Australia is a bigger and more gracious nation than that. The shadow immigration minister, for his part, said on refugees to Sky News on 4 November last year:

… whether they’re at Curtin or Christmas Island or Scherger or any of the other places that I’ve seen, the Northern Detention Centre in Darwin or so on; the type of accommodation there I think is entirely appropriate, we would have similar type of accommodation at Nauru.

That is his solution, apparently—leave those unused DHA houses to the vandals so that the government can kick asylum seekers a little harder when they get here.

Finally, I want to note that none of this should be taken as a reflection on the terrific work of DHA. I had the pleasure of visiting some new DHA homes in my own electorate of Fraser with the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel last year. I would like to use this chance to congratulate DHA on the excellent job they are doing and tell of the admiration I have for those new houses in Crace and elsewhere in Australia. As of the middle of last year, DHA managed over 18,000 properties in all states and territories, a portfolio valued at $8.6 billion. That involves a large development construction acquisition program. For example, in the 2009-10 fiscal year over 1,000 properties were built or acquired by DHA. DHA has also put in place an internet based HomeFind tool, making sure that properties are available to families before they move. DHA does great work for defence personnel, and they do not deserve to be treated as a political football in the immigration debate.

Dick Adams (Lyons, 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.