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

I seek leave to amend the motion relating to the Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network in the terms circulated to honourable members.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That:

(1) a Select Committee on the Crisis in Australia's Immigration Detention Network be appointed to inquire into and report on:

(a) the riots and disturbances in detention facilities on Christmas Island commencing 12 March 2011, and Villawood from 19 April 2011, in particular:

(i) the nature and circumstances of these events;

(ii) the nature and adequacy of the response of Commonwealth agencies to the events;

(iii) any warning, briefings or advice that had been provided to the Government by agencies and individuals in the lead up to, during and after the events and the nature and adequacy of the response to such information;

(iv) the adequacy of security protocols, procedures and resources to mitigate the escalation of tension and conflict in the detention network;

(v) the extent and cost of the damage to facilities as a result of the events; and

(vi) any other matter deemed relevant by the Committee to understand why these events occurred; and

(b) the performance and management of Commonwealth agencies and/or their agents or contractors in discharging their responsibilities associated with the interception, detention and processing of less irregular maritime arrivals or other persons;

(c) the resources, support and training for employees of Commonwealth agencies and/or their agents or contractors in performing their duties;

(d) the health, safety and wellbeing of employees of Commonwealth agencies and/or their agents or contractors in performing their duties relating to the interception, detention and processing of irregular maritime arrivals or other persons;

(e) the health, safety and wellbeing of asylum seekers and other persons, including specifically children, detained within the detention network;

(f) the level, adequacy and effectiveness of reporting incidents and the response to incidents within the immigration detention network, including relevant policies, procedures, authorities and protocols;

(g) compliance with the Government's immigration detention values within the detention network;

(h) any issues relating to interaction with States and Territories regarding the interception, detention and processing of irregular maritime arrivals or other persons;

(i) the management of good order and public order with respect to the immigration detention network;

(j) the impact of length of detention on and the appropriateness of facilities and services provided for detainees, including asylum seekers within the detention network;

(k) the total costs of managing and maintaining the immigration detention network and processing irregular maritime arrivals or other detainees;

(l) the expansion of the immigration detention network, including the cost and process adopted to establish new facilities;

(m) the length of time detainees have been held in the detention network, the reasons for their length of stay and the impact on the detention network;

(n) processes for assessment of protection claims made by irregular maritime arrivals and other persons and the impact on the detention network;

(o) the management and impact of detention on children and families, and viable alternatives;

(p) the cost, effectiveness and long term viability of outsourcing immigration detention centre contracts to provide providers and the policy alternatives;

(q) impact, effectiveness and cost of existing and prospective Government policies, including mandatory detention and any alternatives, including community release, with respect to irregular maritime arrivals and other persons detained within the detention network;

(r) any reforms needed to the current immigration detention network in Australia; and

(s) any other matters relevant to the above terms of reference.

(2) the Committee consist of 7 members, 3 Members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and 1 non-aligned member;

(3) the Committee may supplement its membership by up to four members, with a maximum of two extra Government and two extra opposition or non-aligned members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote;

(4) every nomination of a member of the Committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(5) the members of the Committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the Committee's report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(6) the Committee elect a Government or a non-government member as chair at its first meeting;

(7) the Committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the Committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the Committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the Committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(9) 3 members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member and 1 non-Government member;

(10) the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the Committee is empowered to examine.;

(11) the Committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(12) 2 members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee;

(13) members of the Committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(14) the Committee or any subcommittee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(15) the Committee or any subcommittee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(16) the Committee or any subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives;

(17) the Committee may report from time to time but that it present its final report no later than 7 October 2011; and

(18) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders

Labor's denial and failure over three years has created chaos, cost and misery in our detention network. As I said earlier in this House, no-one will be more pleased than I if the boats stop but this will not erase the havoc caused by Labor and their denial and their failed policies. In November 2007 there were just four people who had arrived illegally by boat in our detention network. Under Labor that number has risen to over 6,500—almost double the peak that was recorded under the coalition government. Over the last several years we have seen a litany of chaos, abuse and cost blow-outs in this detention network, which defy imagination.

It was all started by this government's failure to address their own policy measures introduced to soften the border protection regime that they inherited from the coalition government. When they softened those laws, over 11,100 people came to our shores. We had an increase in our detention population, as I have mentioned, to over 6,800. The time spent in detention increased from just over 60 days to almost 180 days. More than 60 per cent of the people who are in our detention network now have been there for more than six months.

We have had incidents of abuse, not only amongst detainees, but in particular against those Australians who are working in those centres. There have been over 70 incidents and allegations of abuse have been levelled against those in detention centres in just this financial year alone.

This is a network that is in absolute crisis. It has been in a rolling crisis since there was what was reported as a bloody fight breaking out on 21 November 2009 on Christmas Island involving 150 Afghans and Sri Lankans. That matter was over a year ago, and we have seen chorus of incidents, from further rooftop protests on 20 to 22 September 2010, 90 detainees breaking out of the Northern Immigration Detention Facility in September of last year and, on 15 November a violent brawl at Broadmeadows. On 17 November there was a rooftop protest at Villawood and at the Airport Lodge between 7 to 10 February 1l people were hospitalised and a further 11 taken to the watch house after another disturbance and riot. On 27 and 28 February there was a riot at Christmas Island in the family compound, where 13 people were injured, windows were smashed, three asylum seekers were arrested and 15 young males were moved off the island. On 16 March there was a breakout at the Asti Motel.

On 17 March there was a protest at Curtin and also on 17 March a young Afghan man died at Sherga. On 28 March a 20 year-old Afghan asylum seeker died at the Curtin detention centre and on 12 and 13 March there were mass breakouts at Christmas Island followed by the horrendous riots which saw Commonwealth officers having to retake a Commonwealth facility by force. There were the Villawood riots that were proceeded by an improvised explosive device being found in that detention centre some four weeks before that whole area of the compound was torched—something the minister did not even know about. We have an average of more than three critical incidents of the types I have been referring to—of self-abuse, assaults and escapes—occurring in our detention network every single day. This is something that demands an inquiry of this House. The terms of reference I have circulated for that inquiry are there for all to see and go in some detail into the matters that we should be looking at. We should be looking at how the riots occurred and what steps were taken by the government to avoid them. We should be looking at the procedures in place in our detention network to ensure that staff are safe, can be catered for, can be looked after and can defend and protect themselves in the course of what can often be incredibly dangerous duties. There should be codes of conduct that are enforceable so that Serco officers and other Australians working in this environment can ensure good public order.

Australians were horrified and appalled by the behaviour we saw in our detention network over these last months. They were shaking their heads; many of them said, 'Enough is enough.' Enough is enough of the rolling crisis in our detention network and the government's attempt to not have these matters exposed to full public scrutiny.

There are also issues in the detention network around the welfare of those who are being held within detention itself. As I said, when the coalition government left office there were just four people in detention who had arrived by boat. That is how you avoid having more than three critical incidents every day in your detention network—when there is actually no-one in them. That is our objective. That is why we have always said we wanted to stop the boats, because when you do you do not have the havoc that is caused. I am amazed that the current government took almost three years to realise that their failed policies were the problem. Their policies were the reason that our detention network was filling up, causing the tension, the stress and the pressures that have led to this appalling series of incidents right across the detention network, including self-harm.

It took almost two years for the government to decide to use the powers that were created in 2005 in the Migration Act by the coalition government to enable children to be released into the community under residence determination orders. Why did it take so long? Why did it take so long for more than 1,000 children to be held within the detention network and not released into the community under residence determination orders? The minister has had that power ever since he took up his oath and the minister before him had that power when he took up his oath. But as 1,000 children got onto boats under this government's policies and made their way to our shores and into our detention network, where they have largely stayed till this day, this government sat there for almost two years and did absolutely nothing, not using any of the powers it had under the act to deal with this very serious issue.

Then, last year, they made this grand announcement implying that they would take children out from behind razor wire. They have not been behind razor wire since 2005, when just 59 children were in detention and were released into the community by the coalition government under the reforms that we made at that time.

All of these matters need to be ventilated. I do not seek to muzzle any member of this chamber—or in the other chamber if we sought to make this a joint parliamentary inquiry. It is important that we ask all the questions and put it all under the microscope, and that is why I gave my commitment to the crossbenchers and the Greens to amend the motion. All of the specific issues that they have asked to be raised in our discussions over the last week have now been included in the terms of reference for this inquiry. In my discussions with all of the crossbenchers whom I have had the opportunity to speak with personally, I have sought to include the matters they have raised in these terms of reference, because no member of this parliament should be muzzled in seeking to ask the questions and get the answers as to what is happening in our detention network.

In the motion before the House earlier today, we had debated the government's Malaysian five-for-one people swap. As I mentioned in my remarks on that matter, this is a deal which is fraught with difficulty, is far from completed and, most significantly, fails to provide the guarantees required under our Migration Act for the welfare of those people who will be sent to Malaysia under this arrangement.

When we consider these matters, it is important that we get the policies right. We will see whether the measure that the government is introducing stops the boats or not. We will wait. No-one will be happier than me if boats stop coming, but it has to be done the right way. The policies that the coalition put in place when we were in government not only stopped the boats but reduced the detention population of those who came by boat to just four. That is the outcome that we dearly seek.

So I implore members of this House to take up the opportunity for an inquiry that will be able to ask witnesses to give evidence in camera, to travel and to hear from people who have experience of the immigration network about how they work in and operate it and the resources and other things that they need; and to look into the cost, which has blown out to more than $3 billion over the last couple of years through the waste and mismanagement and failures of this government's policies. Whether the boats stop coming or not, the mess this government has created in our detention network is a national disgrace. It is a blight on our budget and it is a blight on our record for one simple reason: this government's policies failed. We need to have an inquiry to look into the mess it has created.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion submitted by the member for Cook is sold to the parliament and the public as a sincere effort to shine a light on the way the nation's detention network is run, demanding of the parliament and, principally, the government transparency and a willingness to critically examine the management of this network. In short, this is not a call for a serious examination. It is not a move to provide genuine recommendations for the way detention centres are managed to enhance their operation. I imagine it is not even a real attempt to reconsider the model of detention. This is simply a political stunt by the opposition, who, incapable of putting forward a viable, workable alternative, seek to flex their intellectual muscle by calling for—wait for it—a parliamentary inquiry. With the opposition deprived of attention and having an inability to breathe life back into a shabby approach to the issue of asylum seekers, we are now meant to believe that the member for Cook is seeking to pursue serious policy outcomes. An opposition that refuses to join other multi-party committees tasked with dealing with the gravest policy issue confronting our generation and those that follow—climate change—now calls on the parliament to join with it in a political exercise designed to generate advantage for the coalition, not for the nation. A member who just a few short months ago could not allow grieving families the peace to bury their own and who instead, with his public remarks, poured shame onto a period of intense grief, has now struck within himself a vein of compassion. He saunters into the chamber showing us his confected concern that masks a ruptured conscience.

What has prompted this motion by the member for Cook? What in the last two or so weeks has prompted the member for Cook into this sudden push for a parliamentary inquiry? What has changed that has made this so important for the member for Cook to bring this on now is simple: the announcement made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on Saturday, 7 May. The member for Cook fears that the government is putting in place its election commitment for a regional cooperation network to help end the people-smuggling model. The member for Cook, like many opposite, is afraid that the government's policies will have the desired effect of putting in place a sharp disincentive for people smugglers and those contemplating taking the dangerous journey by boat to Australia. What we have is simply the member for Cook trying to squeeze every last drop of political capital out of the human misery of irregular migration and people smuggling. If he were genuinely concerned with the events in part (a) of his motion, we would have heard about this proposed inquiry more than a month ago. The reason we did not hear about it is because the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship responded quickly and effectively to the events on Christmas Island and at Villawood by announcing an arms-length independent inquiry led by experienced public servants Helen Williams and Dr Allan Hawke. This is the right and proper place for a sober examination of what occurred and what needs to be done to help avoid these terrible scenes happening again.

Even if we accepted that the proper place for examination of the events on Christmas Island and Villawood was a parliamentary inquiry, what is this proposed inquiry supposed to achieve? Parliamentary inquiries are supposed to be vehicles to get to the bottom of a particular event or to challenge policy settings. Is the member for Cook seriously suggesting that we should end mandatory detention—a policy that has enjoyed bipartisan support for over 15 years? The government has a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals for the purpose of health, identity and security checks—which I thought were things that the member for Cook supported. The terms of reference put forward by the member for Cook have no real focus or desired outcome. Why? For the coalition, it is more important to continue to talk about asylum seekers or boat people than to come up with real policy solutions to tackle major challenges like people smuggling in our region.

The gall and hypocrisy embedded in this motion should drive the House away from it. The opposition would ask that the government be judged when they have shunned judgment themselves, knowing that judgment of their performance would yield little to be proud of and much to be ashamed of. The rollcall of infamous incidents stands out with innocent people caught by the fractures and flaws of their system. Vivian Alvarez Solon was unlawfully removed to the Philippines in July 2001. Four years later it emerged that she had been deported, although the government had known of the mistake two years earlier. Cornelia Rau, an Australian permanent resident, was unlawfully detained for a period of 10 months back in 2004-05. Peter Qasim was held in detention for seven years. Then there were mother and daughter Virginia and Naomi Leong. Virginia Leong, a Malaysian citizen, was arrested and placed under mandatory detention in 2001 for attempting to leave Australia without the correct papers. She was two months pregnant at the time of her detention.

What of the coalition's own efforts to reach regional understanding to tackle people smuggling? The former government, headed by a Prime Minister who was the self-appointed deputy sheriff of the Asia-Pacific, were able to muster only an island state to form the basis of their Pacific solution. Of the 13 or so independent states within the Pacific, only one agreed to their Pacific solution. And then they told us that they could bring their own regional solution, no doubt through their boat phone—with only one other country on the other end of the line—while in the background, under their watch, there were fires, breakouts and violence at Woomera and Baxter. In terms of transparency and openness, one only needs to compare our record to theirs, and we are quite prepared to do so. This government is open and accountable about its immigration detention system, unlike those opposite when they were last in office.

As I have mentioned, we have already announced independent reviews into the incidents at Christmas Island and Villawood detention centre, and the Ombudsman consistently investigates the detention system. I also understand that the minister has fielded more than 1,200 questions on notice as part of the Senate estimates process. We are prepared to consider genuine proposals for changes to improve the operation of the detention network and the safety and security of those who live or work within it. We are building regional solutions to the regional problem of irregular migration and people smuggling. We have secured the agreement of more than 30 countries to a sustainable regional cooperation framework for dealing with asylum seekers. We are implementing that framework through cooperative arrangements with interested countries in the region, beginning with a landmark transfer arrangement with Malaysia.

In October last year, the Prime Minister and the immigration minister announced that the government would move the majority of children and vulnerable family groups out of immigration detention facilities and into community based accommodation by the end of June this year, and we are well on track to meet that commitment. We also committed to ensuring that asylum seekers within the immigration detention facilities are housed in humane, appropriate conditions and are provided with appropriate services and care. We have long acknowledged the pressures on our detention system and we are working hard to relieve that pressure by improving processing times for asylum claims and delivering a regional solution to the problem of irregular migration.

I noticed that the member for Cook in his proposed motion has again revisited the issue of the costs of damage caused by the fires at Villawood detention centre. This is an issue that was particularly embarrassing for him when he raised it during question time during budget week. His question suggested a great big cover-up by the government. The response by the minister for immigration left the member for Cook red-faced. The Commonwealth is not liable for the damage to detention centres at Christmas Island and Villawood; that is covered by Serco's insurance.

Minister Bowen has announced a range of measures to strengthen the consequences of criminal behaviour in immigration detention, including the amendments to the character test which are currently before the House. I am told the member for Cook received written advice from the department's senior legal team as well as a briefing on the legislation weeks ago—and, still, I do not believe we are any wiser on whether or not the coalition will support the reform. The changes send a strong and clear message that criminal behaviour in detention centres will not be tolerated. Will the member for Cook step up and support these changes—or is it all talk yet again?

There is no question that the government's policy of detention will have its costs. This is something that the Liberal Party know about—they were, after all, the party that spent hundreds of millions of dollars building the facility on Christmas Island. Our costs in the budget for asylum seeker management cover the new measures the government is taking to break the business model of the people smugglers, the building of a regional solution and the costs of processing. When taking into account all the measures considered here today by the government and our record of being open and transparent on this sensitive issue, the contrasts are clear for all to see in the newfound commitment to openness and transparency that those opposite refused to embrace when they were in government.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion moved by the member for Cook. If the member for Chifley, the government member who just spoke on this motion, is the sum total of the government's defence as to why this parliament should not look into the government's detention network debacle, I hope that this parliament can see through such transparently naive and, quite frankly, petty and silly arguments.

We are sent here to this parliament to do many things in representing our constituents but, very importantly, this parliament should hold the executive to account. This is what this motion is really about. It is framed around the detention network, but the decision this parliament makes on it will be about what role the parliament should legitimately play. And it is vital that this parliament hold the executive to account on this issue.

This is a parliament that was supposed to be different. This is a parliament that was supposed to be more muscular and was going to assert its independence from the executive. The Labor Party when they came into government were going to 'allow sunlight in on government decisions'; yet we just heard the one contribution to this debate from the government slamming the reasons that we should have this detention network inquiry.

Our detention network does need parliamentary scrutiny. It has been gripped by a rolling crisis that culminated in March and April this year with the riots and the violent incidences that we saw at Christmas Island and Villawood. A lot has been said about those riots but beyond those we know that there are three critical incidents a day within our detention network. These can range from assaults on officers through to self-harm, riots, the setting of fires, homemade bombs and, sadly, even deaths. The incident of the improvised explosive device at Villawood was not even considered important enough to report to the minister—who was notified on talkback radio about what was occurring within his own network.

There has been a collapse of our detention network, and it is not the result of bad luck or happenstance and it is certainly not the result of international conditions; it is the direct result of failed government policies. When the Labor Party came to office there were four people in our detention network who had arrived illegally by boat. Then Labor took these fateful decisions in August 2008 that resulted in the people-smuggling model being reinvigorated. And, of course, we know what has happened since then: 227 illegal boat arrivals carrying over 11,000 people. Julia Gillard as Prime Minister has presided over 86 boat arrivals and over 4,800 people being smuggled here illegally.

If the government could kill the people-smuggling model and show some resolve and do something to stop these arrivals, we would not have the need for this inquiry into our detention network. Because there has been this massive influx of people and a massive expansion of the network, we have had the situation where people have been detained for much longer as government agencies struggle to deal with the consequences of Labor's failure. Because is it so hard to process such a large number of people, 60 per cent of detainees have now been detained for over six months. Average processing time has blown out from 61 days to over 170 days. Taxpayers' money has been squandered at an astonishing rate. An extra $3 million of taxpayers' money has been expended on our detention network. If these are not things that this parliament should be looking into, it is hard to imagine what MPs are doing here.

We need to know what happened at Christmas Island; we need to know what happened at Villawood; we need to know what is happening in an ongoing way within our detention network; we need to know what can be done better; and we need to understand how our detention network got to this stage in the first place and what the government's plans are to do something about it. When you are seeing Commonwealth property destroyed, taxpayers' money squandered, Commonwealth employees assaulted, criminal acts committed, explosive devices being detected, mass breakouts, suicides and self-harm—and when you are seeing all this as a direct result of the failure of government policy—this parliament must take action. I urge all members to support this motion.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not have to search far for evidence that Australia's mandatory detention system is in crisis. Most nights on the news we see graphic images of the failure: people caged like criminals, riots, fires, suicide, women and children mourning their dead. And who can forget the gut-wrenching images of a boat laden with people seeking asylum smashing into Christmas Island. Yet still they come—men, women and children risking their lives to seek asylum in the country with a national anthem that boasts of golden soil and wealth for toil and, for those who have come across the seas, boundless plains to share.

These people do not come here by jumping some queue. There is no queue when you are fleeing for your life in the middle of the night or rotting in some displaced persons camp. Nor do they risk the hazardous and expensive journey to Australia because they want to be locked up for God knows how long. No, asylum seekers make their treacherous journeys because their situations are so dire. That is why they are willing to split up their families, leave behind all their possessions and risk their lives as they do. Imagine being in that position where your best option is to put your life and probably all your cash in the hands of some dodgy people smuggler.

How does Australia greet these desperate people who are committing no crime? By locking them up for months and years in circumstances the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted last week are 'arbitrary', 'in breach of international law' and which have 'for many years cast a shadow over Australia's human rights record.' If we needed more proof that this is a broken system, we have also got the report from the Australian Human Rights Commission on Sydney's Villawood detention centre. Commission President Catherine Branson describes ghost-like people covered in emotional and physical scars thinking constantly of suicide and self-harm. She told the ABC last week:

You get the sense, walking in, of disturbed people, depressed people, agitated people. There is not a sense of normality around you.

Moreover she said:

I think the average Australian would be disturbed if required to spend even a short period of time living there.

Not only is mandatory detention cruel and inhumane, it simply does not work. It is a failed and costly experiment that has gone on for much too long. Yet next year the government will spend more than $700 million on asylum seeker detention and related costs, equating to about $90,000 a year for every asylum seeker who makes it to Australia. The federal government cannot keep kidding itself that its irregular immigration policy is working and just keep building new detention centres. In Tasmania, for instance, the government is about to spend $15 million on a temporary detention centre at Pontville to house asylum seekers for just six months. Putting the humanitarian dimension to one side, is this the best use of taxpayer dollars? Of course not.

I have long opposed mandatory detention anywhere and these latest facilities will be no different. These are people who have knocked on Australia's door seeking asylum and it is simply wrong to cage them behind wire, whether it be in Pontville or on Christmas Island. We must accept that mandatory detention does not deter asylum seekers and we must find a better solution. We must acknowledge that the proliferation of detention centres in Australia is proof the federal government's asylum seeker policy is broken.

I make the point again, and I will keep making it until the government and the opposition start listening, that this is not a border security problem. It is much more complex than that and it needs a sophisticated solution that deals genuinely with source, first-asylum and transit countries. No wonder I support the establishment of a parliamentary committee on Australia's immigration detention system. I trust it will not be a political circus, but instead the first step to Australia adopting a more humane and effective approach to dealing with the wretched souls risking all to carve out a better life here in our lucky country. Indeed, for those who have come across the seas, we do in fact have boundless plains to share.

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

The issue of mandatory detention for asylum seekers has been much debated and much criticised since it was first implemented by the Labor government in 1992. It is a negative and punitive system of dealing with those who come to our shores seeking asylum. Apart from the all-too-apparent negative effects on people incarcerated in detention prisons, the system is administratively demanding and extremely costly. The original intention when mandatory detention was introduced by the Labor government in 1992 was to act as a deterrent to those seeking to come to our shores. Originally it was aimed at a very small number of people arriving by boat. Ten years after the implementation of the policy there were 5,000 boat arrivals—so much for its deterrent capacity. Similarly, the policy of temporary protection visas was introduced as a deterrent. In the five years prior to temporary protection visas being introduced there were 3,103 boat arrivals. In the five years following the introduction of temporary protection visas there were over 11,000 arrivals. It is time we looked at these policies in the cold light of day and worked toward a durable solution—like my colleague the member for Denison has just outlined—so that we can deal with the problem of people fleeing the threat of death and oppression in their own countries without imposing further punitive measures on them.

Examining the operation of detention centres may have the positive impact of demonstrating the futility of locking people up for long periods of time in a prison-like system that leaves them further traumatised and does little or nothing to resolve the bigger issues of asylum seekers in our region. From 2001 to 2005 I worked with others in this place for hard-won changes that were made to the system of mandatory detention, including an agreement that 12,000 refugees living in the purgatory of the temporary protection visa system would be given permanent visas, the Ombudsman would regularly report to this parliament on why people continued to be held in immigration detention and families with children would not be placed in immigration detention centres except as a last resort.

Those policies were implemented and then we saw the Labor government come in on the promise of a New Directions in Detention policy. The government acknowledged that 'detention that is indefinite or otherwise arbitrary is not acceptable'. We had this promise, but according to the most recent Australian Human Rights Commission report, 2011 Immigration detention at Villawood, they say that there are:

… 6819 people, including 1030 children, in immigration detention in Australia – 4304 on the mainland and 2515 on Christmas Island. More than half of those people had been detained for longer than six months, and more than 750 people had been detained for longer than a year.

This parliament should ask questions about why these practices are still continuing today. There is no justification for holding asylum seekers in detention centres once basic health and security checks are completed. It is clear that the checks are not being completed in a timely manner, and this has led to overcrowding in detention centres with all the attendant problems.

I support this motion in the hope that it will publicly air and stop the cruel and odious practice of indefinite arbitrary detention of asylum seekers. The government appears to have completely abandoned its New Directions in Detention policy. We simply cannot continue to support a policy of indefinite mandatory detention with its terrible human cost to this nation and to our reputation in this parliament. Instead of resourcing the Department Of Immigration and Citizenship to carry out health and security checks, what do we see the government doing? As my colleague the member for Denison said, we see them spending huge amounts of money to build new detention centres and, of course, to refurbish other facilities such as Northam in my electorate to hold increasing numbers of detention detainees.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear, for reasons that other members have made clear in this House and as I raised earlier, that mandatory detention has failed. I welcome anything we can do to shed light on the effects of the policy of mandatory detention in this country. I hope that mandatory detention is treated as sufficiently serious an issue that we can move to establishing a joint select committee on it so that both houses of parliament can take the opportunity of the composition of the current parliament to have, once and for all, a comprehensive inquiry into the merits or otherwise of our mandatory detention system. I thank the member for Cook for including in his amendment to his motion calling for a select committee on Australia's immigration detention network some of the terms of reference that we think would be necessary to give that kind of breadth and impetus to the committee. I do hope that, over coming days, we can reach agreement that this ought to be a joint select committee.

It is clear that mandatory detention has failed. We know it has failed from psychiatrist after psychiatrist, mental health expert after mental health expert and human rights commissioner after human rights commissioner coming before us, the media and the Australian people to tell us about the appalling effects on an individual's mental health and wellbeing from being locked up behind razor wire indefinitely without knowing their fate. Most particularly, we know and can no longer close our eyes to the horrible life-ruining effects it has on children—children of families who have members in detention and children who are in detention themselves. There can be no excuse for the continued incarceration of children whose parents have fled to Australia. They have fled some of the most appalling persecution conditions—conditions that we send our soldiers overseas to fight against—but we then take them and lock them up. Mandatory detention has failed because it treats them as unlawful people who have committed no crime. It treats them worse than criminals. At least criminals know when they are going to be released; people in detention do not.

We know that the system of mandatory detention has failed because it is now being prosecuted for purely political reasons. It has become an issue of who can be toughest on this issue in the hope that it will win some votes somewhere. We have lost any defining policy behind our immigration system. We know that mandatory detention has failed because it is the most costly alternative available to us, with at least a billion dollars a year being spent on a so-called border protection policy which has nothing to do with national security issues but has everything to do with attempts to win votes domestically.

My colleague on the crossbench the member for Denison made a point about people smugglers. I have no doubt that there are some very unsavoury people who are people smugglers, but for this somehow to be made an issue not of protecting the rights of asylum seekers but of breaking the model of people smugglers is completely the wrong approach. If I, and I suspect most Australians, were in the position where I or my family were being threatened, where there was war around me or where I or people I knew were being persecuted I would do anything I could to get out of my country, including paying some money to someone to get me out. I think most fair-minded people would feel the same way. The more we talk about people smugglers, the more we ignore the fact that we are talking about individuals seeking assistance to flee appalling conditions. I am reminded that it was not always like this in Australia.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated 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.