Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, and it relates to the practice of requiring refugees to pay for the cost of having been locked in detention. For people who spend three to four years in refugee camps, that means a bill of over $200,000. Does the Rudd government believe that people who are found to have a genuine case for staying in Australia should be charged for their detention?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Nettle for her question. In the first instance, the detention debt regime, as applied to those who have been in immigration detention, is being reviewed by me. I received advice, maybe a couple of months ago, about this issue and it seems that the cost of administering the scheme to raise the debt either outweighs or is close to a break-even point in terms of the money brought in. It does seem to be a crazy situation to run a system to raise debt when it costs us as much to raise the debt as it does to generate income from it. I think that there is a need for a review of the detention debt regime and I have asked for further advice on that. I have to consult with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation as well, because he has a role in the raising of the debts et cetera. I understand debts are forgiven in a range of cases, but I can get the senator more detail on that. I do think that the detention debt system is in need of an overhaul and I have asked for further advice on it. I will be looking to reform the system when I have better advice.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Are you able to provide any time frame in relation to a review of that matter? Are you also able to indicate whether you are looking at what I understand the Labor Party in Victoria proposed last month—which is the removal of section 209 of the Migration Act so that refugees are not required to pay that debt—rather than the system that operates now, where the department can forgive the debt but it stays on the books and subsequently could be required to be paid were a future government to change the policy and require that payment?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot go to the sort of detail that the senator is after other than to repeat that I am looking to review the system. Obviously, I take seriously any advice I receive from branches of the Labor Party, but all I can say at this stage is that I agree there is a problem. The current system does not make a lot of sense. I had to deal recently with an instance of a man who had been found to be a refugee but had been prevented from sponsoring and being reunited with his family because of the debt. I am pleased to say that we were able to sort out that individual case. But it is an issue that is in need of reform. I have, as I said, asked for further information and I will be pursuing it as a high priority to see if we cannot get a more effective system in place.