Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this bill, and I welcome doing so as it provides a chance to counter misinformation levelled by those opposite about this matter. At the outset I note that while the Rudd government has brought about many administrative changes to the operation of Australia’s detention and border protection regime, this bill represents one of the legislative steps in Labor’s process of softening immigration detention foreshadowed by Minister Evans in his speech on 29 July and in his media release of 18 March 2009.

Other changes by Labor to our immigration system are being closely watched, both here in Australia and by people smugglers overseas. I will deal more thoroughly with this issue later, but it is important to look at the implications of Labor’s decision to virtually abolish detention debt at this time when there is much greater scrutiny in this area from both here and abroad. Since about August last year, there has been a shift in our immigration policy. We have gone from a strong border protection regime, which included a strong and fair immigration system under the coalition, to a softening of a whole raft of measures. And what has been the result of this? An increase in people-smuggling activities, a surge of boat arrivals and an increased number of overstayers.

The changes outlined in this bill will remove the requirement that certain persons held in immigration detention be liable for the costs of their detention. The policy of billing people for the cost of their detention was introduced in November 1992 by the then Keating Labor government. Speaking during the introduction of this bill, then Labor minister for immigration, Gerry Hand, said:

A primary objective of the Migration Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the entry and presence in Australia of persons who are not Australian citizens.

It is imperative for us to remember this core objective as we look at every piece of legislation that seeks to weaken the established system or to put those decisions into the hands of people smugglers or those who seek to abuse our system through overstaying or noncompliance with their visa conditions, thereby showing a complete disregard for our national interest. This objective was central to the construction of immigration policy under the coalition government.

While this legislation was introduced many years ago with regard to the national interest, it is now being revoked, it appears, with a much greater concern to appease particular interest groups at the expense of the broader national interest. It has been done so with a flagrant disregard for the objectives upon which the act was constructed. The objective of this particular bill is to remove the liability for immigration detention and related costs for detainees, and liable third parties, and to extinguish all outstanding immigration detention debts other than those incurred by convicted illegal foreign fishers and people smugglers.

As those opposite would be aware, the current detention debt regime is administered in a compassionate and fair manner. In fact, less than 2.5 per cent of the detention debt invoiced since 2004-05 has been recovered, with over 95 per cent of the debt either waived or written off. Indeed, during 2006-07 and 2007-08, immigration detention debt raised was $54.3 million, of which $1.8 million, or 3.3 per cent, was recovered and $48.2 million was written off by the department as uneconomical to pursue, and $4 million was waived.

We need to consider these statistics in light of the fact that, as the departmental secretary, Andrew Metcalfe, confirmed during estimates in May this year, we currently have around 48,000 visa overstayers in Australia. Therefore, it is misleading to say that detention debt is targeted to refugees. The bulk of detention debt is incurred by overstayers who remain here illegally after breaching their visa conditions. As those opposite should be aware, it is DIAC’s policy to write off the detention debt of a person held in detention who was subsequently found to be a refugee. This is in recognition of the Refugee Convention of 1951. DIAC records instances of debts in such cases, but does not issue an invoice or pursue the debt in any manner.

In other cases, those who have incurred a detention debt are invoiced by the department and encouraged, through a range of mechanisms, to pay the debt. These mechanisms include: recording debts on the movement alert list so that the information is available to all departmental employees; advising bridging visa E and bridging visa R holders subject to condition 8507 that they must pay or make arrangements to pay the cost of their detention within a period specified by the minister; and advising debtors that public interest criteria 4009 will prevent the granting of a visa unless the minister is satisfied that appropriate arrangements have been made for the payment. If the debt remains unpaid, there are a number of mechanisms under the Migration Act to facilitate the recovery of debts owed to the Commonwealth by noncitizens in relation to their detention and removal or deportation costs, including seizing of valuables and restraints on the use of property in Australia.

As we have already established, this course of action is rarely, if ever, pursued by the department. As a last resort, the department can pursue the recovery of debt through the courts. However, this too in practice is deemed uneconomical in most instances. Somewhat predictably, this requirement—that immigration detainees be charged for the cost of their detention—has been bluntly criticised by a number of refugee advocates and human rights bodies. Those opposite would have people believe that the coalition is intent upon punishing refugees through the imposition of debt. Such comments are deliberately misleading. The truth is, as those opposite are well aware, that those who are found to be refugees are not required to repay the cost of their detention. The coalition supports existing exemptions and the use of the minister’s power to waive debt.

I find it remarkable that Australia’s system of detention has often been wrongly characterised as one which principally targets refugees and asylum seekers. It is important to bear in mind that detention is not just about refugees and asylum seekers; most of those in detention are overstayers. The department’s 2006-07 annual report states that there were an estimated 46,500 visa overstayers as at 30 June 2007, with 4,718 taken into immigration detention in that year. As indicated before, this figure is now around 48,000 and has remained constant for some time.

DIAC’s statistical information contained in the 2007-08 annual report indicates that 4,514 people were taken into immigration detention during that year. Of those people, 1,865, or 41.3 per cent, were people who had been living in the community but had overstayed or breached their visa conditions. The fact is that in 2007-08 only 10 per cent of those in detention were asylum seekers who had arrived by boat. However, with the surge of boat arrivals since last year, there are now more unauthorised boat arrivals in immigration detention. Indeed, they are coming fast and furiously, with the softer immigration policy being a stronger pull factor. The most recent statistics supplied by DIAC, on 12 June this year, show that a sizeable proportion of those in detention are still people who had arrived legally but breached or overstayed their visa conditions. At 12 June this figure stood at 175, or 21 per cent, of those in detention.

Rather than seeking to abolish detention debt, there is merit in looking at improving administrative arrangements within the department. Abolishing all detention debts will not act as a deterrent against abuse of our immigration programs or against people smugglers who are selling Labor’s softer approach. Senators need to be reminded as to why this measure was introduced in the early 1990s in the first place. At that time Australia was experiencing a surge in boat arrivals seeking asylum from Vietnam. The then Labor government introduced a range of amendments to the Migration Act to try and manage this influx, including mandatory detention, the establishment of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal, time limits on the lodgement of applications for asylum, and this detention charge.

In stark contrast to the current Labor government, the then Labor government strengthened rather than softened our immigration system in the face of a surge of illegal arrivals. The Labor government at the time acknowledged that the cost of weakening Australia’s borders and compromising the integrity of the migration and humanitarian programs was to lose our capacity to help those suffering in refugee camps around the world. The current Labor government appears to have lost sight of the simple underlying fact that, without effective border control and a properly managed migration and humanitarian program, we cannot offer safe haven to those most in need.

At the time this legislation was enacted, Labor understood the threat that a continued stream of unauthorised arrivals placed on Australia’s humanitarian capacity. So, too, did Julia Gillard in 2004. The now Deputy Prime Minister, as shadow minister for immigration, prepared the ALP policy for border protection in 2004. Her policy advocated: continuing temporary protection visas; continuing mandatory detention; introducing a coast guard; increasing penalties for people-smuggling, including 20-year jail terms, $1 million fines and confiscation of boats; streamlining of the Australian processing regime to make it the same as that applying in refugee camps to help remove the motivation for asylum seekers to risk their lives journeying to Australia in leaky boats; limiting the appeal on the primary decision to one appeal by leave on points of law; quickly sending back asylum seekers found not to be refugees; and fast-tracking manifestly unfounded claims so that they are resolved within a week. Notably, none of these measures have ever been talked about since the Rudd government was elected in November 2007.

Deputy Prime Minister Gillard and many within the ALP must be quietly appalled by this amendment now before us and its significant softening of the strong refugee/humanitarian policy that was first put in place by Labor itself. The Rudd Labor government is the first Australian government since Federation that has not acknowledged the importance of maintaining border protection and the integrity and orderly protection of a sovereign nation’s migration program. The weakening of policy by this government has led to the biggest surge in people-smuggling since 2001-02, when the coalition’s strengthened response began to take effect, soon reducing incidences of people-smuggling to zero.

The detention debt regime was introduced to assist in the proper management of Australia’s border and migration programs, to act as a deterrent to those entering the country unlawfully and to help ensure that Australians did not pay for the detention of people with no claim on their hard earned taxes. The detention debt regime acts as a deterrent through preventing subsequent approval of a visa unless the minister is satisfied that appropriate arrangements have been made for payment—in other words, a person with an outstanding debt to the Commonwealth could not legitimately re-enter the country while a detention debt still existed unless the minister was satisfied that appropriate arrangements had been made for payment or that payment had been waived. Why should people who abuse their visa conditions be allowed re-entry to Australia without first meeting their detention debt obligations? This is not an onerous obligation to place on an applicant. I believe that many Australians would view this as a necessary obligation and one which serves the national interest.

At this time, when people smugglers are informing their customers that the Rudd Labor government has re-opened the back door to Australia, why would we remove one more element of deterrent? Why would we seek to improve the returns of those who traffic humans, who have no regard for the safety of their clients and who have already been responsible for countless lives lost when boats could not even survive sailing out of Indonesian waters? For that matter, why should those 48,000 or so overstayers not have to foot their detention bill when it is likely that they have knowingly and deliberately overstayed their visa? Many are not caught, but if you are caught and put into detention, why should you not meet the financial obligations associated with your own non-compliance?

The coalition has always taken a strong and principled stand on border protection and immigration; the two go hand in hand. Softening immigration laws sends the wrong message. It makes the pull factor stronger—more people are prepared to come and more people are encouraged to overstay because it will be easier in the long run to achieve their objective of staying in Australia. It is essential that Australia has an orderly and properly managed immigration program in order to protect lives and our borders. We also believe that it is important that Australia remains one of the most generous providers of humanitarian and refugee resettlement in the world.

Per capita, Australia has the third biggest refugee resettlement program in the world. This year we will resettle and accommodate 13,750 people. We do not want to encourage abuse of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs. None of these 13,750 people could afford to pay a people smuggler to deliver them to Australia, and they must remain our highest priority. The coalition is determined to preserve the integrity of our migration programs while actively discouraging the barbaric people-smuggling trade that endangers the lives of people who seek to enter Australia illegally.

The Rudd Labor government, on the other hand, has unravelled all the measures designed to keep our borders secure. These measures have allowed us to effectively manage our migration programs in the best interests of Australia and Australians. It is not just the people smugglers who are interpreting these changes as a softening of government policy; asylum seekers themselves seem to be happy to go on the AM program. We also have comments from the Indonesian ambassador, the international migration office and, indeed, many Australians, judging from letters to the editors of daily papers.

No longer requiring the payment of the cost of detention by those who have no entitlement to be or remain in Australia is one of the measures that, along with others the government has acted to unwind, makes it easier for people smugglers to market Australia as a soft option. Overstayers know that if they are found they will not need to pay any detention debt even if they undertake protracted legal proceedings. From my many years of experience working at the Australian Government Solicitor, where I acted in many cases involving immigration matters, cases are often lengthy and deliberately protracted. As a consequence, large detention debts are wrapped up in circumstances where overstayers have deliberately engaged in litigation in order to prolong their stay. In those circumstances, it is very appropriate for detention debts to be satisfied. Hence, it is important that those 48,500 overstayers who have chosen not to comply with their visa conditions and have been placed in detention should meet their responsibilities. If they fail to do so, their placement on the movement alert list ensures that officials are alerted if they try to get another visa.

While it is very important that debt collection be administered in the most appropriate manner by the department, I believe that any improvements should not come at the cost of watering down border protection policies just at a time when illegal boat arrivals are increasing; nor should they come at a time when the number of overstayers is increasing. As at 30 June 2007, there were 46,500 overstayers, and by 30 June 2008, the figure had gone up to 48,500. There is no doubt that these people know they are overstaying their visas, and they do not appear to care a jot about it. The government must therefore take full responsibility for its actions in seeking to remove this significant deterrent in our border protection system. Accordingly, the coalition will be opposing the bill.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the very important Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. Essentially, this bill seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958 by removing the need for detainees to repay the debt accrued from their time in detention, a debt that begins to accrue with the Commonwealth as soon as a noncitizen is placed in detention. The Rudd government is committed to the fair and equal treatment of all people, and this commitment extends to people who enter Australia illegally and are placed in detention. This bill is part of a broader reform of immigration detention being introduced by the Rudd Labor government. The Rudd government understands it must continue to have tight entry requirements to protect the security of the nation, but it also understands it must treat all people humanely, including noncitizens. That is what it intends to do.

Having fair and effective immigration detention policies and strong border security measures at the same time is not an incompatible situation, no matter what those opposite want people to believe. The two needs can be balanced. The Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 shows that such appropriate balance can be achieved, by abolishing an outmoded and ineffectual system that penalises detainees by lumping them with an enormous debt while at the same time ensuring that liability to detention costs remains a deterrent in relation to convicted illegal foreign fishers and people smugglers. These people, illegal foreign fishers and people smugglers, are operating for the sole purpose of making money and have no interest in moving to Australia and being active in our society. They will still be required to pay their debts as they have committed significant crime.

But it must be remembered that a large number of people who spend time in immigration detention are eventually given permission to remain in Australia. This nation willingly allows people to stay in Australia, even if they entered illegally, as long as they are found to be genuinely at risk if sent back to their homeland. By removing the need for them to repay their debt from their time in detention, the government is helping such people to move on and build a new life. We want these people to participate in Australian life to the best of their ability, and a large debt surely can forbid this. Not only does a large debt make it difficult to participate in the community; it also has a negative impact on the mental health of the individuals and families. Let’s face it: for those people who usually have close to nothing upon arrival in Australia it would be extremely hard to start a new life with a huge financial burden or debt hanging around their neck.

At an approximate cost of $125 a day—and this varies from one detention facility to another—debt accumulates pretty rapidly. After one month, detainees debt is close to $4,000 on average, and for those that have been detained for a year it is approximately $45,000. After five years in detention is could be as much as $225,000.

The Refugee Action Committee reported to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, the committee which inquired into immigration detention in Australia and of which I am a member, one case of an accumulated debt for a family where the father, who had been held in a detention centre for six years and then lived as a refugee in Melbourne for a further three years, was advised by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that he owed $200,000—the cost of keeping his wife, daughter and son locked up for three years. The Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma advised that one family was told their debt was more than $340,000. And there were many, many more such reports.

The Rudd government understands it has a responsibility to take into account the health and wellbeing of all detainees, and this includes their mental health. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration, while receiving evidence for its first report, heard from a range of people and organisations about the stress, anxiety and detrimental effects these debts have had on people’s mental health. Labor for Refugees New South Wales described the practice of applying charges to persons in detention as ‘intentionally punitive, unjust and inhumane’. The Office of Multicultural Interests Western Australia called for all existing debts to be waived and voiced strong concerns about the validity of such debts when contrasted with Australia’s international obligations. The Chief Executive Officer of the Refugee Council of Australia, Paul Power, described the debt as akin to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees charging refugees for the time they spend in refugee camps. Julian Burnside QC has commented that we are the only country in the world that charges innocent people for the cost of incarcerating them.

The practice of applying detention charges does not appear to contribute to offsetting the costs of detention, nor does it appear to provide any substantial revenue. In practice, at the moment the recovery of many people’s debts is not pursued and can be waived or written off. A waiver requires each case to be considered on its merit and, therefore, adds considerably to the administrative workload. Where the Commonwealth considers it has a moral, rather than a legal, obligation to extinguish a debt, a waiver is generally approved. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation is the only person authorised to waive a debt and has unfettered discretion to determine each request. A write-off means that a decision is made not to pursue recovery of the debt. However, at some time in the future the debts may be pursued, and the person with the debt does not really know whether that may happen and lives with the possibility hanging over their head of one day being told it has to be paid.

This form of debt relief has been granted on humanitarian and refugee visas, for people detained unlawfully or where DIAC is satisfied that the debts are not legally recoverable or are uneconomical to pursue. Over the years there have been considerable concerns raised regarding the lack of transparency in the debt waiver and write-off process. Organisations such as the Law Institute of Victoria, Liberty Victoria and the Justice Project point out that persons eventually granted a visa must either accept the liability or rely on debt write-off or debt waivers to escape liability. These practices operate quite arbitrarily without the procedural safeguards ordinarily afforded to persons by way of the rule of law. Although it must be acknowledged that a large percentage of the debt arising from the detention of illegal immigrants is never recovered, nevertheless the act provides the Commonwealth with specific powers to recover any outstanding debt. This may be by restraining dealings with property, attaching the debt to specific forms of income of the debtor, entering premises to seize and sell valuables of the debtor or preventing a financial institution or bank from processing any transactions in any account held by the debtor. It is true that a payment plan can negotiated between the Commonwealth and the ex-detainee, but some repayment plans have left detainees with repayments taking place over many decades. Therefore, it is not only costly and time consuming to pursue payment but a largely unsuccessful exercise.

For people deported from Australia there is no obligation to pay their detention debt to the Australian government once they are living offshore. However, having a debt may prevent people from being able to re-enter Australia should they wish to return lawfully. An accumulated debt may impede a person’s legitimate entry into Australia in the future, because DIAC is able to refuse to grant a visa to a person who holds a debt against the Commonwealth. If you are deported, the debt is registered against your name. This can lead to families being split and family breakdown.

In 2008, after nine years in detention, a man was removed to the United Kingdom. He was handed an account on leaving for $512,000. This will, of course, stop him from returning to Australia, so he will not be able to see his wife, her ailing parents or his children and grandchildren. This man had been living in Australia since 1982 and when last we heard was living in an abject state in the United Kingdom.

Since 2004-05 less than 2.5 per cent of the debt invoiced was recovered. In 2007-08, only $870,000 of $23 million of debt incurred was recovered. As I have stated, much of the outstanding debt has been waived or written off, but the idea of having a huge debt over their heads before they even begin their lives in Australia is obviously very stressful for most people. We do not charge citizens who are incarcerated for committing crimes, for their detention. If you are detained under a mental health act you are not charged for your keep or required to reimburse the Commonwealth. Neither do we charge people who are detained under the Quarantine Act. To put it simply, the detention debt policy just does not achieve what it was designed to do—that is, to limit the cost to the Australian taxpayer of supporting illegal immigrants. It is time to accept that the objective is not being achieved. It is necessary for those in the Liberal Party to accept that and to drop their opposition to this bill. Even the previous speaker spoke about the debt being waived or written off. Let us not have one at all. If we have to go down those administrative lines, let us not have it at all.

This bill extinguishes all debts for all current and former detainees, effective immediately. This has been done to permanently wipe these debts from the record. This bill moves to extinguish all debt owed to the Commonwealth at commencement time, including debts previously written off and those that are in the process of being paid. It is important to recognise that this bill does not require any debts paid in full or partially to be repaid by the government. Debts that have already been repaid were paid because there was a legal requirement at the time for the individual to pay. Therefore, the Commonwealth is not putting itself into debt by introducing these provisions. There is still a provision that allows for the recovery of money paid if it is determined the money was paid by someone who was detained unlawfully. People who are currently paying off debts will be notified by mail to their last recorded address and information will also be available on the department website. Community groups, many of whom support refugees, will also be notified of the changes.

The Rudd government is taking all possible steps to ensure that the community is aware of the changes. As stated, this bill has been introduced following a report from the Commonwealth Ombudsman and another report from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The Commonwealth Ombudsman, in a report published in April 2008, examined amongst other things DIAC’s administrative procedures in relation to debt policy in detention. The Ombudsman found that although the legislation was being adhered to there was room for improvement and that in particular the department could improve the information it provides to people, including the consistency and reasonableness of decisions on debt waiver and write-offs. There were also comments in regard to the burden of the detention debt, noting that complaints received by the Ombudsman’s office indicate that the size of some of the debts led to stress, anxiety and financial hardship to many people now living lawfully in the Australian community. The JSCM report, Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning, was the first report of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia and was released in December 2008. It determined, unanimously, the practice of charging a person for their detention was harsh and contrary to the value that immigration detention is not punitive.

But now the Liberals have decided that they do not support that report. This shows that those on the other side are not consistent in their policy—and we all know that consistency is important in a fair society. There is no reason for this change of view other than that those on the other side of the chamber are putting their own interests ahead of what is best for the nation as a whole. I am left bewildered as to why members from the opposite side signed off on the JSCM report if they do not believe in the recommendations. They are happy to support a policy where the costs of administration outweigh the debts recovered. I do not believe that is great economic management, no matter what spin the opposition use. For no apparent good reason they are digging in to not support a policy change that clearly makes sense.

The Rudd government is committed to a fair and just Australia. The Rudd government is committed to protecting its borders. The Rudd government will continue to ensure that people who enter the country illegally are dealt with appropriately in a humane and fair manner. The Rudd government acknowledges that we also have a responsibility to look after people who would be at risk if sent back to their homeland. It also must be remembered that many of these detainees will eventually be given permission to remain in Australia. It is obviously in the best interests of Australia to ensure that these people are prepared for life in Australia and that they do not start out in their new lives burdened with huge debt. This bill leads to important changes in the treatment of persons who have been subject to immigration detention. I strongly hope it will have the support of members, in particular those opposition members of the JSCM who were part of the unanimous recommendation that we abolish this system—those same opposition members who unanimously endorsed the enthusiasms of this legislation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to make my contribution to the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, I feel compelled to respond to some of the allegations that Senator Bilyk has made. Her speech was like another book of Alice in Wonderland, I have to tell you, or perhaps Senator Bilyk in Ruddland, because it was full of contradictions, nothing in it was as it seemed and everything in it did not mean what she said. Senator Bilyk spent 15 minutes defending the actions of illegal entrants to this country—people who have come to this country prepared to break the law. They come to this country and overstay their visas or they pay people smugglers—who were rightly condemned by Senator Bilyk—thousands of dollars to hop into boats to jump the queue to get here. And Senator Bilyk wants to defend that.

What Senator Bilyk neglected to mention was that those who are found to be genuine refugees inevitably upon application have their bills waived. Senator Bilyk went on to say that it does not act as a deterrent because it does not make any difference for those who are removed from the country. Then she contradicted herself by giving an example of a man who will not be allowed re-entry into Australia because he has a debt. So what is it? Is it working or not? Senator Bilyk does not seem to know; no-one on the government side seems to know. They are living in a fantasy land. By watering down the laws and regulations that had absolutely stopped the traffic in illegal immigrants, they are encouraging people to come to this country illegally.

I know that this is a very sensitive issue. When we speak strongly about it, we risk being called callous or mean spirited. But the simple fact is that there are tens of thousands of people who are seeking to do the right thing by coming to this country through the proper processes and the proper channels. This government seems to ignore their plight and is more interested in rewarding those who are prepared to break the law to come here in the first place. They say that those people are going to be great citizens, because they are prepared to break the law to jump the queue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The coalition cannot allow the government to continue to weaken the integrity of Australia’s migration, borders and programs. It would simply be immoral for us to do so. Australia’s immigration program is fair, just and humane. We look after those who try and do the right thing. Indeed, we look after those who enter this country illegally and are found to be refugees—we do. But this government wants to make it easier. It is as though the government wants to waive the double jeopardy rule so that those people can continue to try to come in. ‘Your debts will be waived.’ They say that they are tough on illegal fishers and tough on people smugglers, but they have not caught too many people smugglers. And they just send the illegal fishers home. They have not been very successful.

The Rudd government continues to peel back the integrity measures that were aimed at keeping our borders secure. The Rudd government is sending a very clear message to people smugglers that business is open in Australia. They can get as many people as they like, put them on a boat and send them out here and they will be treated humanely and respectfully and there face no downside. Currently, the safeguards in the legislation are there to ensure that those who are seeking asylum in Australia who do not have the means to pay are given manageable repayment schedules or they have their detention debts waived or indeed written off.

Rather unkindly, the government seeks to characterise the coalition as wanting to punish refugees by forcing them to pay debt. This is not true. As I have already stated, and as I will restate for the record, those who are found to be genuine refugees can apply to the minister to have their debts waived. Every minister that I am aware of has waived these debts in cases of genuine need or where the person is found to be a genuine refugee. Perhaps the Labor government does not have the same confidence in their minister. Frankly, this is a ministerial discretion that should remain, because there are no clear-cut or absolute cases. There has to be an appropriate deterrent, but there has to be appropriate consideration of the circumstances of each individual.

Speaking of deterrents, abolishing or watering down any of our current migration laws simply says, ‘We’re not that interested in deterring people from breaking the law to get into this country; we’re not interested in closing down the people smugglers who are making hay at the ALP’s soft approach.’ There are so many reports of people smugglers opening for business and sending boats out here in record numbers. Since this government came into power, they have come out here in record numbers. And this government maintains, in their Ruddland fantasy, that nothing they have done is encouraging it. Gee, it must just be coincidence that boatloads of people have been prepared to breach Australia’s borders since this government came to power!

The coalition will stand firm in this. We will not support a watering down of our migration programs. That will only serve to embolden people smugglers, leading them to put at risk even more lives as they continue encouraging and abetting others to break Australia’s law while profiting from it. The coalition will continue to oppose any changes by the Rudd Labor government that will encourage people smugglers and that will make our borders less secure.

A few months ago, I was privy to a report by a journalist. It quoted a number of department figures on how some of the illegal asylum seekers who have entered our country are treated in various circumstances. This was in April. In reading that report, I found out some of the benefits that accrue to asylum seekers. This report said that a family of four—a mother, a father and two children—who were detained on Christmas Island would receive $1,066 in cash or in a card to spend at the local store per fortnight for food, more than many Australian resident families would receive from the government when faced with extreme economic hardship.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order of relevance. I am not sure if it is relevant for the senator to mislead the Senate with information that has been absolutely repudiated by the department. I do not mind the flourishes but to actually propagate information which you already know to be false is beneath you, Senator Bernardi. So, on relevance, I am not sure he is relevant to this bill because he is actually making things up.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am simply repeating what was quoted in the newspaper article quoting members of the department. Nothing I have heard from the department refutes this at all.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you would be aware that I have just stepped into the chair and these are debating points I think more appropriate for the debate we are undertaking, so I call Senator Bernardi to continue.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, one report had a family of four who were detained on Christmas Island receiving $1,066 per fortnight for food or other expenses. This is more than many Australian resident families would receive from the government when faced with extreme economic hardship. The payment that was made to these illegal arrivals reportedly does not include the accommodation, which is a house or a home in the community. That is right—it is not a jail cell or anything else; it is a home in the community. They are offered internet access and an unrestricted phone card so that they can contact family and friends.

One can only imagine that these people, who have fled impoverished circumstances and who have paid thousands of dollars to people smugglers to enter into this country illegally, must think they have hit the land of milk and honey when they are getting $1,066 to spend at the local shop every fortnight, when they are getting internet access, a phone card and free accommodation and electricity. You tell me that that is a deterrent to people smugglers. You tell me that that is a deterrent to people coming into this country illegally. And this government wants to water down the laws even more and offer them more incentives, whether they are legitimate refugees or they are not. Frankly, I am appalled at this information.

I know that puts me at risk of being called heartless, but these people who may or may not be legitimate refugees have already demonstrated their willingness to break the law to get here. They are prepared to break the law to get into Australian territory. What are they prepared to do when they are here? And yet now, when we find that they are not legitimate refugees, this government in its great wisdom wants to waive any debt that they owe. It wants to waive any disincentive for them to come back a second or a third time, something which we have seen under this government already. People have come back here after being rejected by the previous government.

Of course, there will always be the emotional cries, and I understand there is a great deal of sympathy for those who are trying to jump the legal migration queue and who are so desperate to escape a life-threatening situation that they are forced to take the illegal and risky venture of coming to Australia in a leaky boat. I say that is nonsense. I cannot recall a single instance—and I am happy to have one pointed out to me—where an illegal boatperson entering Australian territory had embarked uninterrupted from their original country of residence. I throw that challenge out there. I am happy to accept it and I am happy to say, ‘Yes, there has been one or two,’ if someone can point it out. The recently reported Afghani or Iranian citizens who have travelled to our country illegally have been through Pakistan or Malaysia or Indonesia before paying a people smuggler tens of thousands of dollars for illegal passage to Australia. It is hardly the conduct of someone fleeing for their life if they are already in a safe country.

Recently I heard of a group of 70 Afghans who were detained in a hotel in Indonesia because they were abandoned by the people smugglers whom they had paid for passage to Australia—abandoned in a hotel. They must have been in fear for their life as they sat around the pool wondering when the boat was going to be leaving for Australia. But of course the Rudd government, as I mentioned before, denies that their policies have encouraged the new wave of illegal arrivals into our territorial waters. I offer that perhaps it is just coincidence. Once again, perhaps it is just a coincidence that since the immigration laws were softened there has been an influx of illegal boats. Some of these voyages have regrettably met with a tragic loss of life and it has reinforced the perception that the Rudd government is not being straight with the Australian people. I say enough is enough.

It is time for a reality check. We have more boats filled with illegal immigrants coming every week. Alarmingly, as I have said, there are reports that when they arrive here the passengers are offered greater financial support than some Australian citizens, and still the government is in denial. But as my colleague, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, mentioned before, a great many of the people that will be affected by this bill are not those that are coming here in leaky boats. They are the illegal overstayers: the 48,000 or so people that have overstayed their visa and come to this country legitimately. Not those who are fleeing for their lives, as Senator Bilyk said; not those who are impoverished—these are people that have flown out here and decided that they like Australia and are just going to stay on for a while. And, when they are incarcerated because they are illegally in our country, this government wants to waive their debts. This government wants to say: ‘That’s okay, mate. We understand. We can accept that. You can break our laws whenever you like. Just go home and you can come back and you owe us nothing.’

Enough is enough. It is time for this government to wake up and recognise the fact that what they are doing is encouraging illegal behaviour in this country. It is encouraging people who are prepared to break the law to break the law. It is encouraging those who want to come to this country in an illegal manner to do so, and all the time it is discouraging those who are prepared to go through fair, reasonable, open and accessible channels—the channels that have served this country so well. This is a policy that is flawed. It is a policy driven around some weird left-wing ideology that simply does not stack up and pass the commonsense test. This is a bill that needs to be rejected, and the coalition will stand firm and reject this bill.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak in full support of the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. This legislation not only marks the beginning of the Rudd government’s reform of immigration policy in Australia but corrects a significant social injustice that has been long overdue.

For Senator Bernardi’s benefit, tonight I am commencing this speech by borrowing some words from the opposition. Senator Bernardi would do well to note his colleague in the other place the member for Kooyong, Petro Georgiou, who encapsulated the essence of immigration detention debts perfectly when in June of this year he called them dehumanising. I was impressed by his comments as well as his courage in standing up for his personal beliefs, even when they were in conflict with those of his own party. We heard that from the speaker before me. Mr Georgiou was spot on in using the term ‘dehumanising’ because that is exactly what some have tried to do—to make refugees appear other than human in order to turn public sentiment against their plight. But we must consider their plight because a human cannot and should not be dehumanised. They are and will always be human beings and should be treated accordingly.

The member for Kooyong said:

No advanced society should allow on its statutes a law which so degrades and humiliates fellow human beings who are legitimately calling on our protection.

Unfortunately, this was the tenor of immigration detention policy in this country for far too long under the previous government. It has been one of dehumanising, vilifying and blaming those less fortunate than ourselves who often crammed by the dozens into unseaworthy vessels to cross untold miles of ocean for the dream of a better life, only to be locked up for years at a time. Then, to add insult to injury, they were handed a significant and crippling detention debt for the period it took for their refugee status to be assessed.

It is contrary to everything we, as a nation and as a civilised society, should be. The treatment of human beings as equals, as deserving of respect and as worthy of being treated how we ourselves would wish to be, with compassion and tolerance, is fundamental to our moral compass. That is exactly why the Rudd government has committed to an overarching restructure of immigration policy in Australia: so that those elements that went too far and took away those signs of humanity can be restored. Humanity is fundamental to our nation.

It is possible to have a strong and effective border protection and immigration platform whilst not persecuting those people who are central to it. The very notion of detention debts—excluding the debts for those engaged in illegal fishing or people smuggling—is the very definition of persecution, and I am proud to be standing here today talking about the end of this archaic practice.

Present policy, albeit an ineffective one, is to transfer liability for the cost of a person’s transport and daily maintenance during their detention to the detainee. This can amount to a daily cost of $125 or more and, over a period of several years of detention, accumulating debts in the tens of thousands of dollars is not uncommon. The original intention was to minimise the cost of immigration detention to the Australia public and transfer the liability onto the unlawful non-citizen. These debts, once incurred, become part of this person’s daily existence, regardless of whether they are ultimately granted refugee status.

If granted a visa to remain, this debt impacts on their capacity to settle themselves financially, effectively crippling them from establishing a normal life. If they are not granted a visa and they leave the country they are barred from applying for a visa until the debt is repaid. Of course, the debt is highly unlikely ever to be repaid given that most people applying for refugee status come from some of the poorest nations on Earth. Additionally, those who exit the country are often unable to be contacted by the department and therefore are not pursued for any repayments toward the debt. This renders the debt largely symbolic.

The most unavoidable truth of the immigration detention debts is that they have not worked. They have not acted as a significant deterrent to those entering Australia illegally. They have not served as a great source of revenue for funding further initiatives, and they do not come close to covering the actual cost of detention. In fact, the cost of administering the debt recovery process is often higher than the amount of debt repaid. For example, in 2006-07 and 2007-08 $54.3 million of detention debt was raised with only $1.8 million being recovered. Most of the outstanding amount was then written off or waived. In 2008-09 the cost of administering the detention debt was $979,526 and yet only $667,306 was recovered. So one would have to ask what the point is of raising these debts when they cost more to administer than one can hope to recover, and most are written off or waived anyway, thus making the exercise pointless. Those who continue to incur debts are restricted in their lives by significant debts or they are unable to apply to re-enter Australia, often to rejoin family members, until the debt is repaid.

There has been a plethora of reports leading up to this piece of legislation, all calling for either the abolition of detention debts or extreme changes to the current process. These reports were in lock-step with growing public opinion on the ethics of this issue. In 2006 the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee handed down its report, Administration and operation of the Migration Act 1958. This report stated that the imposition of detention costs was extremely harsh and called for the discontinuation of the policy, except where debts are legitimately incurred through deliberate acts of bad faith. This was followed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s self-initiated investigation in 2007 into the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The report, Department of Immigration and Citizenship: administration of detention debt waiver and write-off, handed down in 2008, found that there was scope for considerable improvement on the current process. Currently, a debt may be waived after an individual case is considered on its merits, or it may be written-off. However, writing off a debt allows for the possible reinstatement of the debt at a later time and effectively leaves this debt hanging over someone’s head indefinitely.

The Joint Standing Committee on Migration followed in a similar vein, with the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia. The report, Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning—criteria for release from detention, handed down in 2008, called the policy of detention debts ‘discriminatory and punitive’. It examined the long-term impacts of detention debts on detainees, from financial impacts through to the effects on mental health and wellbeing. The joint standing committee found that the policy of applying detention debts was not providing any substantial revenue or contributing to the offsetting of detention costs, due to the low rate of recovery of these debts.

The recommendation of the joint standing committee was to repeal the liability of detention costs and also to immediately waive existing debts. This recommendation was, I must stress, unanimous and was made with opposition members present and participating on that committee. It is therefore sad to now see a morally decent recommendation being undermined by those members opposite whom we have heard through the course of tonight—and I am sure we will hear others speak against this bill.

The migration amendment bill will work in three ways to realise the recommendations of the previously mentioned reports and community expectations. Firstly, this bill will repeal those sections of the Migration Act 1958 that move the burden of detention cost onto those held in detention, with few and appropriate exceptions. No longer will we bill the desperate and the helpless for the length of time it takes us to process their applications for refugee status and the condition in which we choose to keep them whilst in detention. The only cost that will remain is the cost of removal or deportation if their application for refugee status is declined.

Secondly, the bill will retain the liability for detention debts for those convicted of illegal fishing or people-smuggling, these being the ‘appropriate exceptions’ I mentioned before. These people are not choosing to enter Australia to flee poverty, persecution or war; they are entering Australia illegally for financial gain, causing untold environmental or social havoc through their actions, and therefore they should remain fully liable for the cost of detaining and removing them from Australia.

Thirdly, all outstanding detention debts will be extinguished under this bill. They will not be waived, thereby requiring a case-by-case assessment of the merits of a waiver—and therefore intolerably high administrative costs for undertaking this. They will not be written-off, allowing the possibility of these debts being reinstated at a later time if a later government decides that refugee seekers should once again be liable for their detention costs. The debt will simply be extinguished and will no longer cripple people financially, will no longer require costs for their administration and recovery, and will no longer dehumanise those who move through our detention system.

I think it is highly significant to point out that we are the only country that currently has such a debt for detention. No other nation treats refugees in this manner. No other nation throws more money at trying to recoup debts than it recovers. Only Australia chooses this ineffective and inappropriate policy. Does that make us the only country that is right in its approach, or the only country to refuse to admit that it is wrong? That was pretty much standard practice for the former government.

Some in the opposition—I think the previous speaker articulated this view—would have us believe that this policy is still the right way to go, still the best way to create a strong deterrent to illegal immigrants and still the appropriate way to treat other human beings, despite our lonely status. The member for Hume called the bill a means to ‘extend outrageous privileges to people who have bypassed the orderly refugee process.’ An outrageous privilege? To not burden someone with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt when they have proven to be a genuine refugee? An outrageous privilege to allow those removed from the country the opportunity to reapply for a visa to rejoin their families? This is not a privilege; it is simply the removal of an injustice. The member for Mackellar argued that, because most of the debts were waived or written-off, there was no need to repeal the provisions for transferring detention liabilities or to extinguish debts. But she obviously does not consider the enormous waste of taxpayers’ money on the continued administrative costs of these debts. Money is spent on calculating, raising, monitoring and recouping these debts; and then even more money is spent in assessing waivers and write-offs of these debts. The member for Fisher gave the incredible statement that ‘we must have border policies with compassion’ and then continued to talk about how much better the former Howard government policies were. I think they were on a different planet during those 12 years from the one I and the Australian population as a whole were on. I would like to know when exactly the immigration policies of the former government demonstrated compassion. It is not a word you would link with the Howard government on any issue, really.

The opposition congratulate themselves on their immigration policies whilst in government. They congratulate themselves on the fact that children were held in detention for years, suffering untold emotional damage. They congratulate themselves for moving our immigration processing offshore, to small islands or to neighbouring countries, as though the problem was too troublesome to be dealt with on Australian soil. And then one of their own has the audacity to say that this was compassionate. Perhaps he is stuck halfway between the past and a utopian future. Perhaps he is nostalgically attached to the policies of the former government whilst simultaneously wanting new policies that are actually compassionate, unlike those that were adopted by the former government.

This policy is exactly the kind of compassion that we have been waiting for, and some of the opposition’s own members have acknowledged this fact, much to their credit. Once again I would like to put on the public record my appreciation for Mr Georgiou’s comments. I give him full credit for speaking up for what he believes in even though it brought him into conflict with his own party and his leader. The member for McMillan also exemplified this. He at least had the courage to say that the old ways were wrong and he would not toe a party line that was unconscionable. He did not think the former government’s approach was compassionate and he embraced what will be achieved when this bill is passed.

The opposition fell silent when this piece of legislation was voted on in the lower house in June of this year, avoiding the need to demonstrate their views with a formal vote. All their talk of Australia becoming a ‘soft touch’ and ‘sending the wrong signal’ did not equate to the courage to back this belief up with an audible ‘nay’ during the vote. Perhaps now, as this bill is voted on by the Senate, the opposition will choose to not remain silent. Perhaps they will in fact have the courage to admit that the stated position of some of their own is untenable. Perhaps they will actually vote for this bill, as I and my colleagues will. Then we can all be done with this ridiculous notion that retaining crippling debts for detention is somehow the best deterrent for the illegal movement of people. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. I would like to commend the minister, Senator Evans, for his commitment to abolish this arbitrary and pointless policy—a policy that makes Australia the only country in the world that charges innocent people the cost of incarcerating them.

The Greens, through the work of former Senator Kerry Nettle and the Leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown, have for years been at the forefront of calls to abolish the practice of requiring refugees to pay the cost of having been locked up in detention. According to Australian QC and human rights activist Julian Burnside, we are the only country in the world which charges innocent people the cost of incarcerating them. It is not a distinction with much merit. The fact that a person who has never been charged with a criminal offence, let alone convicted of one, could be forced to pay the cost of being locked up in detention is an insult to the fundamental principles of justice and brings into question our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The original intent of the Migration Amendment Act when it was first introduced by the Keating Labor government in 1992 was to support the policy of mandatory detention through using it as a temporary measure for a designated group of unauthorised persons who arrived by boat between 19 November 1989 and 1 September 1994—and here we are today.

Section 209 of the Migration Act stipulates that a noncitizen who is detained is legally required to pay the Australian government the costs of his or her detention. The liability includes the cost of transporting the person to and from an immigration detention centre, the cost for each day the person spent in detention and, under section 211, the cost of removal from Australia if the detainee’s visa application is refused and they are subsequently deported. Under the act as it currently stands, each detainee is legally required to repay the Australian government the cost of their detention unless the debt is specifically waived or written off. The policy has long been seen by human rights and refugee activists as implicitly contravening international law and the spirit of the 1951 refugee convention. It has also undermined Australia’s ability to raise genuine concerns as to how other countries are treating or discriminating against refugees arriving in those countries.

While asylum seekers who were later recognised as refugees have generally had their debts waived, there is nothing in the law that stipulates this has to be the case. Many detainees released under ministerial discretion or on special visas have been issued debts and required to pay. The combined debts arising from parents and children in detention resulted in some families accruing very large debts, often exceeding $200,000. One detainee who was recently deported received a bill of over $512,000.

It is worth noting, however, that the detention debt recovery policy has never actually been effective in significantly reducing detention costs, as the level of debt recovery over the years has never been high—about four per cent on average. According to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the ‘total detention debts to the Australian government owed by 406 people amounted to $8,095,271 as of 30 June 2007.’ Of this amount, $4.8 million, or 60 per cent, is more than 120 days overdue for payment and is unlikely to be collected—not the most efficient debt recovery regime.

The introduction of this piece of legislation to extinguish all outstanding detention debts for noncitizens who are currently in detention or have previously been detained is a welcome policy shift from the Labor Party, who originally introduced this arbitrary policy back in 1992. I am glad that they have seen the error of their ways. As I mentioned previously, the Greens have been opposing the imposition of detention debts and calling for this policy to be changed for years. Detention debts have flagrantly added insult to injury for those who have come to Australia seeking assistance and protection.

Back in June last year, in response to a question without notice from my former colleague Senator Nettle, the minister stated, ‘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.’ Adding to the minister’s remarks, I would suggest that it is not just crazy to run a debt collection scheme that costs more than the money actually collected; it is also crazy to be charging innocent people for being incarcerated. It has never worked as a deterrent to people seeking asylum, as the opposition suggest. Detention debts are clearly out of step with the government’s promise of a more compassionate approach to immigration and asylum seeker issues, and I commend the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and his department for following through with their commitment to restructure the system of detention and the way in which it is viewed. The Greens believe that the use of the term ‘extinguish’ is fair and reasonable and clearly ensures that there are no avenues for any future government, whoever they may be, to force former and current detainees to repay any debt incurred.

The report Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning, by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, of which I am a member, made a number of important recommendations to improve the fairness and transparency of Australia’s immigration detention policy. One of the key recommendations from the committee’s report, which the minister outlined during his second reading speech, called for an end to charging former detainees the cost of their detention. The sums can be very substantial and well beyond the means of many people to repay, and they can cause great stress.

Given that the committee tabled its report in December last year, it has been encouraging to see the minister act so quickly on recommendation No. 18, which is to extinguish existing debt. I would also like to take this opportunity to urge and encourage the minister to formally respond to the remaining committee recommendations and the report which I co-authored with Petro Georgiou and Senator Eggleston. It would be good to see the minister’s responses to all of these recommendations.

I would just like to mention that, while the Greens are indeed keen to see this legislation pass as swiftly as possible—in fact, we have been waiting years and years for this piece of legislation—it is disappointing to see that the legislation fails to take into account the money that has already been collected from individuals. While I acknowledge that implementing a scheme to refund money that has been collected would be an administrative nightmare, I do think this is an area that we need to look into further, to see how the government could assist those who have had to pay for time spent in detention—now, of course, acknowledging that this was the wrong thing to do from the very beginning. Considering that the approximate charge for one day in immigration detention is $125, coupled with the fact that there are currently more than 30 detainees who have spent more than two years in detention—accumulating an estimated $91,000 debt at a minimum—it seems outrageous that that we have taken 17 years to repeal the liability of immigration detention costs.

The committee majority in the 2006 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report Inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act 1958 concluded:

… it is a serious injustice to charge people for the cost of detention. This is particularly so in the case of unauthorised arrivals, many of whom have spent months and years in detention. The fact that this policy has been implemented in the context of a mandatory detention policy makes it all the more egregious.

It seems ludicrous that we have a policy of mandatory detention and then we require people to pay even though it is mandatory. While some other countries have, in recent years, expanded their use of detention as part of tougher border control and asylum regimes, Australia remains the only country that has mandated a charge for the cost for detention of all unauthorised arrivals. In a speech delivered in 2004, QC Julian Burnside argued:

It is a remarkable thing that an innocent person, who is incarcerated, is made liable for the financial cost of his own incarceration. No other country on earth makes innocent people liable for their own detention.

During a visit to Canberra, Emily and her husband Kasian, who currently have an outstanding debt of $161,000, spoke to me and other senators in this chamber. Having this debt over their heads for the last 12 months has meant that there has been a constant reminder of the trauma and tragedy experienced during Kasian’s 28 months in immigration detention. Emily said:

Kasian and I just want to move on with our lives … to have security of residency and citizenship and the right to travel overseas and introduce our children to their extended family …

Given that, from 2006 to 2008, detainees were billed $54 million but the Commonwealth received less than $2 million, it is clear that this policy of detention debt is flawed. It is time to stop demonising innocent people fleeing persecution by locking them up and charging them for their detention, treating them worse than the most abhorrent criminals imaginable, such as paedophiles, murderers and rapists. We do not charge them for their own incarceration. We must move beyond this policy that has tarnished our international reputation and ensure that those seeking protection are provided with the support and the compassion they deserve. I would urge the opposition, who did not support the passage of this bill in the other place, to look closely at the devastating impact that this policy has had on innocent individuals and families and support the historic passage of this long overdue piece of legislation. Let us accept that the Labor Party have accepted that they were wrong.

Despite the official opposition position, we must acknowledge the four members of the Liberal Party in the lower house—MPs Petro Georgiou, Russell Broadbent, Danna Vale and Judi Moylan—who all gave impassioned speeches in support of overturning this regressive policy. Although we have not heard from any thus far, I would hope that we will hear from some equally compassionate and good souled members of the opposition in this chamber who are willing to speak up against their own party’s ridiculous position, which is in stark contrast to that of the community.

In debating such a historic piece of legislation, we must not forget the ongoing commitment and advocacy from all the refugee, church and legal organisations, as well as many individuals, who have, over the years, lobbied both current and previous governments to have this arbitrary and regressive policy overturned. Thousands and thousands of hours of volunteer time have gone into supporting people who have not been able to repay their debt and to lobby for this change in policy. In a paper on the policy of mandatory detention by the Public Health Association, they argued that the:

Trauma experienced by asylum seekers is exacerbated by being placed in detention centres and the uncertainty about their future, resulting in reports of para-suicide, completed suicide and self-mutilation.

Trying to quantify the specific impact of a detention debt on detainees against the many other stresses is therefore extremely difficult, but we know that it exists. For anyone with compassion and an understanding of basic human rights it is clear that the imposition of a debt on such a mentally and physically vulnerable group of human beings would have an incredibly detrimental impact on their ability to resettle in Australia and find a new life.

We should be assisting those who have sought our protection, not punishing them by imposing a charge for every day they spend in detention awaiting their visa, leaving them with a debt once they are released. The fact that Australia is the only country to have charged asylum seekers for their time spent in detention clearly contravenes our commitment to the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. That commitment signifies our intention to provide protection to those seeking asylum in Australia, those who are the most vulnerable in the world.

It is a welcome piece of legislation that is before us. It is long overdue. The Greens look forward to working with the government and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, on pursuing a more humane approach to the way Australia treats those seeking our protection. I shudder at the thought that perhaps we may go back to a day when we lock children in detention, when we charge people who are innocent and when we simply throw away the key on people in the middle of the desert. It is not the type of regime, or refugee policy, that Australia wants to go back to. It is not the type of refugee policy that our government should be looking to. I hope that the opposition reflect on some of the comments that have been made in this chamber tonight. I think they are abhorrent.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. There are two classic issues which differentiate the former Howard government from the current Rudd Labor government. Firstly, there is the issue of national security. Secondly, there is the issue of economic management. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd government continues to fail in both of these areas.

It is well recognised by serious policymakers that a fundamental responsibility of a government is to ensure the security of its nation and its people. Protecting Australia’s borders against illegal immigration is therefore a fundamental responsibility of a Commonwealth government. In addressing this fundamental responsibility relating to border protection, there is a need to recognise that there are organised criminal gangs within the global community who specialise in people-smuggling, the organised illegal movement of individuals across international borders. These people smugglers make massive profits by trading in human misery and are constantly on the look-out for impending signs of weakness in border protection policies. In order to win the battle against people-smuggling and to win the battle against illegal immigration, we as a country need to not only send the right message, a strong message; we need to send a consistent message to people smugglers, to those who may wish to come here illegally and to those who wish to overstay their visas.

Under the Howard government Australia sent a strong, consistent message. Our doors were closed to unlawful entry. This was reflected in the decrease in the number of illegal arrivals on our shores. Clearly, the criminal gangs who specialised in people-smuggling were aware that under the Howard government this type of activity would not be tolerated. Regrettably, following the election of Rudd Labor in 2008 the government made it clear that it would not continue the strong border protection regime that was implemented by the Howard government. Clearly, Rudd Labor was sending a clear message to the people smugglers that under its government there would be a significant weakening of Australia’s border protection policy. The effect of the watering down by Labor of Australia’s previously strong border protection policy has resulted in a corresponding increase in unlawful boat traffic coming to Australia numbers.

If there were any doubt as to whether or not this was actually the case, one need only look as far as the latest interception of asylum seekers, apprehended about 21 nautical miles north of Christmas Island by a Navy patrol boat, HMAS Pirie, approximately three weeks ago. We understand from media reports that the boat was carrying 77 people and was believed to have come from Sri Lanka. The panicked and clearly desperate response of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, to this, as reported in the West Australian newspaper on 14 August 2009, was to point to the ‘growing unrest in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iraq as the reason more boats were heading for Australia’. The article went on to say that the minister had been warned that it was likely there would be more boats as the situation worsened, particularly from Afghanistan. It might surprise Minister Evans to actually learn that there has been intense conflict in Afghanistan since 2001, following the 9/11 attacks on the United States. It might also surprise Minister Evans to learn that, following the military intervention of Australia and other countries in Afghanistan, no asylum seekers arrived in Australia during the 2002-03 financial year. Surely, even Minister Evans would have to concede that in reality the first major military intervention after 9/11 would have been more likely to provoke a flood of asylum seekers to Australia, rather than the situation now, many years later, after an extensive reconstruction and securitisation effort by the international community.

Perhaps there is another reason for the increase in unlawful boat traffic since Rudd Labor was elected. Perhaps it is Labor’s softening of our border protection laws. As the left-leaning minister tries to explain away the abject failure of Rudd Labor’s soft border protection policy, it is clear that what we now have under the Rudd government is a failure to properly discharge a fundamental national responsibility: ensuring the security of the nation. The weakening of immigration policy by the Labor government since its election has stimulated the biggest surge in people-smuggling since 2001-2002, when the coalition’s tough strategy on border protection put people smugglers out of business. What Labor is doing with this bill is giving people smugglers a new marketing edge. If for no other reason, this bill should be opposed because it provides one less barrier, one less hurdle, for those human beings who peddle in human misery—people smugglers and people traffickers—to continue with their despicable trade. It is to these criminals that the Labor government is giving the green light.

Quite simply, by removing yet another layer of our tried and proven border protection regime, a regime that has been built up over many years and statistically has proven to be effective, we are allowing people smugglers to further peddle their despicable trade and tell potential unlawful asylum seekers that the doors to Australia are open for business. In watering down our strong border protection policies, there is the potential, from more people attempting to come to Australia unlawfully because our doors are open for trading, that more people’s lives will be put at risk and more people will loose everything to these despicable people smugglers.

The numbers now speak for themselves. There is an increasing awareness that Australia’s borders are being seen as vulnerable. Since the election of the Labor government, since the Labor government rolled out the welcome mat to unlawful arrivals, we have seen more boats arrive illegally in Australia than in 2003 to 2007 combined. In the financial years of 2002-03 and 2004-05 under the Howard government, do you know how many boats arrived in Australia? None. No boats arrived in Australia. I will say that again for the benefit of those listening. No boats arrived in Australia. Why? It does not take much for a reasonable person to conclude that people smugglers simply could not hide the fact that Australia’s doors were not open for business. We had a strong border protection regime that made it clear that we would only accept asylum seekers who came here in an appropriate manner that did not disadvantage other migrants attempting to use the existing legal channels. It is unsurprising therefore, with the changes already made by Labor to our border protection laws and with the changes like those that are the subject of this bill, that unlawful immigration is once again increasing.

If we now look at the specific measures of the bill and we look at the outcomes it aims to achieve, on reviewing the bill it becomes apparent that this legislation has misinterpreted the prime intention of imposing a detention debt—an intention that was apparent to the Keating Labor government back in 1992 when it introduced the measures. Detention debt is not ultimately about the collection of money. It was intended by the Keating government, when it first introduced it, to represent an additional deterrent to potential illegal immigrants and was designed to send a strong, clear signal to the rest of the world that people who attempt to enter Australia unlawfully are unwelcome and that if they try to enter Australia unlawfully, then there are potential penalties that they will face if they do.

Remember: those who are incurring this debt arrived on our shores unlawfully. And the bulk of those who incur this detention debt are people who have overstayed their visa conditions. They have overstayed and have become illegal after breaching their conditions. This legislation has nothing to do with people who come to Australia using the front door, people who come to Australia using the lawful channels. And despite the Labor Party and the Greens thinking that with this legislation they somehow have the monopoly on compassion, that is not true. If ultimately unlawful immigrants are found to be genuine refugees, there already exists in the current legislation provisions enabling the waiving or the writing off of the debt that these people accrue while in detention.

The coalition fully supports the provision in the current legislation enabling the waiving or writing off of the detention debts for asylum seekers ultimately found to be genuine refugees after being detained lawfully at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. And the evidence shows that in the majority of cases the debt incurred is either waived or written off. The findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in its report entitled Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning, December 2008, support this. Paragraph 5.60 of the report states:

In practice, recovery of many detention debts is not pursued but is waived or written-off.

As set out in the explanatory memorandum, for the period 2006-07 and 2007-08 only 3.3 per cent of immigration debt raised was actually recovered. Approximately 88.8 per cent was written off as uneconomical to pursue and 7.4 per cent was waived. These figures are cited by Minister Evans in his second reading speech—or rather, in his case, his second reading excuse for this legislation—but the conclusion he then draws is fallacious. Minister Evans said:

Making immigration detainees primarily responsible for the costs associated with their detention, has not, in any significant way, contributed to minimising costs to the Australian community. And in the meantime, the Department is required to meet the high cost of administering a debt that it is largely unable to collect.

In relation to the first part of the minister’s statement, that is completely true:

Making immigration detainees primarily responsible for the costs associated with their detention, has not, in any significant way, contributed to minimising costs to the Australian community.

But it must be remembered that this measure is not a revenue raising measure, that was never the intention of this measure. It is a policy, originally introduced by the Keating Labor government, which was designed to act as a deterrent to those who wanted to enter Australia unlawfully. If it does recoup some costs incurred by the Australian taxpayer, that is well and good, but that is not, and it has never been, the primary intention of that provision.

In relation to the minister’s comment regarding the ‘high cost of administering a debt that is largely unable to be collected’—to abandon the current policy because the administration of the policy is wanting sets an extraordinary precedent. I say again for the minister’s benefit: this policy is not a revenue raising measure. It was not a revenue raising measure under the Keating government and it certainly was not a revenue raising measure under the Howard government. Both of these governments recognised that it was aimed firmly at deterring the ‘pull’ factors which influence people smugglers in luring asylum seekers to Australia.

The Rudd government, on the other hand, the left-leaning Labor government, resolutely refuses to recognise that pull factors, or internal Australian factors, have any influence on those in the people-smuggling trade. Rather, the left-leaning Labor government blames everything, including the rise of people-smuggling, on ‘push’ or external factors. It blames everything and everyone, other than the steps that it has taken as a government to soften our previously strong and effective border protection regime.

And so it is that, with the ability to waive or write off a debt incurred in detention—which in the current legislation—and with evidence that in the majority of cases the detention debt is waived or written off, it is very difficult to see how the government can justify this piece of legislation on humanitarian grounds. Watering down, as this bill will, our strong border protection regime will not only have the effect of sending a strong signal to the criminal people smugglers but will also send a strong message to potential unlawful immigrants that Australia is open for business. The only agenda driving the legislation before us is a political agenda: the left-leaning Labor Party are soft on border protection. It is an absolute furphy that these changes are required for humanitarian reasons. Why? Because the so-called humanitarian option is already available in the current legislation.

As we all witness the devastating consequences of the Rudd government’s soft border protection policies in action, it is truly horrifying that they would, in effect, roll out the welcome mat and provide criminal people smugglers with additional impetus to entice even more victims onto boats to meet an uncertain fate. In order to win the battle against people-smuggling, unlawful immigration and the people who decide to overstay their visas, we as a country need to send not only the right message and not only a strong message but also a consistent message to people smugglers and those who wish to come here illegally: the doors to Australia are not open for business. Part of that strong message is contained in the current legislation. Any watering down of our strong border protection policies should not be supported.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our borders are less secure today as a direct result of the actions taken by the Rudd Labor government. So far the government has ended the Pacific solution; abolished temporary protection visas, with more than 1,000 people on temporary protection visas granted permanent residency; and ended the 45-day rule. This bill is another step in the wrong direction. Over the coming weeks we will be debating the Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009, which will be yet another step in the wrong direction. These Rudd government changes undermine our system of mandatory detention—a system introduced by a previous Labor government—and the integrity of our border protection system. We have had a whole raft of administrative changes on the inside of the department of immigration. These things have all got one thing in common: they weaken our strong border protection system that the current government inherited from previous governments of both persuasions: the previous Howard government and the previous Keating government. The Rudd Labor government is sending the message to people smugglers and illegal immigrants around the world that Australia is back open for business—that under the Rudd Labor government Australia is back to having a soft touch. By doing so, the Rudd Labor government is not only putting Australia at risk; it is putting potential illegal immigrants at risk. The message the government is sending to people smugglers and possible illegal immigrants is: if you can find a way to get to Australia, the Australian government will find a way to keep you here.

Of course, there is a very obvious and direct link between the actions of the Rudd Labor government and the increase in the number of boat arrivals on our shores. I will go through the numbers, including both excised and non-excised places of arrival. In 2002-03 zero boats arrived; in 2003-04 three boats arrived; in 2004-05 there were zero; in 2005-06 there were eight; in 2006-07 there were four; and in 2007-08 there were three. What happened since August 2008? What has happened since the Rudd Labor government started to weaken our border protection system in this country? Twenty-seven boats have arrived on our shores.

The eastern-states-centric government, led by the eastern-states-centric Prime Minister, does not care about this, but I would have expected better from Senator Evans, as a senator from the great state of Western Australia, because the people of Western Australia are extremely concerned about where this is going. They are extremely concerned about the actions of the Rudd Labor government in the immigration portfolio. Senator Evans and the Prime Minister have been trying to tell us that push factors are at play, that the crisis in Afghanistan and the strife that Sri Lanka is in have somehow caused the influx of illegal boat arrivals. As Senator Cash pointed out, the conflict in Afghanistan has been going since 2001. Push factors are always there; it is the pull factors that have changed, and they changed in August 2008 as a direct result of the deliberate actions of the Rudd Labor government.

I will read through some of the conflicts that have happened across the world in the period 2002 to 2007, when we had a very small number of illegal immigrants presenting themselves at our shores. There was the second Chechen war; the two intifada, which went from 2000 through to 2009; the war in Afghanistan, which has been going since 2001; the Ivorian civil war, between 2002 and 2007; the insurgency in the Maghreb, which has been going since 2002 and is ongoing; a civil war in Sri Lanka for the whole decade, not just since August 2008; the war in Darfur in Sudan, since February 2003 all the way through to 2009; the Iraq war in March 2003; the conflict in north-west Pakistan since March 2003, which is ongoing; the Islamic insurgency in Saudi Arabia from May 2003 to June 2008; the Haitian rebellion in 2004; the Central African Republic Bush War from March 2004 to April 2007; the Balochistan conflict in Pakistan in 2004; the Sa’ada insurgency in Yemen in 2004; the conflict in the Niger delta in 2004; the Mount Elgon insurgency in Kenya from 2005 through to March 2008; the fourth civil war in Chad from December 2005, which is ongoing; the Lebanon war in 2006; the war in Somalia from December 2006 to January 2009; and the civil unrest in Kenya from December 2007 to February 2008.

None of these caused an increase in illegal boat arrivals on our shores. But guess what? Since August 2008, boat arrivals have started to increase. What happened in August 2008? That was when the Rudd Labor government sent a message to people smugglers across the world that we are again open for business.

I happen to be a migrant to this great country. Australia is a very generous country. Australia is very good to migrants and there are very good processes in place. For somebody who wants to come to Australia and put their shoulder to the wheel, this is the best country in the world. We are very generous to refugees. People who are genuine refugees should be looked after by Australia—of course they should—and Australia does look after them. But the reality is that people turning up on our borders are not always refugees. People who come here courtesy of people smugglers are not necessarily the most deserving of our support. We have to have a system to effectively assess people who want to come to Australia and, while that assessment takes place, we have to have the capacity to detain people who are undergoing that assessment. It is an important part of a system designed to keep our borders secure, and it is that part of the system that the Rudd Labor government is consistently dismantling, sending a disastrous message overseas.

Earlier this year, on 16 April 2009, we had a boat explode to the north-west of Australia; a boat exploded and people died. The Rudd government was going to present a report on this. Where is it? Where is the report by the Rudd Labor government on what happened to SIEV 36? It is nearly five months now since this tragic event, and still the Australian people have not been told what happened. What has the government got to hide? Instead of telling us what happened with SIEV 36, here they are introducing bill after bill that will make our borders less secure. This is not what the Australian people expected would happen when they voted for a Rudd Labor government, because that is not what Labor told us would happen before the last election.

This is yet another bad piece of legislation. This is yet another bill in the immigration portfolio that takes Australia in the wrong direction. On behalf of the people of Western Australia, I object to what is being proposed here by the Rudd Labor government, as I object to all of the measures that the Rudd Labor government has taken in the immigration portfolio that have had the effect of weakening our border protection system. We need a strong border protection system. The Australian people expect that our borders are going to be kept secure by the Australian government. The Rudd Labor government has taken step after step in the wrong direction. The Rudd Labor government has taken step after step weakening our border protection system. The government will stand condemned for it by the people of Western Australia, on whose behalf I have spoken on this legislation today.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, which will see the end of a policy that penalises persons who come to our shores seeking asylum from persecution in their homelands. I will address some of the issues raised by Senator Cormann shortly. I agree with Senator Cormann on a number of issues, but, unfortunately, this is not one of them. The supposed original objective of the detention debt policy was:

... to minimise the cost to the Australian community associated with the detention of unlawful noncitizens ...

That is how it was put. But it was a policy that, I believe, went against the essence of what Australia stands for. As I have said previously, one of the pillars of Australia's international reputation is our belief in the right of a fair go for everyone, and that is not just reserved to those born here on our shores. Under the international refugee convention, to which Australia is a signatory, we are:

... responsible for ensuring we do not return people to countries where their life or freedom would be threatened by their race, religion, nationality or membership of a social group, or political opinion.

We have established strong integration services to assist migrants to settle into the Australian community. We are helping people move into the workforce and become self-sufficient. We are also supporting people in finding a new home here in Australia. Yet for the past 17 years, under both Labor and coalition governments, we have contradicted these efforts by having in place a policy that requires repayment from legitimate refugees for the time that they were being held in detention while it was decided whether they were legitimate refugees. Ironically, those who were deemed not to be legitimate refugees and who were deported have not been subject, in an effective sense, to paying fees. The impact that this debt has had is considerable, both financially and emotionally, on those trying to start their lives over, who are in a foreign country, who may be without many of their family members and who are still trying to find their feet.

I know that the issue of deterrence has been put forward by the coalition in relation to this, but the legitimate refugees who come here are desperate because of the circumstances in their homeland. I know references have been made to Afghanistan and the war there since 2001; I think we need to put it into perspective. The number of people seeking asylum is a clear function of and directly related to what is happening in their homeland—to chaos, to political instability, to extreme poverty, to hunger and, in particular, to political persecution. I think we need to consider that those are the primary factors. If we want to stem the flow of people coming to our shores, we ought to consider the causes of that. We also ought to have effective border protection policies and target those who are responsible—that is, the people smugglers, who engage in a vile trade and who exploit some of the most vulnerable people on this planet.

When it comes to deterrence, this whole issue of debt collection does not make sense in economic terms. There is no real net gain—I think about 2½ per cent of the debt has been recovered over the years—but there is a considerable cost involved in recovering that debt. It is a punitive policy; it does not make financial sense. This whole concept of thinking that having a financial penalty will deter people from coming here is absurd. I do not think that these people have assets of any note, and it is a petty and punitive policy. I do not think that these refugees have left behind some prime real estate in Kabul or Kandahar to come here. These are people, by and large, who are desperate for asylum, for a variety of reasons, and trying to recover debt in this way seems petty and vindictive. I will support this bill and I commend the government for introducing it.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2006 the Howard government announced it would introduce legislation to move the processing of asylum seekers offshore. I told the Howard government that I could not support that proposal because it was unjust and unfair. I pointed out that, if every country did what the Howard government was proposing at the time, we would have chaos. If every country booted asylum seekers or refugees offshore to another country they would end up with nowhere to actually go. I took a stand against that policy because I believed a more compassionate approach was necessary to deal with our refugees. It is a stand that I look back on proudly and still look proudly upon today. It is important that Australia does its bit in a world where, unfortunately, people have to flee in fear of their lives. It is the Australian thing to do.

It is for this reason that I support the policy put forward by the government to abolish the detention debt of genuine refugees. It is a humane policy and one which I wholeheartedly support. However, I do not feel the same sentiments towards those people who enter this country illegally or violate the terms of their visas. I make a very clear distinction between someone who comes to Australia in order to be safe from the horrors which await them in their home country and those people who show a total disregard for Australian laws and our immigration system. One simply cannot put these two categories of people on the same level.

Australia is a welcoming country and has for many years opened its borders to people of all races and creeds. Our immigrants have brought many wonderful qualities to this country and we are an enriched society as a result of their contribution. I grew up in the northern parts of Melbourne—it was and still is a very multicultural place. It was a great place to grow up. However, we also have a society which values law and order. It is good that we have a multicultural society; however, we also have a society that values, and must value, law and order. We understand the importance of having rules in place to ensure that as a society we function in the appropriate manner. Without these rules we would have anarchy. Australia embraces its policy of multiculturalism. However, we should not be seen as a soft target for unscrupulous people-smuggling and we should not be seen as a soft touch for people to come and overstay their visas and jump the queue. These are two important principles that I think most Australians would share. I repeat: we should not be seen as a soft target for unscrupulous people-smuggling and, secondly, we should not be seen as a soft touch for people to come and overstay their visas and jump the queue.

We have a hardworking Department of Immigration and Citizenship which carefully sets the quota of new immigrants needed for each year and methodically assesses each application according to the rules and guidelines set out before it by this parliament. There is a proper process and, just as there is a process, there are consequences for those people who refuse to abide by this process. There are consequences for those people who flout the law and engage in illegal conduct, which undermines the foundations of our peaceful society. This is the case in any functioning society and Australia is no different. Therefore, when people break the law they are to be punished. Under our laws, which are not the subject of debate at present, those people are detained in our detention centres and then, very often, deported to their home country. This includes people who come out on holiday visas and work illegally in Australia in full knowledge of the consequences this brings. There are very important issues at hand here. I will go through that again: this includes people who overstay their holiday visas and work illegally in Australia in full knowledge of the consequences this brings. It includes people who obtain visas to Australia by lying on their application forms, only to have this discovered once they arrive. It includes overseas visitors who commit violent crimes during their stay on our shores. This is irresponsible and illegal behaviour. It is a costly burden on our economy and it is taxpayers who end up footing the bill.

Under the current laws, those people who are detained in detention centres are asked to pay the bill for their stay. I support this policy. I believe that, if given a choice between having ordinary, hardworking Australians pay for those costs and making those responsible reimburse this expense, the latter should foot the bill every day of the week. Instead, what this government is seeking to do is grant immunity to those people who have broken the law and let them off scot-free. That is crazy—absolutely crazy. I cannot understand why it has not been raised until now.

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

Because they are removed from Australia.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to go through it with you.

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

The punishment is removal, not a fine.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no. It is very interesting what you are putting forward here. I will go through it again. Given a choice between having ordinary, hardworking Australians pay for those costs or making those responsible reimburse the expense, the latter should foot the bill every day of the week. What we are talking about here is the government seeking to grant people who overstay their visas, do the wrong thing, jump the queue the right to not foot the bill.

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

But they don’t.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hang on, mate. Why should taxpayers be paying for it?

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

They do.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The introduction of this bill would see those who have violated their visas leave Australia debt free while Australian workers are left to pay for the mess. This bill would also benefit those people who have been detained due to their illegal conduct but have subsequently married someone and gained residency. These people should be treated no differently. Their new right to reside in Australia does not give them a right to shirk from their responsibilities.

While many refugees spend time in mandatory detention centres at a cost to the taxpayer, their debt is waived upon their release. This is the current situation. This is humane policy and one which I wholeheartedly support. Family First believes that genuine refugees who seek shelter in our borders should have their debt waived upon the release, but those who are visa violators should not be allowed to get off scot-free. That is what this bill does. It does.

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

You are just not right. You are confused.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is right. We have been through it. I do not think you understand your own policy.

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

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But what you are proposing is to let people get off scot-free. If you think that is the right thing to do, you are wrong. It is not right that through this bill you automatically wipe off the debt of people who violate the laws of Australia. It is outrageous. When you keep on standing there and saying, ‘It’s wrong,’ it is right. That is what your bill does.

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

No, you are confused.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I’m not confused, mate. That is what your bill does. It is exactly what it does—and it is wrong. When you think about it, it smacks of hypocrisy. If someone violates their visa, overstays, jumps the queue, you want to wipe off their debt. Why would you do that?

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

No, I’ll take you through it.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does do that. You can shake your head. It is true. Maybe we will have to move amendments to prove the point.

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

We are not collecting the debt. We never have.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not matter if you are collecting. It is the law you are putting in place. It is not Australian when you think about it. You are saying that you are quite happy to waive the debt of people who break the law by overstaying their visas. That is absolutely outrageous.

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

I deport them.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You deport them but you wipe the debt off as well. It is outrageous. It is un-Australian and it is not fair.

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

We don’t collect the debt.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on, mate! This is outrageous. You should know better.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I do know better. Ninety-seven per cent has been wiped off. You wrote off 97 per cent. That is what the Howard government did for 12 years.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the same government that proudly boasts of its commitment to full cost recovery for Australian exporters, which would see industries such as the horticulture industry, beef industry and seafood industry faced with crippling price increases that would put at risk their ability to compete in the global market. Here you are on the one hand with AQIS fees saying that these industries should pay their way. You don’t wipe their debt off any more. Oh no, you are quite happy to see them go to the wall. But someone actually jumps the queue on a visa and overstays and you are quite happy to deport them. But what about the debt? You wipe that off. Where is the principle in that? It is the principle of the policy that is just hypocritical. You put pressure on horticultural people for full cost recovery and at the same time you do not want to do it for those people who overstay here on their visas and break the law. You are quite prepared to deport them but you wipe their debt. It is absolutely outrageous.