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

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Is the minister aware of reports today from the Refugee Council of Australia that suggests Australia’s refugee and humanitarian program has dropped to 6.6 per cent of the nation’s total migration program, the lowest in 35 years, despite the rise in the number of people seeking resettlement around the globe? Given that the government continues to inform us—and I realise there is opposition to that from the coalition—of the global rise in numbers of refugees around the world, what is the reasoning behind Australia’s decrease in our humanitarian intake?

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

I thank the senator for her question, but her last statement is just wrong. There has not been a decrease in our intake; there has been an increase in our intake. The senator relies on a claim based on the percentage of the total migration program. But her claim at the end of her question that there has been a decrease in the program is absolutely wrong—in fact, this government increased the program, on both occasions that we brought down a budget, which includes the humanitarian program numbers. On both occasions we have increased it.

The current program of 13,750 places is the largest since 2005-06 and does contribute very much to addressing the worldwide need for humanitarian resettlement. In each of the last two years we have increased the program: an increase of 500 places in the 2008-09 budget, targeted at the resettlement of vulnerable Iraqi refugees; and a further increase of 250 humanitarian places in 2009-10. On top of those increases we made provision for up to 600 humanitarian visas to be granted to Iraqi employees who supported Australian troops in Iraq, and their families.

It is important to note that we have increased the program, on both occasions that this government has brought down a humanitarian and refugee program. The argument from the Refugee Council is that it has fallen as a percentage of the total program. It is true that, over the last 10 years, there has been a large increase in the number of skilled migrants coming to this country, as both this government and the previous government sought to meet the skills needs of this economy. But the total number of humanitarian program entrants has increased both years under this government. So the premise of the question is factually not right.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It is not factually incorrect, Minister, to suggest that the percentage has dropped—that is, clearly, actually correct. Having said that, Mr President, I ask the minister: does he agree with the comments made this morning by a member of the government’s own backbench, Mr Kelvin Thomson, that increasing the humanitarian intake to 20,000 by cutting skilled migration could be doable?

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

I respect Kelvin Thomson’s contribution to this debate, and his interest in these matters, but no, I do not agree with him—I do not agree with him at all. He has made claims that support a reduction in the total program, and I have opposed those. I have made it clear that it is not my view nor the view of the government when he seeks a much smaller program—and, virtually, the abolition of skilled migration into this country, which would be a huge loss to our economy and to the potential of companies in this country to grow the economy and to grow job opportunities for Australians. But today I understand that he supported an increase to 20,000 in the humanitarian program. I will make this point: Australia does its share, but it is expensive. In tight economic times I do not think we are going to see a large increase in the program, but that is obviously a consideration for government as part of the budget. But we have grown the program in the last two years, and we do intend to continue our contribution— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Mr Thomson also linked an increase in the humanitarian intake to the possible reduction in the number of asylum seekers using people-smugglers to enter Australia. Given yesterday’s announcement with respect to increasing ASIO’s duties to deal with the global rise in asylum seekers, how will these proposed new powers interact with genuine refugees seeking protection in Australia?

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

Mr Thomson, as you indicated, Senator, sought to suggest that an increase in the humanitarian program might decrease the number of people seeking the use of people-smugglers. I am not sure that there is a direct correlation in that regard. I am not sure that you guarantee that an increase in the humanitarian program would reduce the demand for people-smuggling, given the millions of people around the world who are seeking refuge or resettlement. So I do not necessarily think that there is a direct link in that way. But there is no doubt that, if people have other options, they are less likely to seek to engage people-smugglers. The changes in the legislation regarding ASIO’s powers are to deal directly with a concern that ASIO has not been able to assist in attacking people-smuggling. That legislation will come before the parliament. (Time expired)