Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans. With the arrival of six boats last week alone—which brings us to a total of 68 boats and more than 3,100 people this financial year—will the minister concede that the prediction of 200 unauthorised arrivals and expenditure of $130 million in forward estimates on housing them was grossly inadequate?

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

I thank Senator Back for the question. I remind him that in January 2000 the then minister, Mr Ruddock, confirmed that there had been 2,245 people on 29 boats arrive in less than 12 weeks, so I put some historical context into this for Senator Back.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis interjecting—

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

Senator Brandis, I am happy to debate that with you any time. It was ‘virtually nil’ but not quite.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Ignore the interjections. The time for debating this is post question time.

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

Senator Back has again been asked to ask a question that is misleading. The senator would be aware that, under this government as well as under the previous government, there has been a nominal amount allocated for unauthorised arrivals funding and that full funding for those arrivals, whatever they were, has been recovered by the department during the financial year through additional estimates et cetera. There has traditionally been a very nominal number, and that was the case under the previous government. It has been done on the basis that projection in these things is difficult, and therefore the funding has followed the number of people who are detained. That was the basis for the figure of 200 included in the previous budget. It had been a figure like that for some years. Funding has then been sought by the department to meet the costs of dealing with unauthorised arrivals. It is the same methodology that applied under the Howard government and it is a methodology that has stood the test of time. Clearly the number of arrivals is determined and announced during the year and they are funded as I have described.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. On the basis of his answer, can the minister tell the Senate how much additional taxpayers’ money will be required in order to cover for the government’s failure on border protection in the coming year?

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

If the senator has an interest in this area, I refer him to the 2009-10 additional estimates statements for DIAC, which were released in November 2009 and which updated the figures for asylum seeker management costs. They were made public and they were debated at Senate estimates.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To what? What’s the amount?

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

Senator Abetz interjects. There was total funding of $223 million, comprising $106 million in administrative expenses and $107 million in departmental costs. When the budget is brought down in May, the government will estimate the costs for the management of unauthorised arrivals, as per normal process. But, as I said to the senator in answer to his primary question, those costs are determined once we have knowledge of the number of arrivals— (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis, you know that constant interjection is completely disorderly. I understand that people like to debate these issues. The time to debate issues is at the end of question time.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. With the rate of almost a boat a day, will the minister now concede that the costs of the Rudd Labor government’s approach to border protection will amount to some $1 billion over the next four years? When will there be a stop to this Whitlamesque style of spending?

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

Can I first say that the $1 billion figure, dodgied up by the shadow minister for border protection, the shadow minister for immigration, is complete nonsense. It is creative accounting at its worst and does the opposition a great disservice. It is the sort of maths we see from Tony Abbott when he has a thought bubble about parental leave. It does not replace the need for hard work and attention to detail in opposition. I do not accept the figure at all. The figure is nonsense and has no credibility if anyone has a look at it. If you are looking for a point of referral on boat arrivals and record numbers, you do not look to Whitlam; you look to Howard. The greatest activity in the area of arrivals was under the Howard government. We are dealing with a similarly difficult proposition in terms of a surge in arrivals, but it is not Whitlamesque; it was during the Howard career that we had record numbers. (Time expired)