Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Lundy. I refer the minister to her response in question time yesterday to a question asked by me, where she stated:

The combination of an increased refugee intake from offshore and no advantage for those who arrive by boat removes the attractiveness of attempting the expensive and dangerous boat journey to Australia.

Given that in the month following the government's embarrassing backflip on offshore processing 42 boats have now arrived carrying 2,543 people, how does the minister justify that Labor's partial solution has any effect at all on reducing the numbers of asylum seekers attempting the risky boat journey to Australia?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not matter how many times the coalition asks this question, the answer will be the same. The answer is that we have adopted the 22 recommendations of an expert working panel and we are in the process of establishing the facilities on Nauru in which to house those people. This is how responsible governments develop policy, and in this case we have seen for many years a difficult situation emerge. By calling upon an expert working panel—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! When there is silence we will proceed. If you wish to debate it, the time to debate is after question time.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The recommendations from the expert panel, as the opposition well knows, included regional processing in Nauru and PNG as soon as practicable. We believe the measures we are putting in place will be effective and over time that will be proven to be the case. The combination of an increased refugee intake from offshore to 20,000 and no advantage for those who arrive by boat, as I said yesterday, removes the attractiveness—and I will keep saying it because it will.

As far as implementing Nauru and PNG, work is well underway. Each day there are reports of progress in that regard. We have confirmed the second transfer of asylum seekers to Nauru has taken place. Again, no force was used to get asylum seekers on or off the plane. All clients were fully compliant at every stage of the transfer. For too long now people smugglers have peddled lies and false promises that have led to too many tragic deaths. This is an enormous step towards breaking this evil trade. The message is clear: if you come to Australia by boat you are subject to being transferred to Nauru or PNG. There is no advantage to coming to Australia by people smuggler boats.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I again refer the minister to her comments in question time yesterday that:

The combination of an increased refugee intake from offshore and no advantage for those who arrive by boat removes the attractiveness of attempting the expensive and dangerous boat journey to Australia.

Given that under the Labor government the boats are continuing to arrive, will the minister admit that the only way to remove the incentive for people to get onto leaky boats is for the government to follow through with its hollow threats to send all of those who seek to come to Australia on illegal boats after 13 August to Nauru, to restore temporary protection visas and to turn the boats around where it is safe to do so?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Cash is either a very slow learner or a poor listener, because yesterday I stated—and I am happy to say it again—that the expert panel report does not recommend temporary protection visas, a measure that in the past saw 68 of those refugees permanently remain in Australia. The report also makes it very clear that towbacks create a risk to the lives of Australian Defence Force personnel and would only ever work in agreement with other countries, something Indonesia has said will not happen. If they continue to ask these questions I can only interpret that the coalition does not care if Australian Defence Force personnel put their lives at risk—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order—on relevance. The question was about the government's policy and specifically about the government's policy failure. It was not about the opposition's policy. Would you please ask the minister to be directly relevant to the question.

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

The minister is answering the question and now has 14 seconds remaining to answer it.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The other point I am making here is that we know towbacks will not occur because they require agreement with Indonesia. That has been ruled out by Indonesia. The opposition is living in fantasy land in continuing to put these positions to the government.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a second supplementary question. Can the minister explain how Labor's no-advantage principle will work in practice, given that the number of arrivals post the government's embarrassing backflip on offshore processing now exceeds the capacity of both Nauru and Manus Island?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reiterate that, while I certainly do not accept the premise of the question put forward by Senator Cash, our policy is being implemented. We have been advised by the expert working panel and we are implementing those recommendations. There are further transfers that will occur in the coming days and weeks but the government, as the opposition well knows, will not go into details about the prospective transfers. We are determined to implement the recommendations of the report of the Houston panel to stop the flow of boats for the purpose of preventing the loss of life of those undertaking these dangerous journeys.

There is a lot of work going on at the moment at Nauru. Transfield Services will be running the temporary facility, with the Salvation Army providing welfare services and IHMS providing health services for those transferred to Nauru.