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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Lundy. The immigration minister has just announced that refugees who have arrived post 13 August—people who are found to be genuine refugees in need of protection—will be put on rolling bridging visas. These are effectively temporary protection visas with no family reunion, no work rights and no certainty; just like John Howard's temporary protection visas. How long will genuine refugees be kept in limbo?

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

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has announced today that people who arrived by boat post 13 August and all future arrivals will have the no-advantage principle applied to their cases onshore, even if they are not transferred offshore for regional processing. The minister has said that, given the number of people who had arrived by boat since 13 August, it would not be possible to transfer them all to Nauru or Manus Island in the immediate future. As a result, some of these people will have to be processed in the Australian community. The government has made it clear that these people who are processed in the Australian community will not be issued with a permanent protection visa if found to be a refugee, until such time that they would have been resettled in Australia after being processed in our region.

This affirms the government's policy that people arriving by boat will be subject to the no-advantage principle, whether that means being transferred offshore to have their claims processed, remaining in detention or being placed in the community. The minister has also announced that while transfers to Nauru and Manus Island will continue in the coming weeks and months, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship will begin releasing some people who have arrived by boat on or after 13 August into the community on bridging visas. Consistent with no advantage, people from this group going on to bridging visas will have no work rights and will receive only basic accommodation assistance and limited financial support. People's claims will be processed while in the community under the same principle, however, consideration can be given to transfer these people offshore at a future date.

Minister Bowen has also reiterated the government's commitment to putting in place the recommendations by the expert panel on asylum seekers and implementing a safer and more orderly migration program. No-one should doubt this government's commitment to breaking the people smuggler's business model. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that these are indeed temporary protection visas, and why won't the government just call them what they are? Can the government please tell us how long people will be on these temporary protection visas? Does the government require legislation or regulation to pass through this chamber?

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

I refute the premise of the senator's question. These are not temporary protection visas; they are bridging visas. Of course, people on bridging visas may at some point be eligible for a permanent visa, but they will not be subject to any advantage if they arrive through irregular means—that is the difference. We will continue to regularly transfer people to Nauru and Manus Island, and will continue to return people when they do not engage in Australia's international obligations. Indeed, there have been a number of removals since 13 August and well over 250 people have been returned involuntarily to Sri Lanka. Arrangements for irregular maritime arrivals who are already in the community on bridging visas, and for those who arrived before 13 August, remain unchanged.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. The government have now adopted the coalition's Manus Island-Nauru policies, and now they have adopted the coalition's temporary protection visa policy. Can the government confirm whether they have also accepted the indefinite detention—or at least up to five years of detention—for children that they sent to Manus Island last night?

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

The government is taking action recommended by the panel of experts. We have agreed in principle to implement all 22 recommendations of the expert panel on asylum seekers. This is how responsible governments develop policy, by listening to the advice of the experts. We know that temporary protection visas did not work in Australia, with the overwhelming majority of people on them ending up in Australia as permanent residents. That is hardly a deterrent. If the coalition is so sure of TPVs, then why did they reject an independent inquiry into their effectiveness?

In relation to children, the first transfer, as I mentioned, has taken place. Prior to transfer, individuals undergo an assessment of their circumstances to confirm that transfer is reasonably practicable. Appropriate arrangements have been put in place for children and families in regional processing centres, and we will have more to say on these arrangements for unaccompanied minors. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) 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 comments by Mr Richard Britten, the Police Commissioner of Nauru, reported in the Fairfax press today indicating that the Nauruan authorities wished to pursue wilful damage and riot charges against two Iranian asylum seekers to answer for their alleged role in the riot at the processing centre which caused $25,000 worth of damage. Can the minister confirm that the Australian government agreed to the men's request to be voluntarily returned to Iran without having to answer for their alleged crimes? If that is so, why did the government do so?

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

The minister has made arrangements for an interim joint advisory committee to play an initial oversight role for the Nauru centre as well as provide advice to both governments on the make-up of an independent and permanent oversight committee. This will be chaired by the Deputy Secretary, Dr Wendy Southern, and Nauru MP Mathew Batsua. The interim joint advisory committee includes member Paris Aristotle and the Minister's Council on Asylum Seekers in Detention members Professor Nicholas Procter, Associate Professor Mary Anne Kenny and Maryanne Loughry. Meanwhile, Mr Bowen said that preliminary entities for the processing of people in the Nauru centre will be continuing—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I know the minister has got more than a minute to go, but what she has said so far in her answer has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked her.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President, I am not sure that Senator Brandis was following the answer properly. I know he asked the question but the answer was dealing with the broader framework for dealing with issues of the nature that he has raised. The minister has described the framework for the oversight committee and just as Senator Brandis got up to make his point of order I did hear her say, 'Meanwhile, preliminary arrangements …' and she was about to enter the detail of the question and the single case he was raising.

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

There is one minute 18 remaining and I do draw the minister's attention to the question.

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

Thank you, Mr President. As I was going to say, meanwhile the minister will begin preliminary interviews for processing people at the Nauru centre shortly. These issues all relate to the operation of the Nauru centre. Can I say to Senator Brandis that in relation to the explicit matter he has asked about I would need to get additional information because I do not have any specific brief on the matter. I am very happy to do that and in the meantime, as you can hear, our work is progressing very well on Nauru. We will, of course, continue to make transfers to Nauru and to Manus Island starting today. In this way we persist with our commitment to honouring the independent advice of the expert panel and implementing the 22 recommendations. What is unfortunate is that the opposition fail to grasp the seriousness of this issue and continue to play politics with it, to their discredit. This is a challenging issue. We are committed to smashing the people smugglers' model and it is a great shame that the opposition do not share our concern and our commitment to this serious task.

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

I thank the minister for agreeing to take on notice a question which she was not in a position to answer. A supplementary question, Mr President. Just as Captain Emad was allowed to flee this country by the government without answering for his crimes, why is the Labor government now allowing alleged criminals to flee other jurisdictions without facing justice in those other jurisdictions?

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

Again I reject utterly the premise of the senator's question. With respect to Captain Emad, we have answered comprehensively questions both in this chamber and at Senate estimates about the due process that was applied in that situation. The opposition are well aware of that and again this shows a propensity for them to want to play politics with this issue rather than abide by the law and due process. The answer to this question is that there is no basis for this challenge at all. We are applying the due process in relation to matters that come to hand. I have already taken on notice the specific issue Senator Brandis has raised. Once again I point to the irresponsible approach the opposition continues to take to the asylum seeker issue. We are implementing independent recommendations. We have an opposition which persists in playing politics with this, persists with its negativity. It would be good to see some constructive— (Time expired)

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

I have a further supplementary question, Mr President. Will the minister guarantee to the Australian people that any other person convicted over the riots on Nauru will be refused an Australian permanent protection visa, unlike the three men who were convicted for their role in the Christmas Island riots but were still granted permanent protection visas by the Gillard government?

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

What I can say is that the government will abide by the law and apply due process. That is the only appropriate answer to this question. Again I point to the coalition consistently trying to play politics with the asylum seeker issue. We have a record of government applying process, unlike the opposition, who when they were in government used continued political interference in relation to dealing with these matters and brought the government into disrepute at an international scale. In contrast, we will persist in applying the recommendations by the independent expert panel. We call consistently on the coalition to support our approach to the Malaysia arrangement and point to their negligence in not following through the expert panel recommendations and supporting the Malaysia arrangement, which would help solve this problem.