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

My question is to Senator Lundy, the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I refer the minister to the government's announcement yesterday of the expansion of onshore processing for unlawful arrivals by an additional 700 detention beds, including the reopening of the Pontville detention centre and thousands of additional community places under the bridging visa program. What is the additional cost of the new measures announced yesterday?

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

The underlying principle of no advantage is the most important recommendation of the Houston expert panel, and this principle provides that people who arrive in Australia by boat should not receive an advantage, in terms of receiving a permanent visa, over those who are waiting—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order and I refer to the sessional standing order on relevance. Whilst I appreciate that the minister has been going for but a few seconds, she is either reading the wrong brief or cannot answer the question. I did not ask about the Houston report. I did not ask about the no-advantage test. I have asked quite specifically: what is the cost of the new measures announced by the government yesterday?

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

Mr President, on the point of order: I think we are about 16 seconds into the answer, and Senator Lundy is obviously describing what she has been asked to cost and should be allowed to continue with her answer.

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

I believe the minister has still one minute and 44 seconds remaining to answer the question. At this stage I am listening to the answer of the minister, and the minister needs to continue with the answer. There is no point of order.

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

I think it is incredibly important to place these questions in context and, as I was saying, the no-advantage test is incredibly important. Consistent with no advantage, just as people who are on Nauru and Manus Island do not receive work rights, people on bridging visas in Australia will also not have the right to work, and they will still be subject to potential future transfer to Nauru or Papua New Guinea at a date when increased capacity becomes available.

Prior to their release from detention, people granted bridging visas—even those subject to the no-advantage principle—undergo a needs assessment to determine their level of support in the community. People will then be provided with support under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme—

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

Mr President, I again raise a point of order in relation to the Senate sessional order on relevance. Whilst I appreciate that the minister is merely the acting minister, again the minister is either reading out the wrong brief, which she does on a regular basis—

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

Order! That is not a point of order.

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

Well, I would ask you, Mr President: I have asked a very simple question; it is in relation to the additional costs of the government's announcement yesterday. It is a very simple question.

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

Order! That is arguing the point. The minister has 53 seconds, 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

As I was saying: prior to their release from detention, people granted bridging visas, even though subject to the no-advantage principle, undergo a needs assessment to determine their level of support in the community, and people will then be provided with support under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme and, if necessary, the community assistance scheme.

The costs of these arrivals and of implementing the Houston report were included in the MYEFO—

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senators, you are asking to hear the answer. I cannot hear the answer because of the interjections on my left. I believe that the answer was about to be given.

Opposition senators interjecting—

No—the answer that you—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Order! It is very hard if there are continuous interjections to get the answer that is coming forth.

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

Those across the chamber who bothered to listen heard that I just said that the cost of the higher number of arrivals and implementing the Houston report were provisioned for in the MYEFO. In fact, the funding includes a provision for some IMAs to have their protection claims assessed while living in the community on bridging visas and receiving basic accommodation assistance, which I am very happy to go through in detail—

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

Mr President, on a point of order: you have directed the minister to the question once. We have been very patient. She has eight seconds to go. We acknowledge that a minister is entitled to provide context, but she was asked only: 'What is the cost of the measures announced yesterday?' An answer on what is in the MYEFO arising from the Houston recommendations is not a response to the question, 'What is the cost of the measures announced yesterday?' Mr President, there is no time for any more context. We are asking for the cost of the measures announced yesterday.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: that is a complete nonsense. If the opposition were not shrieking during Senator Lundy's answer, trying to drown her out, they would have heard her address the cost of the community assistance scheme, and the costs that were provided in the MYEFO for dealing with assessing claims while people are living in the community. She was absolutely directly answering the question. And they probably could not hear the answer for the shrieking and abuse coming across the chamber while Senator Lundy was genuinely answering the question.

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

Order! There is no point of order. I have been listening to the minister's answer. The minister is answering the question. The minister might not be answering it in the form or the way that was desired by the person asking the question, but the minister is answering the question. The minister still has eight seconds to continue the answer.

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

As I saying, provision was made in the MYEFO in the supplementary bills passed by the Senate on 19 November for the operational costs associated with these clients.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister agree with the comments of her left Labor colleague Senator Doug Cameron that the government's decision to process onshore will lead to an underclass being created in Australia? If members of caucus have no confidence in the government's border protection policies, how can the government expect the Australian people to?

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

People will be provided with support under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme and, if necessary, the Community Assistance Support Program. It is not a generous allocation but it is an appropriate allocation, which means they can obviously provide for their basic needs. As we have with other people on bridging visas, the government will monitor their wellbeing and mental health.

The government accepts that it is a difficult situation for them, just as it is a difficult situation for the 42 million displaced people around the world who do not have the chance to come to Australia by boat. The use of homestay arrangements is one of the available accommodation options and will continue to be used. Any eligibility for public housing is determined on a state-by-state basis and we will engage comprehensively with the states and territories. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Has the government revised its estimate of the expected number of monthly arrivals for the remainder of this financial year? If so, what is the new estimate?

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 Senator Cash asks the same question, the answer remains the same: the provisions were made for this in the MYEFO and the bills that passed the Senate on 19 November, and the supplementary bills are for the operational costs associated with these clients. There is no more information than that. It was explored previously through the course of those bills and Senator Cash is aware of that. Repeatedly, we have questions coming across the chamber—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You may or may not have noticed that both the primary question and the second supplementary question asked for an amount, and the minister has not mentioned a figure once in either of those answers. The second supplementary question asked whether there had been a revision and, if so, what it was. That is as specific a question as it is possible to ask.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Brandis, halt. There are people on your side who are overriding what you are saying. I cannot hear you.

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

I said 'has there been a revision and what is it' is as specific a question as is possible to imagine. The minister should be directed to answer it.

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

I cannot direct a minister how to answer the question, as I have said previously. I believe the minister has 26 seconds to address the question and I ask the minister to address the issue.

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

As I said, the provision was made in MYEFO and I am happy to say it again and again. The operational costs associated with these new arrangements have not been separately identified, hence I am not able to provide the actual figure that the opposition is demanding. But included are adjustments that were made in estimates for the care and management of irregular maritime arrivals.