Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise to take note of the initial report of the Select Committee on the Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru—the first report to you. That report had one recommendation:

The committee draws the attention of the Standing Committee on Public Works to Commonwealth expenditure on public works in the Republic of Nauru, not confined to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection but across the Commonwealth, and recommends that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection ensures that all future public works in the Republic of Nauru are referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act 1969 (Cth).

Senator Macdonald asked what we would like to do. His notion of invading Nauru will just go to the bin where it should be.

But what we do know is: there is an evidentiary and documentary trail showing that the Labor government completely honoured and followed the probity and scrutiny of the public works act. We know, because we have the two second reading speeches or the two contributions in the other place where exemptions were sought on the basis of expediency and urgency for urgent works on Nauru. And we know that there was commitment given by those respective ministers that the Public Works Committee would be kept fully informed as to expenditure and the like on Nauru.

We also know that the incoming Abbott government—the Hon. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, and his ministers—have not followed that seeking exemption or expediency motion. They have simply gone on to spend enormous amounts of public money without the proper scrutiny of the public works committee. We also know that the Minister for Finance in this place is the only one who can give an exemption. The Minister for Finance can give an exemption to a department. Then they need to go to the other place and seek an expediency or urgency motion, spell out the reasons and get on with it. They have not done that.

Under questioning during the inquiry process that we undertook they said, 'Don't worry about that because we keep the public works committee informed.' I have to tell you they have not. Every time they have informed the public works committee, the public works committee has said to me, 'We've told them to put some documentation to us.' You need to follow this through and the department has not done that. We know that when he was minister, Minister Morrison on water said, 'I don't talk to anybody. No information will be forthcoming.' This is not on water. This is on land. This is on Nauru. We know that a company called Canstruct has had two contracts—one for $36 million and another for $16 million, which, incidentally, met the threshold of the public works act scrutiny—which were never referred. These are the grown-ups in charge.

We know from the department's evidence that $1.3 billion has been spent in Nauru. We know that $450 million was spent in 10 months—$2,000 a day per asylum seeker; $1.3 million a day; $610,000 per asylum seeker to live in a mouldy tent. I will take that back; the evidence is that it is a marquee. But after 402 days a marquee is pretty well a tent. I have to tell you that after 402 days, the average length of time that they spend there, it is basically a tent. It is 10 by 12 metres and there can be six families in there. There is mould on the inside and that is in a climate the same as Darwin. The public works committee would have tested that for fit for purpose, in the public interest, value for money and the like. But it never came our way.

The department have the gall to say, 'We have received legal advice that this is aid to another country and does not have to come to the public works committee.' I am not able to provide that legal advice today, but there will be a point when I am. I have seen the legal advice and I have to say that the legal advice they have got does not say what they told us it said. It does not say that. The public works act has applied to every bit of construction on Nauru since this government took office and it has been cloaked in secrecy. It has not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There has been no transparency about it. It has been treated basically like the on-water matters: 'Don't you worry about that. We're not telling you.'

This culture of secrecy and lack of transparency has masked an appalling outcome. This is really bad public policy: $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money spent in an appalling way. Senator Macdonald says, 'What can we do with the tiny Republic of Nauru?' We have paid the Republic of Nauru $27 million, $1,000 a month for every asylum seeker, as a visa. We have paid the Republic of Nauru $8 a square metre for however many hectares the detention centre occupies. We have poured money into a country with a GDP of US$112 million, in addition to our foreign aid, which is about 25 million. We have poured money into that tiny republic. All I am saying is that we could have used that influx of money to turn Nauru into a much better republic.

We could have assisted, quite appropriately, with the refurbishment and improvement of their hospital and their school. But we have got a jail there, a detention centre, which has 800 guards. We are spending enormous sums of money on a very tiny tropical island as if it is them and us. These people are asylum seekers. I do not think there is any evidence that they are going to rise up and take over the community in Nauru. When they are in a situation requiring fair and just treatment they should be able to get it. All I am saying is that our incredible investment in this tiny republic should have got a better outcome.

The more we talk about it, we see that it is common sense. If we are investing huge sums of taxpayers' money then why can we not have a win-win? Why can the Republic of Nauru not win? Why can they not have a better trained police force? Why can they not have a better legislative and magistrates area? Why can they not have a better hospital and a better school? Why can we not do all of these things? Basically, we cannot do them because there is a culture of secrecy with the department knowing best and delivering appalling outcomes.

They had to do the Moss review. It was an independent inquiry. The department have picked up the 19 matters, but they are looking after themselves. There is no evidence that they are actually up for any accountability or scrutiny. You cannot get in as a journalist; it costs $8,000 and is non-refundable. You cannot get there to have a look at what is going on. Facebook has been closed down. All sorts of anti-democratic measures have been taken in that place and we are paying for it. If you look at $450 million over 10 months, that is four times their GDP.

And you are telling me that we cannot influence these people to provide better certainty of outcomes and that we cannot even get the processing of the refugee claims speeded up? That is absolute nonsense. We do not need to go to war with people, as Senator Macdonald alleges. We just need persistence and common sense: 'We are underpinning your economy. We want this to be a fair and just outcome for people.' They are people, after all. You might want to denigrate them and call them asylum seekers, but they are human beings. They are under our protection and control and we have a duty to do better, not to do worse.

Senator Macdonald decries the work of this committee, but all I can say is that I will just keep bringing the evidence to this place. I will use every opportunity to get on the public record all of the evidence about what we are doing wrong. All the department has to do is follow the rules of the parliament. If it is more than $15 million and it meets the criteria of the public works act, refer it. We do not travel to Nauru; we have a look at what is being done. If you put a contention up to us that you are going to put six families in a 10 by 12 marquee for two years and you are going to spend $36 million doing it, most people on the committee, of whatever political persuasion, would say, 'I think we need to think about that; that might not be the best use of taxpayers' money.'

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we are to believe what Senator Gallacher has just said—and I almost believe half of it—again I have to ask Senator Gallacher why was he part of a government that set this up?

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are the government.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the Rudd Labor government, supported by the Greens political party, that went into this arrangement. Those listening might say, 'Gee, that Senator Gallacher had some good points.' Yes, he did. But can I explain that these arrangements, these agreements, are made between one sovereign nation and another—and they are agreements that go for a long time. The government of Australia that made this deal, this agreement, with the Nauruan government that Senator Gallacher now criticises was the Rudd Labor government of which Senator Gallacher, Senator Conroy and the Greens political party were a part. Anyone could have said at the time that doing this as a pure political measure in the run-up to the 2013 election was fraught with danger. It was not clearly thought through, and the public servants who were trying to advise the government were given strict deadlines—'This has to be done tomorrow because we are going to an election and we need to pretend we have fixed the boat people problem.' Senator Gallacher made reference to 'asylum seekers' being a term of denigration. He might think it is a term of denigration but the Abbott government has just agreed to have 12,000 asylum seekers permanently settled in Australia and so 'asylum seekers' certainly is not a term of denigration as he was suggesting. But that is beside the point.

In defence of public servants who cannot themselves respond to the accusations of Senator Gallacher, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, as it then was, was the most harassed and overworked department in the days of the previous Labor government. Many departmental officials were absent on stress leave because they were required to process the tens of thousands of people illegally arriving in Australia. They saw some horrendous, some horrific, situations. Public servants, politicians and anyone who had to deal with those horrendous situations day after day after day were being overworked, doing long hours to try to cope with the unregulated influx of people entering Australia in the wrong way. For a parliamentarian to criticise those people, then and now, is unfortunate. Senator Gallacher says the department says that they have legal advice that the Public Accounts Committee cannot go and look at a situation in another country, but Senator Gallacher does not believe that. I have to say, with respect to Senator Gallacher, give me a departmental official with the benefit of the best legal advice as opposed to Senator Gallacher's advice, based purely on politics—I will always take the public servant with good legal advice. Senator Gallacher says the department knows best. I make the same qualification: give me the department, with all their resources and expertise and professionalism, over the allegations of the likes of Senator Gallacher and Senator Hanson-Young. I will take the department's evidence any time.

Senator Gallacher, as I understood him, implied that Commissioner Moss was 'looking after themselves'. I think they were his words—if I have misquoted him in the Hansard I will withdraw that later. That is what I understood him to say. To suggest that someone as well respected as Mr Moss would be 'looking after themselves' is an awful accusation and should be withdrawn. Senator Gallacher also talked about this country having antidemocratic measures. Thanks, Senator Gallacher, it is nice of you to say that now—but where were you when your government entered into the arrangement with this government you are now referring to as antidemocratic?

Senator Hanson Young, in a previous debate we were having on a similar subject, made a big point about this being a serious subject because women and children are being raped—and it is a serious subject. You would think from Senator Hanson-Young's contribution that she was the only one in the whole of this parliament concerned about that. I would say that every other member of this parliament has the same concerns, and that is why the Abbott government has spent quite a lot of money in pursuing these issues, in trying to bring perpetrators to justice where the Australian government has jurisdiction to do so. That is why it has accepted most, if not all, of the recommendations of Mr Moss. Everybody is appalled by that sort of behaviour but it is a question of what Australia can do about it when it happens in another country. If you look around the world any day of the week you will find things happening in other countries that most Australians would find abhorrent. But there is not a lot Australians can do except what the Abbott government has done: within its jurisdiction to provide every assistance to bring criminals and perpetrators of injustice to account. Again I say to Senator Hanson-Young that I can see that the Greens political party did not support the Labor government on this particular issue, but they kept the Labor government there for six years. At any time they could have got rid of a government that was so awful that it made this rushed decision which results in all of the problems that have now been enumerated by Senator Gallacher and Senator Hanson-Young.

I assure senators and those who might be listening to this that the Abbott government will do everything within its power, regardless of cost, to try to look after the safety and welfare of anyone for whom this nation is responsible, wherever they are in the world. There is not always an easy one-liner to respond with, but that is happening and is what the department is very professionally doing. I thank the relevant department, now the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, for the work they continue to do in protecting Australia's borders and in stopping the sorts of mass drownings that we saw occur under the Labor government with the unregulated flow of people smugglers and their clients into this country. I thank those public servants for a job very well done. As a parliamentarian I apologise to them that some of their actions have been criticised by a fellow parliamentarian. They do a wonderful job. I thank them for what they have done for Australia. They deserve our thanks and credit. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.