Posts

The Price of Compassion?

,

A $68.5 million budget measure (allocated over three years) intends to provide HIV treatment to people who are not eligible for Medicare.

Why are Australian taxpayers funding treatment for non-citizens when we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis?

Officials declined to comment on this, stating the policy and funding mechanism were developed strictly by the Department of Health.

I then shifted the discussion to the Significant Cost Threshold (SCT) for visa health requirements, which was raised from $51,000 to $86,000 in July 2024.

How this works is that if a medical officer of the Commonwealth estimates that an applicant’s health condition (such as HIV, a physical disability, or other chronic illnesses) will cost the Australian healthcare system more than $86,000, they fail the health requirement, and the visa is refused (unless a specific waiver is applied).

I asked whether this framework allows Australian citizens a “perfect way” to bring in family members with known health conditions to receive immediate taxpayer-funded care, provided the projected costs fall just under the $86,000 limit.

The Department repeatedly stated they could not answer the “family member” line of questioning.

They reiterated that immigration rules and the $86,000 threshold are applied uniformly to all applicants, independent of separate Department of Health funding measures.

Data on exactly how many people reside in Australia under the updated threshold was taken on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get back to the topic I started on this morning. It’s an immigration issue, not a health issue.  

Ms Foster: We’ll just get our chief medical officer up to the table.  

Mr Willard: I can speak broadly about the criteria. There’s a health criteria that applies to all visas. It looks at questions of health protection for Australians. It looks at costs to the health service, and it looks at the access to health treatment for Australians. It’s applied across all our visa types. It’s applied on a risk management basis. It looks at where somebody is coming from, and the sorts of health risks that might be presented. It looks at what the person might be doing in Australia, whether they’re going to go to a medical facility, whether they’re staying for a short time or whether they’re looking for a permanent visa. All of these factors are taken into consideration when the health criteria are assessed. Dr Grant Pegg, our chief medical officer, oversees the system that undertakes medicals. I think there are very large numbers of medicals undertaken each year.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me what the three basic criteria are again?  

Mr Willard: It’s health protection for Australians. It’s cost to the health system, and it’s access to Australian health services.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is primarily with No. 2—cost. The 2026-27 federal budget included $68.5 million, or $69 million, over three years to provide HIV treatment and pre-exposure prophylaxis, which is medication that stops transmission to people in Australia who are not eligible for Medicare. They’re not eligible for Medicare, but we are paying for their treatment anyway so they don’t infect Australians with their HIV. Is that the logic behind this allocation? I know it wasn’t allocated by you.  

Mr Willard: Because it is a measure from the department of health, I really can’t talk to the logic behind the measure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why should Australians allow entry of people with HIV and then pay for their treatment, especially when Australia is under pressure economically and individual Australians are under pressure cost-of-living-wise?  

Ms Foster: Mr Willard is unable to comment, because the measure was developed by the department of health.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that the right place for this is at the community affairs estimates committee next week.  

Senator ROBERTS: But I want to know. Many Australians are calling for noncitizens who have HIV or AIDS to be deported instead of paying for their medical care. We’re letting people in here with a known liability of cost to Australians. What is your response to that criticism of this budget allocation—the criticism, not the budget allocation itself? People are concerned that we’re letting in people who have a disease, and now we’re paying for their treatment.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that is asking the officials at the table for their opinion on a matter that is not within the purview of the questions allowed to be asked at Senate estimates, particularly as it relates to the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on to the next one. Australia raised the significant cost threshold for visa health requirements in July 2024, from $51,000 to $86,000. For those following this thread, I’ll give a quick explanation. The significant cost threshold determines whether a health condition, such as HIV/AIDS or physical disability, is likely to impose significant costs on Australia’s health and community services. Exceeding it typically means failing the health requirements for a visa, although health waivers are available for some visa subclasses, including partner and humanitarian. A person who comes in under your new, higher cap can access medical care and medications for free or for a small co-payment depending upon the state in which they live. How many people are here under this arrangement across all health conditions?  

Mr Pegg: I don’t have the data in that detail, so I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could. Thank you. This is my last question on this topic, Chair.  Isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway? The other part of the question is that the numbers are increasing, which means the Australian taxpayer is paying more.  

Mr Pegg: Perhaps, if I can just offer, that’s the purpose of the operation of the significant cost threshold—to try and avoid significant cost to the Australian healthcare system. That’s why it exists.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain that more?  

Mr Pegg: When someone is identified as having a health condition through the immigration medical examination as part of their visa process, they’re then costed by a medical officer of the Commonwealth who looks at that, on a hypothetical basis for someone with the same condition—the nature of condition and severity— to determine what their costs might be to the Australian healthcare system. That could be lab tests, X-rays, visits to the doctor—those sorts of things. There’s a comprehensive process that is undertaken to do that. When that’s undertaken, a figure is determined, and then, if that figure exceeds the number that you talked about, $86,000, that is considered to be ‘not meeting the health requirement’.  

Senator ROBERTS: The first part of my question was: isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Sharp: Are you talking about a situation where the health requirement is waived? I guess what we’re saying is that the general rule is that if you fail the health requirement—as in your healthcare costs are coming in above $86,000—you will not be granted the visa; you won’t come to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s initial assessment. Forget about the—well, the payment matters, but I’m not interested in the total amount. What I want to know is: isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into the country and having their health care paid for straightaway? That’s basically what it is. The government’s allocated $69 million over three years to provide treatment and pre-exposure prophylactics just for people with HIV. They’re coming in here with a known condition, and we pay for the treatment.  

CHAIR: Was there a question, Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their health care paid for?  

CHAIR: This is a question that the officials at the table have responded to. It sounds like—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

CHAIR: you’re not using the same words to describe the same thing. I think the officials at the table have spoken about what their role is. I think you’re talking about it in a different way, but it’s not necessarily what the officials are—  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about immigration, though.  

CHAIR: I think they’ve responded to your question, which is that there’s a program that exists to essentially weed out, for want of a better term, people who have costs higher than the amount the official said.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. If they’re projected to have a significant cost threshold higher than $86,000, then I understand, but, if it’s less than $86,000, isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Foster: Senator, I don’t understand the link between the answers we’ve been giving and the family member issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

Ms Foster: That’s why we’re struggling to answer you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

Ms Foster: We don’t understand the relation of the question to the information we’ve given, and, in a sense, it’s asking us for an opinion: ‘Is this a perfect way to do something?’ That’s not our role. Our role is to provide you with information about how the program operates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll make it easier. Is it a way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Sharp: We might finish it where we began which is I think you need to direct this question to the department of health to ask them for the policy reasoning behind the measure—which group of people they were aiming to support.  

Ms Foster: We apply our immigration rules irrespective of whether or not the government has funded a measure such as this through the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of your immigration rules covers a significant cost threshold maximising at $86,000. If you assess an application to migrate here and it’s less than $86,000 then they are welcomed in. Is it a way of getting a family member in here?  

Ms Foster: We don’t understand the relationship between what we’ve told you and the question about a family. I can’t say that any more clearly. I’m not trying to be unhelpful. We just don’t understand the question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could a citizen of Australia use this to bring in someone who is going to cost Australia money and health care immediately?  

Ms Foster: The rule would apply irrespective. We would apply that rule as part of our visa consideration to any visa applicant.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but this is a way for a citizen of Australia to bring in a family member and have their health care paid for by the taxpayer?  

Ms Foster: I’m sorry, but we have nothing further to add.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

Is the Refugee Program Changing Australia?

, ,

The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.

25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.

The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”

Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today. 

His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.  

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

The UN’s Grip on Our Borders

,

The Albanese Labor government is accepting refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries while ignoring Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria and Syria. Why are we importing cultures of violence instead of offering protection to those being persecuted by them?

The regime of Abu Mohammad al-Julani is currently conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites to establish a caliphate. I asked whether the government would balance the intake to protect these groups before they are killed. 

Why is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees effectively “managing” our resettlement intake, a practice that risks the safety and security of everyday Australians? 

Instead of addressing why Christian refugees are being excluded, Minister Watt resorted to the usual Labor tactics: personal attacks. He attempted to smear me and my party as “divisive” and falsely attributed comments to Senator Hanson to avoid answering for his government’s policies. 

I made it clear: our immigration program should be based on protecting our security and supporting those truly in need, rather than outsourcing our sovereignty to the UN or prioritising groups that do not share our values. The Minister’s refusal to provide a straight answer only proves that this government is more interested in virtue signalling than the safety of the Australian people.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Watt. Last November, I asked you about the country of origin of refugees in your government’s refugee visa program. Your response on notice stated, ‘There were no visas granted to citizens of Nigeria or South Africa through the offshore refugee program.’ In my question, I pointed out the reason why we’re not taking in Christian refugees is that your government is taking refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries or communities. Minister, why is your government not offering refugee status to Christians currently being subject to persecution, violence and murder in Nigeria and South Africa rather than taking the people who are propagating the culture of violence? 

Senator WATT: I’m always careful, Senator Roberts, to not concede that what you put forward as facts are actually facts, particularly on matters relating to migration because we know that you and your party seek to divide Australians based on the issue of migration. If any evidence of that is needed, it’s the conclusion of your question which yet again seeks to tar all Muslim Australians and Muslim migrants with the action of a small minority who do the wrong thing. It wasn’t that long ago that your party leader, Senator Hanson, effectively said that there was no such thing as a good Muslim, a statement that we utterly reject and, in fact, Senator Whitten rejected, to his credit. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: I have a point of order. That’s not accurate; she did not say that. That was a media beat-up. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, thank you for sitting down when I requested it. Minister Watt, please continue. 

Senator WATT: Senator Hanson’s comments on Muslims were so outrageous that Barnaby Joyce distanced himself from them and Senator Whitten distanced himself from them. I don’t recall you distancing yourself from those comments, Senator Roberts, and it’s a matter for you to determine how you feel about those statements. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: I just did distance myself because the comments weren’t accurate. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, that’s not a point of order; it’s a debating point. Minister Watt, have you concluded your answer? 

Senator WATT: What I’ve said repeatedly in answer to questions from One Nation on the issue of migration in this chamber is that the Albanese government proudly has a policy of not discriminating against migrants based on their religion or other personal attributes. We will always consider the merits of every migration application. Each and every day, we reject applicants who are seeking to move to Australia and migrate to Australia on the basis of character checks and other reasons, but we don’t have a blanket rule of stopping all people from a certain faith in the way that One Nation seeks to do. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Syrian Islamic regime of President Abu Mohammad al-Julani is conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites in Syria to turn Syria into a caliphate. The videos are all over social media, and, yes, we have checked them, and they have been authenticated. Minister, will you reduce your Islamic refugee intake and at least balance it with Nigerian and Syrian Christian and Syrian Alawite refugees before they too are killed at the hands of Islamists? 

Senator WATT: Again, Senator Roberts, to your deep shame, you are equating every Muslim who seeks to move to Australia with the actions of what sounds like a reprehensible organisation, and that is not a position that we accept. Our position is that anyone who seeks to get a visa to migrate to Australia should be assessed to ensure that they are of good character, that they don’t present 

a security risk to Australians wherever they’re from and whatever their faith is. Senator Roberts, I might need to remind you of the comments of your leader, Senator Hanson. She was asked whether there are good Muslims out there, and she said: ‘How can you tell me there are good Muslims?’ If that’s the kind of language and rhetoric that you think is going to help bring this country together, then that’s on you. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, in your written reply dated 4 November, you twice refer to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and admit that it informs and ‘manages’ your resettlement intake. Why is your immigration program risking the safety and security of everyday Australians? 

Senator WATT: It’s not, and, Senator Roberts, I know you and your party have sought to profit politically from the awful tragedy we saw at Bondi just before Christmas. It’s worth remembering that one of the people involved in those attacks migrated to Australia during the Howard government’s period in office and the other of those people was born in Australia. But let’s just ignore the facts for a minute, Senator Roberts, hey? That’s the way you operate. The way this government operates is that we make decisions about individual applicants based on their character, based on whether they’re going to make a positive contribution to Australia and whether they represent a security risk to Australia. We do not have the kind of approach that you are encouraging us to take, and we will always, proudly, stand up for Australian values in terms of who is admitted to this country. 

/4 Comments/by

Why Is the Refugee Program Ignoring Persecuted Christians?

,

Question Time: I asked the government why its refugee program seems to favour cultures that struggle to integrate while ignoring persecuted Christians—people who share similar values to ours and are being slaughtered right now.

Minister Watt couldn’t answer and has taken my questions on notice.

Update: Minister Watt has since provided answers, which I’ll address in a follow-up video below 👇titled – Four Islamic Nations Dominate Our Refugee Intake

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, regarding humanitarian visas. In the 2024-25 financial years or the 2024 calendar year,
what are the top five countries of origin of refugees to which your government granted humanitarian visas?

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water): Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don’t have that level of detail with me but am happy to come back to you on notice.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: In that period, how many refugee visas were granted overall, and how many of those were issued to Nigerian Christians and South African farmers?

Senator WATT: Again, I’ll come back to you on notice.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Islamic cultures and cultures foreign to Australia need a lot of work to integrate into our country, yet your government’s refugee program disproportionately favours
Islamic and foreign cultures over Christians, who have a similar culture to Australia’s. Minister, why does your government’s refugee program deliberately exclude Christians who are being slaughtered as we speak?

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I’m not quite sure that you’re telling the truth there. I have said that I will come back to you on notice with the facts, but
Australia has had a non-discriminatory immigration policy for many decades, which has been supported up until now, at least, by the Liberal Party. I’m not quite sure what their position is on these matters these days, but we remain proudly in support of a non-discriminatory migration policy, and it will remain that way under Labor as long as we’re in government

Four Islamic Nations Dominate Our Refugee Intake

Follow-up to my video titled “Why Is the Refugee Program Ignoring Persecuted Christians?”

In that video, I questioned the government about the refugee program appearing to prioritise cultures with poor integration outcomes over those who share our values and are facing severe persecution. Minister Watt undertook to provide answers on notice—and has since done so. I’ll address his response in this update.

After reviewing those answers, I again used Question Time to ask why 73% of Australia’s humanitarian visas—14,500 out of 20,000—are allocated to five countries: Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Iraq, and Malaysia. Four of these nations are predominantly Islamic.

Minister Watt responded by stating that the Australian Labor Party supports a non-discriminatory immigration policy and does not discriminate against people on the basis of faith.

I asked the Minister whether Labor is cherry-picking UN advice to exclude Christians. Despite UN guidance to protect them, Christians persecuted in countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, and Eritrea appear to be ignored.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister Watt. I thank the minister for his written response to my last question without notice on refugee numbers. From your reply, Minister, the top five countries for our humanitarian program, comprising 14,500 of our 20,000 humanitarian visa intake, or 73 per cent, are Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Iraq and Malaysia. Four of these have Islam as their dominant or state religion. The fifth, Myanmar, is Buddhist, yet the UN Human Rights Council prioritises Rohingya refugees, who are Islamic. It seems deliberate, Minister, that your humanitarian visa program is overwhelmingly favouring Islamic refugees over Christian refugees. Why? 

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water): Thank you, Senator Roberts, for the question. I think the last time you asked me a question about this I pointed out that the Australian Labor Party, perhaps unlike other parties in this chamber, proudly stands for a non-discriminatory immigration policy. We don’t rule people out on the basis of their faith, on the basis of their race or on the basis of the country that they come from. Listening to the list of countries that you just provided to us— 

Senator McKim: Just their mode of arrival, hey? 

The PRESIDENT: Order! 

Senator WATT: I would argue that the common feature of each of those countries is not so much their religion but the fact that they are war torn and that they are countries that people are fleeing because of concerns for their safety. 

Senator McKim: What if they arrive by boat, Murray? 

Senator WATT: Senator McKim seeks to keep interrupting. It’s a— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, I’ve got Senator Wong on her feet. 

Senator Allman-Payne: Oh! 

Senator Wong: I’m sorry, Senator Allman-Payne—you don’t want me to take a point of order? President, there have been interjections from that particular senator, Senator McKim, through the response to the previous question that was asked by the Greens and now through this. I would ask you to ask him to cease the interjections on this minister. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. I have personally called Senator McKim to account on the previous question, and I just called order. I am reluctant, always, to interrupt those that are either asking or answering questions, but, Senator McKim, just cease. Thank you. 

Senator WATT: As I was saying, our government and the Labor Party stand for a non-discriminatory immigration policy, and we don’t discriminate against people on the basis of their faith. As Senator Ayres was mentioning, I think what we’re seeing and hearing here from One Nation is foreshadowing where we’re going to see the coalition end up on immigration policy in a matter of weeks, because we know that’s what happened when it came to net zero policy. It started with One Nation railing against wind farms and railing against net zero, and then it spread to the National Party, and then it spread to the Liberal Party, and then it even spread to the so-called moderates in the Liberal Party, who had to cave in to the conservatives, the Nationals and One Nation on their opposition to net zero. So what we’re seeing here, I predict, is what we will see within a matter of weeks as the immigration policy of the Liberal Party. Hello, Senator Duniam. You’re in charge now, along with Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr might have to face a situation where he has to explain to those Brisbane multicultural groups why he’s followed One Nation when it comes to immigration policy. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Roberts, first— 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, just wait. I’m calming the chamber down. Please continue. First supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Your letter admits Australia has not issued one humanitarian visa in Nigeria, yet the current United Nations Human Rights Council guidance, since 2016, has promoted protecting Nigerian Christians from Islamists, citing hundreds—now thousands—of deaths. Similar guidance exists for protecting Christians in Islamic Pakistan, in Iran, in Eritrea and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Minister, are you cherrypicking which United Nations Human Rights Council guidance you follow to exclude Christians and favour Islam? (Time expired) 

Senator WATT: No. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it is a person’s religion—for instance, Christian in an Islamic country—that places them in danger, which is the reason for the United Nations Human Rights Council guidance in that country, for their own safety. Yet your letter says you can’t tell me how many of the humanitarian visas issued are for that reason. Isn’t that reason in their case file, and wouldn’t you have to let the United Nations Human Rights Council know how many refugees we took and why? 

Senator WATT: No. 

/by

Immigration Appeals: The New Administrative Review Tribunal

,

We had hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) would be a significant improvement over the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which was overwhelmed with thousands of immigration appeals, often being assessed by Members who were friends of the Labor government. 

The new ART was supposed to be made up of Members based on merit, which would be a significant improvement—provided the new appointments are not again filled with Labor mates.

I proposed the creation of a new Refugee and Immigration Review Tribunal to handle only Migration disputes. This would alleviate the heavy caseload that is delaying decisions in the new ART and help expedite the overall review process.

Transcript

Thank you, Deputy President. We hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal would be a significant improvement over its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The old Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a failure. It was top-heavy with Labor lawyers, making it a Labor lawyer fest with appointments made based on a reward system for leftist-aligned lawyers, and there are plenty of them—lawyers doing the bidding of their Labor masters, pushing poor Labor policies, and enshrining woke and harmful leftist ideals. 

The Liberals and Nationals stacked appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, favouring lawyers sympathetic to the LNP. So much for justice under the uniparty! This stacking was a recipe for disaster and a significant reason why Labor’s jumbled and catastrophic immigration policy continues to fail Australians and continues to hurt Australians catastrophically. Look at the number of people who are homeless and who are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in their cars and in tents. If a noncitizen’s visa has expired or has been breached, to slow down the deportation process, the decision to deport could be delayed through an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is a fact, and it was done many times, ensuring that there was a high chance that bleeding-heart Lefties would delay or overturn the decision. Few Australians know that there are currently more than 75,000 illegals in Australia right now. More than 75,000 foreigners are living here in Australia on cancelled or expired visas, taking up homes that could be used by those people who are currently homeless. The whereabouts of these illegals is unknown, and the government doesn’t care, with limited resources to locate these illegals for deportation. 

It’s welcome that the current membership of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be declared vacant and that vacancies will be filled on a merit based system. My concerns are that the Administrative Review Tribunal membership will still be loaded with Labor government favourites and that the workload will still create long waiting periods before appropriate reconsideration of major decisions. It would be better to remove the review process for immigration decisions from the Administrative Review Tribunal and consider the reintroduction of a refugee or immigration review tribunal, to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal does not become bogged down with migration appeals, as it is currently. Instead of a delay mechanism for illegals to exploit, abuse and avoid at Australians’ expense, we need to deport illegals. We need to deport more than 75,000 lawbreakers and free up housing for Australians—working families who are currently sleeping in their cars, in tents or under bridges. Australian families deserve roofs over their heads and beds for their children.

/1 Comment/by

Accountability in Refugee Aid

At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired about the suitability of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) being a recipient of aid for children caught up in the war zones of Lebanon and Gaza, particularly in light of reports connecting 9 UNRWA staff members to terrorist group Hamas.

I was informed that UNRWA is widely used to support refugees and that strict conditions are now in place to ensure aid reaches refugees rather than being diverted to terrorist organisations. I was also told that new agreements have been entered into with UNRWA to ensure these safeguards are implemented.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will now move to my second topic. It’s a difficult issue. Without buying into a finger-pointing exercise of fault, it’s a fact that thousands of children are caught in the war zones in Gaza
and Lebanon at great risk of death or injury. These are the innocent victims of war. I recognise, Minister, your point a few minutes ago that Australia cannot solve this alone. I recognise that. What is the Australian
government, though, doing from a humanitarian and international aid perspective for these innocent children and from a diplomatic point of view with other countries?

Mr Maclachlan: Senator, as I think you have already heard, there is an extensive level of diplomatic work. It might seem somewhat distant from the children, but in fact it is very much about putting pressure on Israel to increase what are insufficient deliveries of aid into Gaza in particular. In addition, the government has committed $94½ million in humanitarian assistance to the region. The bulk of that is for the situation in Gaza. We heard earlier this morning about the work of UNRWA. Earlier this year, the government provided $6 million to UNRWA for shelter kits and hygiene kits. We continue to do a lot of this work and advocate on behalf of UN organisations that are trying to secure access into Gaza. It’s clear that it’s a war zone. It’s a very difficult area. It’s very difficult for humanitarian workers to enter Gaza, to operate there and to do so successfully.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will make a statement followed by a question. It has been suggested that UNRWA may not be the most suitable aid agency to be used due to its alleged associations with the terrorist
group Hamas. What due diligence has the government done with regard to that? Has there been any consideration to using an alternative avenue?

Mr Maclachlan: My colleagues will elaborate on this. We’ve used multiple agencies, including UNRWA, to provide assistance to the situation in Gaza. But the reality is, as we heard earlier, that no organisation has the
footprint that UNRWA has in terms of staff, capability and capacity, including in Gaza. It operates on a scale unlike any other agency. Frankly, other UN agencies depend on UNRWA in their own operations. We are very concerned to ensure that Australian support that is provided through UNRWA does not fall into the wrong hands.

You will be aware that the revelations that some UNRWA employees were engaged in the horrendous attacks on 7 October were investigated. Nine of those individuals have been dismissed by UNRWA. In our own work to disperse $6 million to the UNRWA flash appeal, we entered into a new agreement with UNRWA. It built in additional checks and balances. Indeed, the way in which we funded the activities through that agreement was more constrained because we were delivering, as I said, shelter kits and hygiene kits to minimise the risk that money would fall into the wrong hands. I also note that a lot of the work we’re doing is work that like-minded partners are also doing. They too are remaining committed to UNRWA. They are continuing to fund UNRWA. They are also, like us, asking UNRWA to implement the recommendations of the Colonna review that was done earlier this year, which did not find a systemic link between UNRWA and Hamas. These are matters that we take very seriously. We will continue to ensure that our work operates within
Australian law, which, of course, as officials we have to abide by.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your considered responses.

/1 Comment/by

Visa Approvals and Security Checks Amid Rising Global Tensions

,

I asked Home Affairs about the total number of permanent residency visas issued in the last financial year, which totalled 185,000. For temporary student visas in 2023-24, there were 580,193 applications and 376,731 visas were granted, with 86,473 issued up to September this year. In the same period, 315,632 temporary residency visas were issued, with an additional 64,820 granted by September.

Visitor visas in 2023-24 reached 4,713,442, with another 1,203,891 granted by September. Working holiday visas numbered 234,556 in the last financial year, with 95,371 issued up to September.

With the crisis in Lebanon, 8,330 temporary visas have been issued to Lebanese nationals, with 15,525 applications lodged. All applicants undergo rigorous vetting, including identity and character checks, with applications screened against a 1,000,000-person immigration alert list. All security checks are completed before applicants arrive in Australia. Applications from Lebanon are typically processed within a few weeks, some prioritised for faster processing if necessary.

Regarding Palestinian visa applications, 3,041 have been granted, 7,252 refused, and 200 remain under review as of September 30. 

Security criteria was confirmed to remain uncompromised throughout the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. How many permanent visas are currently issued for residency in Australia? How many temporary visas are currently issued for residency in Australia?

Mr Kilner: For the Migration Program, the current numbers for this program year will be 185,000 migrant visas. That’s the program numbers for this year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s permanent?

Mr Kilner: They would be permanent visas, yes. For temporary visas there are a range of different visas that we have. For student visas—most of the key programs for student visas are demand driven—I’ll give you a figure for last program year, as an example, and I can give you a figure for visas that have been granted so far this year. For the last program year there were 580,193 visas granted. There have been 99,868 visas lodged so far this year, from 1 July to 30 September, with 86,473 granted. The number granted for the last program year was 376,731 for students. For temporary residence visas, the number granted for the last financial year was 315,632. So far this program year, up until 30 September, there have been 64,820 visas granted. I’ll also go to visitor visas.

Senator ROBERTS: What was that category?

Mr Kilner: That was temporary residence visas.

Senator ROBERTS: The previous one was temporary visas for students.

Mr Kilner: Yes. There’s a different category—so that was student, and the next one I gave you was temporary visas. For visitor visas, the number granted for the last program year was 4,713,442. For this year to date, up to 30 September, it’s been 1,203,891. For working holiday maker visas, last program year there were 234,556 and so far this year there have been 95,371.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to another tack now. Now that the war in the Middle East has progressed to responding to attacks by Hezbollah, a terrorist group from Lebanon, how many migrants from Lebanon were
received into Australia at the end of last year?

Mr Kilner: I’ll have to take that figure on notice. I’ll just check if my colleagues have a figure. We may need to take that one on notice.

Mr Willard: I provided some evidence earlier on the number of visas we’ve granted to Lebanese citizens over the past 12 months. Your question was specifically about permanent visas, as I understand it. I don’t have that breakdown but I have that figure, which I could repeat. Since 7 October 2023, 8,333 migration and temporary visa applications have been granted to Lebanese nationals.

Senator ROBERTS: You can get the migrants on notice—the permanents?

Mr Willard: I can get the breakdown on notice, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for visas over the last year from Lebanon have been received to come into Australia?

Mr Willard: The figure for applications since 7 October 2023 to 15 October 2024 is 15,525 migration and temporary visa applications lodged.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the vetting process for these visa applications?

Mr Willard: All applications are assessed against criteria for grant of a visa, which covers character, security, health, and a range of other criteria depending on the visa that is granted. We have to be satisfied of someone’s identity, and there’s a range of processes that sit behind all of those assessments.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you lead me through the process? A person makes an application; what then happens to that application?

Mr Willard: Typically, the application is lodged online, which is how over 99 per cent of our applications are received.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that go to a consulate or something in Lebanon, or does it come here?

Mr Willard: It goes to one of our processing offices around the world. Some of them come here. Some go to our embassy in Beirut. Some go to other locations. When the application is lodged, there is a series of risk alerts in place that identify concerns or characteristics to look for around fraud, disingenuity and other concerns. To give you a sense of that process: there are well over a million alerts in place that relate to identities and documents of concern. That’s on something called the migration alert list.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you work with intelligence agencies, home affairs and cybercrime?

Mr Willard: Yes. We get a whole range of information from a range of sources, including security agencies, other agencies within the Commonwealth, law enforcement agencies and partners around the world. In addition to those alerts that relate to identities and documents of concern, there are another 3.4 million entity details which are matched against visa applications. I don’t want to go into too much detail in a way that sets out exactly what the process is, because that provides an opportunity to game the process, but entity matches are any piece of information that we’ve collected that might be able to be matched against an application. There are also 1,000 rules based alerts, which are alerts that come up to the decision-maker to take a particular action on a particular application, depending on the characteristics of that application. We also have 43 predictive models that give a decision-maker an indication of the risk associated with a particular application. That’s not all that happens, but that’s the starting point. Then there is an assessment of the application, the claims that are made and documents that are submitted in support of the application. That’s all considered against the criteria for the grant of the visa. If all the criteria are met, then the application is granted.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the estimated time taken to process visa applications? I’m guessing there is a wide range of times here. Would it be better to process these visa applications prior to these persons being
allowed to enter Australia?

Mr Willard: All the applications, when they’re lodged offshore, are processed prior to them entering. In fact, they can only enter if they have been granted a visa—if they’ve gone through that process and have met all the criteria for a visa grant.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that apply to refugees?

Mr Willard: That applies to all of those applicants, including refugees. I’m sorry; can you repeat the first part of your question?

Senator ROBERTS: What is the estimated time taken to process these visa applications?

Mr Willard: At the moment in Lebanon, we’re looking at about a couple of weeks. As you said, there’s a range of processing times, but that’s roughly what we’re looking at.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a fast-track for people from Lebanon? I’ve got nothing against people from Lebanon. I buy my lunch from them every day. They’re wonderful people, some of them

Mr Willard: What we’re doing in respect of Lebanon is supporting circumstances where Australian citizens are seeking to leave, and a close family member might be someone who needs a visa. It might be their partner. It could be children. It could be a parent. In that circumstance, we’re prioritising that assessment, but everyone still has to meet all of the criteria for the grant of a visa, and that process is taking a couple of weeks at the moment.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration being given to staying applications for visas for people from Palestine and Lebanon until hostilities cease?

Mr Willard: Across many years, we’ve seen in all sorts of circumstances situations where there are challenges in various countries. The role of the officers who make the decisions, the delegated decision-makers, is to
consider applications against the criteria and make an assessment of whether or not someone can be granted a visa.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. My interpretation of what you just said is that the criteria are not compromised.

Mr Willard: No, the criteria are not compromised.

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the most important thing—criteria? But if there’s a human rights crisis, as there is right now in Palestine and Lebanon, you may try and put more resources in. How would you shorten the
period?

Mr Willard: It’s an exercise in prioritisation—for example, triaging applications when they come in and, where there’s additional information required, making sure that that’s actioned promptly and that people get
information about what they need to provide to satisfy the criteria. It’s also about making sure we’ve got contingency, particularly in Lebanon at the moment, to be able to handle unexpected circumstances. For example, we have a capacity to collect biometrics through a mobile collection facility. We also have some additional officers in country who are supporting staff who are already there and who’ve been going through a long period in Lebanon where it’s been a crisis situation. Providing some additional staff to support them is part of what we’re doing as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Would those staff already be in Lebanon? I think that’s what you said. And they’re redirected to that task?

Mr Willard: We’ve got two posted officers and 10 locally engaged staff in Beirut, and they’ve been doing a tremendous job in difficult circumstances. We’ve had some additional people go in to provide support and
capacity for them to rest, recuperate and actually have a break as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Are they from Australia or from somewhere else in Europe or the Middle East?

Mr Willard: There are a few from Australia, and some have been cross-posted from other posts overseas.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you make sure that they can understand the cultural signs in Lebanon?

Mr Willard: There is a series of training and assessments that we do before we post people, and they are trained on cultural awareness training. But for this particular situation they’re also trained in working in high-
threat environments. They’ve also been assessed in terms of resilience, because sometimes it is a very difficult circumstance, and officers are selected on those particular qualities.

Senator ROBERTS: So the cultural training is to be familiar with the local culture so that people understand the flags; it’s not DEI cultural awareness?

Mr Willard: It’s a broader training that people go through on their overseas preparation course around cultural awareness. It’s not specific to each country. When they do go into country, though, they are briefed by the local post, particularly around the security circumstances.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll switch to Palestine. How many visa applications from Palestinians have been finalised over the last year, with full risk vetting completed?

Mr Willard: I provided some evidence earlier, and I’m happy to repeat that. There have been 3,041 visas granted to holders of Palestinian travel documents. There have been 7,252 visitor visas refused. In addition,
another 45 migration and temporary visas have been refused, eight protection visas have been refused and fewer than five humanitarian visas have been refused.

Senator ROBERTS: So, out of about 10,300 visa applications, 3,041 have been approved?

Mr Willard: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as the media stated, that some of those visa applications were processed in around one hour?

Mr Willard: I do have some processing time information that could perhaps provide some detail. Since October 2023 and going through to the end of September 2024, the median processing time for all visas finalised
for holders of Palestinian travel documents is 116 days. The average processing time in that same period is 107 days.

Senator ROBERTS: Medians and averages—and I’m not accusing you of hiding anything—can hide many, many things. Were some of the visas approved in less than an hour, or in around an hour?

Mr Willard: We’re not able to report on that level of detail. I would be very surprised if that were the case, but I can’t provide a report to—

Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the claims made in the mainstream media, the mouthpiece media?

Mr Willard: I am familiar. In fact, some of it may have related indirectly to evidence I provided previously, before this committee, in which I was making a reference to, globally, visitor visas processed in one day. But, in making that reference, with all visa applications from all nationalities around the world, the median processing time is a day. That median processing time is on our website.

Senator ROBERTS: From an application being received to the visa being granted is a day?

Mr Willard: It’s the median processing time for a visitor visa for all nationalities around the world. It doesn’t mean it’s the median processing time for holders of Palestinian travel documents. I just provided that figure at 116 days.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of those Palestinian visa applications are still outstanding?

Mr Willard: I gave some evidence earlier. I think the figures—

Senator ROBERTS: How many of them are connected with Hamas or Hezbollah sympathisers?

Mr Willard: For the visa applications outstanding outside Australia, as at the end of 30 September, that figure is 200. I can’t provide a response to the second part of your question because the fact they’re outstanding means they’ve not yet been assessed.

/by

Labor’s Failures in Immigration and Security

,

The recent admission by Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O’Neil, that the Labor government has lost control of Australia’s borders is deeply troubling. A government’s primary responsibility is to ensure the security of its citizens and this revelation is a national disgrace.

It seems that the government has ceded control of our borders to the courts. The hasty release of dangerous criminals into the community following a High Court decision last year was a direct consequence of this failure to prepare.

Labor’s mismanagement is further underscored by the recent statistics from the ABS, revealing a record influx of 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals in January 2024 alone. This represents a 40% increase over the previous January record, placing immense strain on infrastructure and services.

This government’s actions that include reissuing visas to released detainees – murderers, rapists and child sex offenders – demonstrate a profound inability to govern effectively and responsibly. Labor has proven itself untrustworthy and incapable of fulfilling its duties to the Australian people.

Transcript

On immigration, this government is lost. Its failure to prepare for the anticipated High Court NZYQ decision last year enabled the rushed and ill-considered release of dangerous criminals from detention straight into the community. With no backup plan, Labor lurches from one disaster to another. Labor issued invalid visas to the released criminals. Labor charged at least 10 of those criminals for breaching visa conditions. Labor were forced to withdraw the charges because the visas were invalid. Labor then reissued new visas to all released detainees, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. It now appears that potentially another 150 criminal detainees will soon be released into the community without appropriate safeguards. Some detainees maintain that, if they do not cooperate with deportation processes, they cannot be deported and should be released into the community. 

The revelation from the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O’Neil, over the weekend that the Labor government has lost control of our borders is a national disgrace. A government’s principal role is to provide security for its citizens, and the minister’s admission is terrifying and absolutely damning. It appears that the government has relinquished to the courts the power over our borders. 

Most recently, two boatloads of illegal immigrants made it to our shores, getting past border security, making a mockery of national security. There was the rushed issue of visas to Palestinian refugees from Gaza, some visas taking only an hour or so to issue. What about the cancellation of the visas in transit, then the reissue of most of the visas? This is a hopelessly inept government trying to look good, not do good. ABS statistics for January reveal a staggering 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals. Accounting for departures, the net growth in permanent and long-term arrivals in January was 55,330, 40 per cent higher than the previous January record intake way back in 2009, putting enormous strain on infrastructure and services. This Labor government does not know how to govern. This Labor government cannot be trusted. 

/6 Comments/by

Make Immigration About Quality Not Quantity! 

I have concerns about two aspects of immigration.  Quantity, which refers to the number of people who are let in, and quality. We should only allow new people to come and live here if they’ll make good citizens. The debacle with the released detainees putting the Australian public at known risk should never have been allowed to happen. 

Immigration numbers are currently absurd. One Nation wants to reduce immigration to zero net. That means only letting in as many people as we are seeing depart from Australia. Zero-net immigration will reduce inflation, the housing market including rentals and reduce pressure on essential services and infrastructure. It’s what many people are wanting. 

The bar for quality of immigration needs to be raised. Those who will comply with Australian laws and whose culture and values are compatible with our society are the people who will benefit our nation.

It’s quality, not quantity that Australia needs to secure our future.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say that the Albanese Labor government’s response to the High Court’s decision of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration,
Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor handed down on 8 November 2023 has been a debacle, actually, a dark humour catastrophe threatening Australians. It is clear the government was caught on the hop and totally unprepared for the decision that was openly predicted long before the High Court handed down its decision. The plaintiff’s successful argument was based on a mainstream interpretation of the concept of the separation of powers that underpins and is part of our Constitution, the Australian Constitution. This principle, fundamental to the Australian system of government, ensures the power to make and manage laws should be shared between three groups—the parliament, the executive and the judiciary. This avoids one group having all the power. The first three chapters of the Australian Constitution define the parliament, the executive and the judiciary and the roles they each play in making and managing laws in Australia. Each group has its own area of responsibility and each keeps a check on the actions of the others.

The Australian parliament makes and changes the law. It consists of the Governor-General representing the King, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The executive implements the law. It is comprised of the Governor-General representing the King, the Prime Minister, other ministers and members of the Public Service generally.

The judiciary interprets, makes judgements and rules on the law, comprising the court system, with the High Court of Australia as the highest court in our system. A feature of the judiciary is that it has the exclusive power to impose penalties or other punitive measures. No other body can impose penalties. The executive does not have this power. This means that even ministers do not have the power to impose punitive measures. The High Court confirmed this interpretation, affirming the separation of powers.

The logical conclusion was that the minister’s decisions to detain indefinitely a large number of persons under ministerial direction was predictably struck down as unconstitutional. So what should the government have been doing in the interim? Has this Labor government ever thought of the concept of a plan B? I don’t think it has a plan A. It was highly likely the High Court would apply the concept of the separation of powers. Wasn’t it logical that what would follow on would be the release of detainees who had not lawfully been detained? If a law to detain is unlawful ab initio—from the beginning—it is as if the law never existed and the detaining would be considered unlawful. I wonder how many lawsuits are being prepared right now, as I speak, against the government for unlawful detention—more taxpayer money flushed down the toilet.
Let’s consider what the government did as a response to the High Court decision. Firstly, after the initial stream of expletives, the government tried to put together a knee-jerk response by releasing some detainees under
subsequent conditional visas. A condition of some of these visas was the requirement to attach electronic monitoring devices and comply with curfew obligations. Many in the community would consider the obligation to wear monitoring bracelets and to be subject to a corrective services curfew to be punitive. Did the judiciary or executive authorise this action? Did a judge authorise this? Does this all sound familiar? The executive is deciding punishment, again. How enforceable these conditions will be may well come before the High Court. Whether these conditions will be effective in protecting the community remains to be seen. One detainee absconded and was relocated soon after. Another four detainees initially declined to be monitored with bracelets, the number now being two. What other steps are being taken to ensure the safety of people in the community? Already media is reporting considerable fear within the community. We know of at least two assaults due to these people. Surely we’re all entitled to live without fear of injury from violent offenders dumped the community without rehabilitation or proper planning.

Some of these detainees are rapists, murderers, a contract killer, paedophiles—the worst scum of humanity unwanted in any country and plopped into our neighbourhoods. Most people, with the exception of the Greens,
would be abhorrent to this. The worst of these is Mr Benbrika, a convicted terrorist who planned to murder thousands of Australians at large public gatherings. He will complete his prison sentence shortly and must be considered an undesirable resident of Australia and should be deported. Most people in Australia, apart from the Greens, would consider that true.

I certainly would wish to know what alternatives were considered to prevent circumventing the monitoring devices and committing an offence before action could be taken to intervene. Have victims’ families been warned of the offending detainees’ release? Amazingly, the latest government bills in this area do not include either compulsory reviews or considerations of the separation of powers principles. They do not. One Nation is placing before the Senate options to consider now that this bill is under consideration.

What’s the cost of this government’s hopeless management skills? The cost to taxpayers in terms of personal security is shot. The protection of a sound legal system has been abused. And there is an actual dollar cost. Labor has a well-deserved reputation for lousy money management and is now running for cover as its lack of foresight in managing predictable outcomes of poor political solutions emerges yet again. Bring on the next election so that Australians can bring on a better government for all Australians.

What’s needed is transparency. In yet another embarrassing response from this lame-duck government, which has never shown leadership and has repeatedly failed to read the mood of the Australian public, how wrong could the Albanese government have been when promoting the catastrophic loss at the recent Voice referendum? It was completely out of touch. It relied on the vibe. It was not good governance.

The Labor government’s policies on immigration and home security are woefully inadequate and are contributing to the high costs of living, high interest rates and waste of public funding, and they are now gutting home security. The heightened apparent antisemitism within Middle Eastern immigrant populations is on display for one and all to see. How shameful was the government response to the disgraceful demonstration on the Sydney Opera House steps? How many of the people demonstrating in support of the Hamas terrorists and Palestinian rights could be said to demonstrate or even pass the good character test required for many visas?

The rise of antisemitism, fear and hatred in the community is in many ways the result of a failure to exclude from Australia those who can never accept Australian standards, principles of equality and fairness, and abiding by the law. Letting anybody into Australia without conducting a genuine assessment of suitability is unacceptable. Issuing hundreds of visas to Palestinians without appropriate assessments immediately after the Hamas atrocities in October was a huge folly. There was stupidity, recklessness and irresponsibility.

We are concerned about two aspects of immigration: quantity—the number of people who are let in—and quality. Immigration numbers are currently absurd. One Nation wants to reduce immigration to net zero. That means only enough people being allowed in to equal the number of people who leave. This will reduce inflation, house prices, house rentals and pressure on infrastructure. It’s what many people want. Quality of immigration needs to be raised so that only people who comply with Australian laws and fit in with our culture and values are admitted. Who pays for this government’s mismanagement and spin? As always, it is the people—today’s Australians and future Australians not yet born—and that’s a responsibility of today’s government. The government needs to start with data and facts when developing its policies and legislation and put the needs of Australians first. It needs to get it right for national security.

As senators serving the Australian people, please remember that government has three roles: to protect life, to protect property and to protect freedom. Prime Minister Rudd opened the immigration and refugee floodgates. Pressure from the people and the polls forced him very quickly to reverse his policies, but the damage had been done. The Albanese Labor government has made an art form of blaming the coalition. Now it’s becoming a joke. The Albanese slide in the polls looks steeper than the Gillard slide and even the Rudd slide as both previous governments fell into disarray and their leaders were found deficient.

Finally, the Labor government tells us this is a matter of urgency, and it is, yet the Albanese government in charge of the House of Representatives gave itself Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday off. Why didn’t it call the House of Representatives back and get on with it? Don’t just talk urgency; take urgent action. It’s time for Labor to genuinely listen to the views of the community and to act quickly and accordingly to protect Australians and ensure justice.

/8 Comments/by

$400m in Running Costs for Nauru?

,

I asked Home Affairs if $400 million in annual running costs was reasonable. In their opinion it is reasonable, however what exactly are Australians paying for? I couldn’t get an answer out of them about how many people the facility can hold. We know there were two people there until a boat interception took place in September, which means the facility is now playing host to another 11 residents.

This facility is a sinkhole for hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. The department is tight-lipped about details around the cost-effectiveness of this clearing facility. I touched on Senator Lambie’s question about a potential threat to our security which came from a whistleblower. The Minister responded and a statement was provided to allay any concerns around the vetting of asylum seekers in the current geopolitical climate.

How much does Nauru cost per person? I don’t think we’d like the answer. It isn’t reasonable at all to expect Australians to foot the bill for this facility without a breakdown of the costs versus the benefits. We need better decisions around asylum seekers and better outcomes at a time when too many Australians are struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

$400 million for a handful of asylum seekers doesn’t make sense, so who is profiting out of this?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions have to do with the costs and, since hearing some things in the last two hours, the cost-effectiveness of maintaining Nauru. We’ve learned that there were two people in detention on
Nauru until September and now there are 13; correct?

Ms Foster: There are two people on island. We didn’t say they were in detention. There are now 11 people who are being held in the regional processing facility. I just make that distinction—that there are 11 people being detained in that facility and there are two others on island.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that clarification. The two people are free to roam, are they?

Ms Foster: I’ll ask Mr Thomas to help me here.

Mr Thomas: There are different circumstances for the individuals. I’m just trying to think of the best way to explain this, noting the privacy reasons for the individuals.

Ms Foster: We are hesitating only because it’s a small number of individuals and speaking about their particular circumstances could well identify people and be an invasion of privacy. They are in different stages of
arrangements with the Nauruan government. That meant that they were unable to leave Nauru earlier this year.

Senator ROBERTS: So they are not in detention but are living in Nauru?

Mr Thomas: They are not in the regional processing centre. So they are not part of the regional processing detention arrangements in terms of their location.

Senator ROBERTS: How much is it costing taxpayers per year to maintain Nauru as an offshore processing facility for asylum seekers?

Ms Cargill: In relation to regional processing, the portfolio budget statement for 2023-24 lays out the project budget for IMA offshore management. For 2023-24 the budget is $400 million.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the capacity in terms of the number of people it can hold?

Mr Thomas: It varies depending on the make-up of any individuals in that. There are a number of facilities in Nauru associated with regional processing.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total capacity?

Mr Thomas: It will depend on the make-up of any grouping—for example, family groupings, different genders and different ages. There might be requirements to house people differently. It just depends on the make-
up. It’s variable. Different sites will come online at different times to accommodate different numbers of individuals depending on the make-up of them.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand it’s complex, but what would be a rough estimate of, in practice, what you could hold at Nauru?

Mr Thomas: I’m sorry. I hesitate to give you an estimate of the number just because it goes to operational capability.

Senator ROBERTS: How many single males could be held there?

Mr Thomas: For the same reason, putting that number out in public would potentially breach operational sensitivity.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go, then, to the arrivals. I think a few of us were caught by surprise that there had been arrivals. How many new arrivals have arrived at Nauru since May 2022?

Mr Thomas: Just the recent 11.

Senator ROBERTS: That it? Okay. That’s September. Can you give us the breakdown by gender and age?

Mr Thomas: As noted to the previous senator, I am hesitant to provide that level of detail. I will take it on notice and come back to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Also, I’d like to know their source in terms of where they boarded the boat and their country of origin.

Mr Thomas: Same as previously, I would ask any operational questions be directed to the ABF at the next outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: On your figure of $400 million per year as a cost, is that reasonable to maintain an offshore facility?

Mr Thomas: The short answer is yes in terms of the requirements to maintain the facilities and services, noting that the enduring capability requires a certain baseline level of capability to keep it at a ready state.

Senator ROBERTS: The key, Minister, is to ensure Australia selects who enters and that we allow no security risk; correct?

Senator Watt: I said before that I’m confident that the security issues surrounding individuals are taken into account by ministers.

Senator ROBERTS: The key is to ensure that Australia selects who enters our country?

Senator Watt: Yes, that is obviously the Australian government’s position.

Senator ROBERTS: And a big part of that is to make sure there are no security risks coming in?

Senator Watt: Yes. There are always, whatever type of entrant to Australia we are talking about, basic health and security checks that are undertaken.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely the best way to reassure the people as to whether or not Hamas sympathisers are coming in is to produce the facts? That’s all Senator Lambie was asking for.

Senator Watt: Yes, there are, and surely the best way to not inflame the community is to have some evidence for making those sorts of claims, like those you’re making now, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Unfortunately, with this misinformation-disinformation bill and so on being bandied around by the Labor government—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you know that’s not—

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Lambie said quite clearly to you that she got inside information. She’s not going to give you the names.

Senator Watt: I know, and we are getting this matter checked. But, Senator Roberts, I would encourage you and all senators be really, really sure of what you’re saying if you’re going to suggest that terrorist sympathisers are entering Australia. That is a very big call to make, and—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s an inflation of what I said.

Senator Watt: at a time when the community is really worried, understandably, around the Middle East conflict—and we’re seeing a lot of tension within the community—it doesn’t help to suggest, without providing
evidence to back it up, that terrorist sympathisers are entering the country.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I did not suggest anything. I was supporting Senator Lambie’s call. Senator Watt, what you’re saying means that you need to be very, very clear and very, very prompt.

Senator Watt: We’ve got a bit of an update on this matter, and it might be helpful for Ms Foster—

Senator ROBERTS: Did you hear what I just said?

Senator Watt: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: You need to be clear and prompt in your answers—

Senator Watt: We are—

Senator ROBERTS: and not make sensational claims.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the minister is attempting to answer your question while you’re interrupting him doing so. If we could get that update, that would be helpful, I think.

Senator Watt: Ms Foster has an update, yes.

Ms Foster: Senator, we undertook to get back as quickly as possible in response to Senator Lambie’s question. I can provide an assurance that no-one with security or terror links has been brought to Australia for a temporary purpose. I understand Senator Lambie may have been informed that there were some, amongst the cohort, who had character concerns; that’s a much broader definition. The ministerial intervention process allows consideration for management in Australia for individuals with character issues, including keeping them in held detention. Some of these, of course, may have been resettled in third countries.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Foster. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. I’m glad we got that answer in the end.

/5 Comments/by