26 March, 2013
Capital Hill ABC24
With Lyndal Curtis and Senator the Hon Jan McLucas
27 February 2013
5:15pm
E & OE
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Hello and welcome to Capital Hill. I’m Lyndal Curtis. Immigration issues were back on the agenda today. The Greens want Australia to guarantee access by the Human Rights Commission and the media to the two offshore processing centres. The Opposition wants closer scrutiny of asylum seekers released into the community, and the Government is pressuring the Coalition over its attitude to 457 visa holders, following government moves to tighten the criteria for workers coming into Australia. We’re joined today by two senators with an interest in disability so we will talk about that as well. Parliamentary secretary Jan McLucas and the shadow minister Mitch Fifield. Welcome to Capital Hill.
JAN MCLUCAS:
Thank you
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good to be with you.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Well we will start first with the issue of immigration and the Greens want better access by the Human Rights Commission and the media to off-shore processing centres in Nauru and Manus Island.
SARAH HANSON-YOUNG (file footage):
The United Nations say that children shouldn’t be being sent there. They say the conditions are substandard. The immigration minister describes them as adequate. Well I can tell you who I trust more. The United Nations over the Gillard Government any day. This is why rather than a he said, she said type of argument, this is why Australians should be able to see what is going on for themselves. Allow the media in. There is nothing to hide. Then it shouldn’t be a problem.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Jan, the Minister Brendan O’Connor says certainly in the case of media access, particularly to Manus Island, that that is another country and Australia can’t tell another country what to do. But isn’t the reality that these are Australian run centres, so Australia could allow if it wanted to access by the Human Rights Commission and the media.
JAN MCLUCAS:
I think that is a matter that will be negotiated between the Australian Government and the PNG Government and will be resolved. But I think the take home message for me from Brendan’s visit very recently, is that the message is people who are transferred to Manus Island are looking to have their applications processed. They are being well cared for. They are being housed. It’s temporary facilities, that’s true. But they’re being well fed and well cared for. But their goal is to have their application processed. So that is the focus of our government.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
There will still be concern because the time frame for application processing still are unclear.
JAN MCLUCAS:
And that is the negotiation we are having with the PNG Government at the moment to ensure that they’re doing the processing work, we are helping them put together the framework for that processing. So yes we are very focused on ensuring that those timelines are kept to a minimum. But there is a time.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, if the Coalition got into power you would also be running processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Would you be able to guarantee media access to those centres? Access by a body like the Human Rights Commission.
MITCH FIFIELD:
What we ultimately want to have is a situation where we don’t have people in processing centres. Yes, we do support offshore processing – Manus Island, Nauru. But the ultimate objective of course is to not have people there.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
But there would be a period of time, as there was under the Howard Government in which people are on those centres. So, should they be open to scrutiny from the media?
MITCH FIFIELD:
I think the ultimate guarantee is having the minister of the day visit and inspect the centres with their own eyes. Scott Morrison is going to Manus Island tomorrow to inspect the situation on the ground himself. Ultimately, it has got to be the government of the day that is responsible and accountable for the conditions on the ground. But the ultimate solution of course is to stop the boats and not have people going to those centres in the first place.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
We might move on. Also today the shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison called for a range of measures to be taken, to tighten procedures for asylum seekers released on bridging visas, following the arrest of a 21 year old Sri Lankan asylum seeker over the alleged sexual assault of a university student in Sydney. Here is what the shadow minister had to say.
SCOTT MORRISON (file footage):
We also believe it is important that there be mandatory behaviour protocols put in place for people released into the community. Now these mandatory behaviour protocols should also have an incident reporting mechanism.
JULIA GILLARD (file footage):
If you commit an offensive, it can affect your immigration status if you’re here in our nation.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, what would you need mandatory behaviour protocols when there are already laws governing acts that are criminal.
MITCH FIFIELD:
We have the laws of the land and everyone should be subject to those. It is disturbing to hear of the alleged sexual assault at Macquarie University. But I think what has surprised the public is that there are 10,000 people on bridging visas who have been released into the community and the government has little idea of where they are, which is why we are saying there should be a freeze on further placement of people on bridging visas into the community.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Is there any evidence that asylum seekers commit crimes at a higher rate than the rest of the population?
MITCH FIFIELD:
There is no evidence of that, but it is helpful for the police in the local area to know the terrain in which they are deployed. Now that is not just because there may be a concern that people might break Australian law. It is also for the protection of the people seeking asylum themselves. Many of them are very vulnerable people who can find themselves in difficult situations. So it is also to their benefit that the police have a greater situational awareness, I think they refer to it as. But we need to have a review. We need to work out what the criteria are that government use for placing people in the community. But also where they are placed and who is notified.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Jan, does the government know when asylum seekers go into the community where they are?
JAN MCLUCAS:
I’m sure we do. I don’t that we know person x is at a certain point in time. But we have got to remember these people have been through a security check. So they have passed that level of assurance to the Australian community that they’re secure, that they’ve been passed through that process. I think the idea of making sure that we know exactly where anyone is at any one time is an extraordinary bureaucratic response to a reality, and Mitch, you acknowledge, we don’t think these people are committing crimes at a higher rate. What a kneejerk and big heavy fisted response, to really, a very unfortunate event, terrible event, that may have occurred. But to respond in this way, is just once again promoting the fear in the community, promoting the mistrust of people who are seeking asylum in our country.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
I wanted to ask you both a question about the 457 visa changes that the Minister announced on the weekend. Jan, the Prime Minister is talking about jobs for Australian’s first, but aren’t the visas aimed, if they’re used properly, at filling the skills gaps that Australians, that people in Australia aren’t already available for?
JAN MCLUCAS:
Absolutely. The 457 visa is designed to fill those skills gaps where they are genuine skills gaps.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Does tightening the criteria make it potentially more difficult to fill those skills gaps?
JAN MCLUCAS:
We don’t think so. But we have found cases where things have not been totally above board. And ensuring that people do absolutely go through a process to make sure that they cannot find an Australian to do the job that they want done has to be gone through. And these amendments will ensure that that happens. That there is a genuine need for someone from overseas.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, what is the opposition’s view of the government’s announcement on tightening some of the restrictions, or the criteria for the 457 visas?
MITCH FIFIELD:
We are more than a little confused, because only a month ago Chris Bowen through his spokesperson said that he thought that they got the balance about right on 457 visas. Now what has happened since then? There has been a change of minister, Brendan O’Connor has that portfolio and the government’s attitude has completely changed. The government say that there have been systematic rorting by business, by employers, of the 457 visa system. Now we all want to see Australians get the jobs first. There is a place for 457s. But the government haven’t given any evidence where these rorts are supposedly happening.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
But your side of politics wants a crackdown on asylum seekers on bridging visas where there is one alleged case of wrong doing. Why not have a similar sort of crackdown on abuses of 457 visas.
MITCH FIFIELD:
With bridging visas we are not basing our concerns on one alleged incident. It is the fact that that incident has highlighted that there are 10,000 people in the community and the government don’t know where they are. With 457 visas, the government have said there is systematic rorting and we’ve said, well ok, name names. Tell us who has offended. We’ve asked Senator Lundy in the Senate yesterday, Michaelia Cash asked, give us the evidence. It wasn’t provided. Senator Lundy was even asked questions by one of her colleagues today and she didn’t give evidence in that answer either. Give us the evidence. What we think is that this is the government essentially trying to carry favour with the trade union movement and I just note in passing. I’m sure it is purely a coincidence. But the National Secretary of the CFMEU is the brother of the immigration minister, and the CFMEU aren’t fans of 457 visas.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
We might move on now, because both of you have portfolio responsibilities for disability. I just wanted to kind of get a situation report on where things are up to. Jan, the launch sites have been announced. What is the government hoping to learn from those launch sites to feed into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and how lengthy a process will that be?
JAN MCLUCAS:
As the Productivity Commission recommended to us. We will launch progressively in the years ahead. But we’ve had agreements with New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and South Australia to launch in their states in various ways, starting from 1 July. From 1 July we will be able to be testing the design that we have done a lot of work with, with our state and territory colleagues, in the design of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Making sure the eligibility criteria are right. Making sure the package of reasonable and necessary measures are appropriate, and do work, and do support people with disability to a much greater degree. We will learn a lot from that work. It is not as if we haven’t done a lot to get us to this point. But the launch process will certainly refine the design of the NDIS.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, if the Coalition wins the next election, are you happy to continue the launch site process? To find out what needs to be done.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Absolutely. We’ve supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS. We supported the work of the Productivity Commission. We support the five launch sites. We supported the billion dollars in the last budget. We support the legislation that is in the parliament. And we support the agreement that the Commonwealth has reached with New South Wales and we will certainly honour that. So, yes, there will be continuity. But we want to learn the lessons from the launch sites around Australia so that we can get the design right to make sure that those people need the help, who need the support, get it.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
And for both of you, those who are disabled, who get access to the launch sites. What sort of experience will they have of what may become the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
JAN MCLUCAS:
That would vary according to where you are. Unfortunately in most states and territories, the situation at the moment is that essentially, a lot of the time you spend as a person with a disability is filling in forms and getting in another queue. This way there will be an assessment of what your needs are. There will be a planning meeting to talk about what you want to be. Not what is wrong with you? So it is about aspiration rather than keeping someone, as cheaply, comfortable as a government can. So it is about aspiration. There will be a far more, a bigger focus on what is the social and economic aspiration of that individual and a focus on achieving that in an almost partnership approach with the agency.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, will it be that integration, that ability to have a one stop shop where someone can get access to a range of services, some they may not even know about. Will that be the mark of success?
MITCH FIFIELD:
That will be one of the marks of success. You do want a one stop shop. You don’t want people at a difficult time often in their families life to have to go through a maze. But one of the benchmarks for me will be an increase in the employment of people with disability. If we don’t see a dramatic increase in the employment of people with disability then I think we will need to ask questions about the scheme. That is critical.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
That is where we will have to leave it today. Mitch Fifield and Jan McLucas, thank you very much for joining us.
JAN MCLUCAS:
Thank you.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Thank you.