Mrs ELSON (2:02 PM) —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the processing of unauthorised boat arrivals in detention on the Australian mainland? What policies have assisted in the significant decrease of this case load throughout 2002?

Mr RUDDOCK (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation) —I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question, and I know of her very considerable interest in these matters. She, along with many other members on this side of the House, has a desire to know what has been happening in relation to the processing of people who have arrived without lawful authority in Australia and a desire to know that that processing is proceeding quickly and expeditiously.

As at 21 June, departmental records show that there are only 11 people held in detention who are awaiting a primary decision. That is in comparison to 1,559 in August 2001. As at 21 June, we have some 685 unauthorised boat arrivals still in detention. One might ask: if there are only 11 who are awaiting a primary decision, on what basis are the balance of them held? The basis is quite clear. First, there have been findings that they are not refugees. Notwithstanding the mantra that you hear quite frequently that we should free the refugees, there are no refugees held in detention in Australia. Of those unauthorised boat arrivals that we are holding, only 11 are awaiting a primary decision, and in those cases security and criminal record checks are primarily the reasons that those 11 people have not received decisions. Of the 685 detainees, 340 are awaiting removal from Australia. That is just short of half of the total number of unauthorised boat arrivals in Australia. The remainder are pursuing appeals in one form or another and, of those, 230 are pursuing judicial review.

We have had a very significant decrease in the number of people awaiting primary decisions. The reason can be put down to the effectiveness of government policy in curtailing unauthorised boat arrivals. The strategies are multifaceted. They involve us engaging countries at source. They involve transit, and they involve both multilateral and bilateral discussions with other countries that receive people. They involve law enforcement, including the arrest of known smugglers. They include an examination of our own legal framework here in Australia, of the way in which we deal with claims and of our endeavour to ensure that those issues are dealt with as quickly as possible. Efforts to obtain return agreements are also part of the strategy in which we are involved. We are working cooperatively with international agencies such as the International Organisation for Migration, as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I am sure all honourable members understand the importance of having strong domestic law to be able to deal with these issues, and that includes the ongoing provision of mandatory detention for people who arrive without lawful authority and who are required to be removed.

In relation to those people who are pursuing judicial review, one interesting statistic that I noted about people who escaped from Woomera over the Easter period was that none of them have presented subsequently, even though eight of them had matters before the courts. One might have expected that, if they were genuinely about pursuing justice for themselves, they would have come forward and arranged to ensure that the litigation which they were involved in was pursued, and pursued expeditiously.

Of course, we also have the return of unauthorised boat arrivals, where possible. We saw four vessels returned to Indonesia as part of Operation Relex, which had a very important impact. We have had the excisions of Christmas Island, the Cocos Islands and Ashmore Reef, which has ensured that those who did make it to Australia or to Australian waters by sabotaging vessels and the like were able to be processed offshore, with the gains that we have been able to obtain through that processing being more efficacious. It is disappointing to me that efforts to ensure the excision of other areas where we suspect that people might land and seek to access our migration zone were not allowed to proceed.

What did the opposition have to say when that matter was dealt with in the Senate? They came to us and said, `This issue has to be dealt with quickly; it needs to be resolved.' They accused the government of dragging their feet, of lacking confidence in their own proposed solution and of not bringing the measures on for debate. What do we find in relation to these matters where they accuse us of delay? Let me say that there was no delay. We tabled the regulations and enabled debate to proceed, as we would be required to do under the forms of the parliament in any event—

Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, 15 days. Let me just make the point in relation to these matters that, when we have other legislation, what do we see the opposition seeking to do? To delay and to frustrate. What they have sought to do in the Senate when they have been calling for these matters to be dealt with expeditiously is to send them off to a Senate committee so that we might see them in the `never-never dealt with'. Quite clearly, the opposition are about denying the parliament the opportunity to pass legislation that will reinforce the measures that we have sought to implement so as to have a comprehensive range of measures in place and operating. When given the opportunity to consider these matters a second time, the opposition are saying, `We are determined not to cooperate; we are determined to frustrate.'

Mr Crean —Where is the boat?

Mr RUDDOCK —The opposition leader says, `Where is the boat?' His worst fear would be to see a boat arrive. And there we have it. Clearly, the opposition is about denying measures which will ensure that we are able to maintain a successful approach in dealing with these issues.

Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has been speaking for something like 6½ minutes. If he wishes to make a ministerial statement, he can do it after question time.

The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business is aware that there is no point of order. There is no restriction under the standing orders, in spite of the desire by successive Speakers through successive parliaments to have such a restriction.