Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (3:17 PM) —It is somewhat hypocritical of Senator Faulkner to stand there and talk about the decisions of this government. I was a government lawyer for 20 years and I oversaw some decisions and acted for DIMIA in certain circumstances, and perhaps Senator Faulkner ought to go back and look at his own government’s record in the past. But I would like to focus on the Palmer report. The government has accepted the thrust and findings of the Palmer report. The Prime Minister announced on 14 July that the government accepts, on the basis of the Palmer report, that mistakes were made in relation to Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez Solon. Both women have been apologised to by the government and changes have already been made within DIMIA as a result of the report. And more changes are on the way.

The government is demanding, and the new leadership of the department is delivering, real change that will make a difference in the future. This should not overshadow the fact that Mr Palmer also found considerable evidence of highly committed DIMIA staff. Even before Mr Palmer presented his report, the minister acted to change policy and procedures to improve the impact of detention on individuals. These measures included the establishment of the national verification and advice unit, the creation of the detention review manager positions within the department to ensure constant revisiting of individual cases and improvement to mental health services at the Baxter immigration detention facility.

I remind the Senate that the Prime Minister also announced changes, including an additional non-compellable power for the minister to specify alternative arrangements for persons’ detention, the result being that there are now no children in immigration detention centres, and an additional non-compellable power for the minister acting personally to grant a visa to a person in detention. He also announced the revision of the ‘removal pending’ bridging visa to broaden its application and allow more detainees to be released and six-monthly reporting to the Ombudsman on persons in detention for two years or more. Further, he announced a legislative requirement time frame of three months for the processing of refugee claims at primary stage and three months at review, and a requirement on the department to complete all primary assessments of applications for permanent protection visas from the existing case load of temporary protection visa holders by 31 October.

The minister herself also announced further changes, including steps to bring down razor wire from immigration detention centres, beginning with Villawood in Sydney. This was not a recommendation of the Palmer report, but it reflects the government’s recognition that appropriate measures, even beyond those recommended by Mr Palmer, can and will be put into place. Right now there is a new team at the top of DIMIA that has already begun implementing changes recommended by Palmer. These changes include: releasing a framework for the way forward for the department, focusing on it becoming a more open and accountable organisation ensuring fair and reasonable dealings with clients and with greater emphasis on well-trained and supported staff; recruiting people from outside the department; and releasing a new draft client service charter and strategy for public comment. This significant change agenda is occurring against a backdrop of strong public support in general terms for the government’s approach to immigrating. It is worth noting that it has been possible for the government to significantly increase the migration intake over the past years and that this is a positive reflection on the administration of the program.

In summary, these are the actions of a government that recognises its responsibilities. But what would the Labor Party have done? What would be their approach? Would Labor have willingly sought someone of the calibre of Mick Palmer, former Australian Federal Police Commissioner—and, later, Neil Comrie, former chief commissioner of Victorian police and the Ombudsman—to independently and thoroughly examine these issues? Would Labor have ordered the department to go back and check all cases of people released from detention? Labor have a history of ducking and weaving. In stark contrast, the coalition government is willing to recognise where problems are and do something about them.