Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:05): Under standing order 74(5)(b), I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. To the people in the chamber here today and in the gallery: I don't know if you have children. I do. When my kids were little, they used to say to me: 'Why do we have to learn about maths? Why is maths so important? When am I ever going to use maths in my daily life when I grow up?' Sometimes as a parent you struggle to find the practical applications for maths in daily life. You can talk about bank accounts and home loans, but that is a bit of an abstract notion. Today I sit here and wonder: did the government members learn about maths when they were growing up, and do they see the application of maths in the jobs they do today? For example, can they count to 30? When you lodge a question on notice, ministers get 30 days to answer it. That is simple counting, and they have simply missed that deadline. The minister, in her explanation, noted that I have placed a substantial number of questions on notice. Hey, by the way, that is my right as a senator. The minister also noted that many of them have been answered. Well, in fact, I could have put more questions here today that have not been answered. I chose these two, but there are a number that have not yet been answered. But let me continue on why maths is important. Just this week, again on the issue of questions on notice, this government showed its lack of ability to deal with maths. I had a question to the government regarding the number of plane arrivals between 31 July and 19 August and they gave me the incorrect number. They gave me the number for another set of dates. So not only have this government lost control of the borders at our airports; they have lost control of the ability to do the basic maths to count the number of people who are coming to our airports and claiming asylum. What we do know, though, is that, even though they couldn't count accurately for the period specified in my question on notice, one number remains valid in their answer, and that is that, under this third-term Liberal government, a record 95,000 people have arrived at our nation's airports and claimed asylum. Under this third-term Liberal government, Australia has seen 95,000 people arrive at our airports and claim asylum. That is at least one number they got right. Well, we assume they got it right. Maybe they will come back and change that, too; I don't know. Of course, this government does have a track record. I do have a bit of a memory. I remember the omnibus savings bill in 2016. I don't know whether the Minister for Finance remembers that bill. The government introduced that bill in 2016. They had a maths problem in that bill. This was their big omnibus savings bill. On page 5 of that bill, there was a $107 million error. Do you know what the then Treasurer, Scott Morrison—he's got another job now, by the way; he's the Prime Minister. He was the Treasurer then. He called it 'a computational error', making him possibly the first Treasurer in the history of Australia to admit that maths is not his strong suit! Of course, we do know that, when it comes to managing the budget, this government does have a particular problem managing numbers, because, when we left office in September 2013, net debt was at $175 billion. Net debt today under this third-term Liberal government is $399.1 billion. I'll leave the government to see if they can do the maths to work out how much they have increased net debt. Gross debt in September 2013 was $280 billion. Hazard a guess as to what it is now. If you don't know, don't worry; I can tell you. It's $565 billion. Again, there is a math problem for the government. How much have they increased gross debt under this third-term Liberal government? We come to the questions that I have asked, and some of them are maths based, so perhaps they had trouble doing the maths. I asked in question 698: 1. How many people made onshore protection claims in the 2018-19 financial year. Then I asked: 2. In the 2018-19 financial year, how many people made onshore protection claims in the following jurisdictions: a. New South Wales; b. Queensland; c. Victoria; d. South Australia; e. Western Australia; f. Tasmania; g. the Australian Capital Territory; and h. the Northern Territory. Then I went on and asked a number of other questions, including: 3. Can a breakdown be provided of citizenship by country (for the top 10 countries only) : I would have thought this was information—numbers—that the Department of Home Affairs would have to hand, and the government could have then provided to this Senate. I also note that I asked a number of other questions in question 382—for example: 1. When in 2016— 2016, by the way, is the year they had the omnibus savings bill that had the $107 million computational error in it, but I digress— did the Minister first become aware of the current surge in asylum seeker applications from citizens of Malaysia and when did the Minister first become aware of the current surge of asylum seeker applications from citizens of China. 2. What actions did the Minister take once he became aware of these surges and when were these actions taken. Then I went on and asked a few other questions. I asked another maths question again, so perhaps maths really isn't the strong suit of this government: 5. Of the people who have arrived by plane and then applied for asylum since 2014 (inclusive) , what are the current numbers for each of the top five citizenships … a. at primary stage; b. at the AAT; c. at judicial review— et cetera. It was a range of questions that go to the heart of what this government says is their core strength: securing our nation's borders. They have no problem telling you the number of boats that arrive. They have no problem telling you the number of asylum seeker applications for people who came by boat in the previous five years before they took office. They have a huge problem being straight with the Australian people that, when it comes to asylum seeker applications for people who arrive by aeroplane, we are on track to double the number of people who lodged an asylum claim and came by boat. We are closing in on 100,000 applications—onshore asylum seeker applications—from this government, who trumpet that securing the borders is their top priority and their core expertise. Let's remember that, because we're an island, yes, we have water borders, but we also have airport borders, and this government created the Department of Home Affairs. When they did that, they brought in Australian Border Force. They brought in the Australian Federal Police. They brought in ASIO, ASIS and all of those agencies under this megadepartment, the Department of Home Affairs, because they and they alone, they claimed, knew how to secure the borders and keep Australians safe. This is what the then Prime Minister—you may remember him; his name is Malcolm Turnbull—said in July 2017: When it comes to our nation's security, we must stay ahead of the threats against us. There is no room for complacency. There is no room for set and forget. The current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has used the same phrase when describing everything from Australia's foreign policy through to the emergency response for the drought. 'There is no set and forget,' says the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. Yet, while there was so much fanfare around the creation of the Department of Home Affairs portfolio, it would seem that 'set and forget' has been the key strategy for both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs when it comes to this critical portfolio. After all, how else can you possibly explain that there are more than 200,000 people on bridging visas right now in Australia? That is a massive increase in the number of bridging visas. I might put that as a question on notice and see if that's another math problem the government can solve. What has been the increase, the blowout, in bridging visas? More than 221,000 would-be citizens, permanent residents, are waiting an average of 13 months to have their citizenship applications processed. Let's reflect that when they took over, when we left office, it took about five months to get a citizenship application processed. Here is a maths problem: it now takes 13 months; it used to take five. How many more months has it blown out? Senator Walsh: Eight. Senator KENEALLY: Eight. Thank you very much, Senator. They also have paid more than $423 million to Paladin, a company first based out of a beach shack in Kangaroo Island that later went on to be fined some 3,700 times in a 12-month period for failing to meet minimum service standards. How did Paladin get this contract? We really don't know, because there was no competitive tender. There was no maths, obviously, involved. The government simply just threw a whole lot of money to this company that was registered to a beach shack and said, 'Go ahead'—$20 million a month. By the way, Paladin are so bad at doing their job. They were supposed to be providing security to Manus Island. Apparently they were not very good at it, because we know from other information provided to the Senate that the Department of Home Affairs officials were too scared to visit Manus Island, because they felt it was not secure. So there you go, $20 million a month of Australians' money and not getting the job done. There is possibly no greater example, though, of 'set and forget' than the Minister for Home Affairs' approach to border security. You only have to look at the government's leaked talking points this week to know that the minister is a little bit obsessed when it comes to talking about Labor. After all, it was a Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who in fact did the heavy lifting to get the boats stopped. Scott Morrison has given himself that little trophy about, 'I stopped the boats.' We've all seen the photo of that in his office. He picked up and ran with what Kevin Rudd had been putting in place. Peter Dutton swanned into the portfolio and he assumed that the risks to Australia's border security would remain static. But, while the Minister for Home Affairs has been so keen to talk about boats, he has missed the fact that the people smugglers have changed their business model from boats to planes. He has utterly missed the fact that the people smugglers have changed their business model from boats to planes. That is why we are seeing this massive blowout in the number of people who are coming to Australia seeking asylum coming through our nation's airports. I want to put on record that there is nothing wrong with seeking asylum—it is an important legal right—but that is not what is happening here. What is happening here is that people smugglers are trafficking workers, largely from China and Malaysia, on electronic tourist and other valid visas. They are bringing people into Australia. They are getting them to apply for asylum while they are here. They know that because this department has had a blowout in processing all types of applications—asylum, citizenship, parent visas, child visas. All of those time frames have blown out. So what happens? These people are put on bridging visas. They are given work rights and then they are sent out to work in low-paid, exploitative conditions. They are sent out to work in horticulture, in hospitality and in a range of other industries to work in these low-paid, exploitative conditions—conditions that I can only describe as akin to slavery. I have met some of these workers. They tell stories of being paid just a couple of dollars an hour. They tell stories of having their belongings taken away from them while they are out during the day at work and then they are forced to buy them back from the labour hire company. They tell stories of how the labour hire company takes their passports and their papers and essentially holds them hostage. I just want to make a couple of observations here. One is that the growers in our horticulture industry are not to blame for this. They are in fact sick of this going on. They are being held hostage by these labour hire companies as well, and by this government's failure to provide an appropriate visa system that provides the reliable, steady stream of workers they need. That is why we saw the horticulture sector out last year arguing for an agriculture visa. That is why we see them in the building here today, trying to meet with MPs to talk about the fact that they do not have access to a steady supply of workers. I met with one grower who offered to directly hire the workers who were coming onto his farm and pay them appropriately—because he was already paying the appropriate wage to the labour hire company; it just wasn't being passed on to the workers. He offered to do that, and the next day half the workers didn't turn up, because they couldn't: they were essentially being held hostage by the labour hire company, which had their passports and their papers. That is the trafficking of workers into this country and the exploitation that is taking place under this government, which has failed to notice that people smugglers are using the asylum seeker system and the blowout in processing times to traffic people here to work in exploitative conditions. The questions I asked on notice were designed to get a better understanding of the scale of the problem, to define it, to help us to find a policy solution. And when I say 'us' I don't just mean the Labor Party; I mean us, this Senate, and us Australia. I've held two roundtables, one here in Canberra and one in Shepparton in Victoria, where I have sat down and spoken with local councils, with unions, with the growers and with the growers associations. I have been to farms. I have talked to workers who have been exploited. I have tried to help define this problem so that we can try to find some solutions. That, though, is not what the government seems to be interested in. They know—and they themselves cite a figure—that some 85 per cent of the people who apply for asylum, when they come to our airports, are found not to be refugees. This is clearly what is happening. People are being trafficked here. And, by the way, I say to the members of the government and I say to the people who are here today listening to this debate and across Australia who are listening: don't just take my word for it. Assistant Minister Jason Wood, in this government, was previously the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Migration. What did he say in a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Migration report last year? He said that criminal syndicates and illegitimate labour hire companies are exploiting a loophole in our immigration system to traffic workers into the country. Those are the words of the assistant minister in this Liberal-Nationals third-term government. If he can see it, why can't the government see it? And take the word of the member for Mallee, Dr Anne Webster, who described what is going on in horticulture as 'a crisis'. She has described it as a crisis. She has called on her own Prime Minister to take action on this, yet the government sits silent. And not only do they sit silent; they stand condemned of being unable to do even the basic maths to appropriately count the number of people who are coming to our airports and claiming asylum. They lack the capacity to comply with the standing orders of this Senate to supply answers to questions on notice within the required 30 days. If they were so serious about border security, they would have these answers at their fingertips and they would be able to supply them to the Senate. Let me also make this point. When people are trafficked into the country, it is an exploitation of those people, and we should be morally outraged and we should condemn it. I don't think the mums and dads of Australia would like to know that the fruit they are putting in their children's lunchboxes was picked by some 19-year-old woman who's been trafficked here, who is being paid $4 an hour and who is subject to physical and sexual abuse. I really don't think that is the Australian fair go, the Australian way of life or something that the mums and dads of Australia would appreciate. Let me also make the observation that when we build an economy based on a temporary exploited migrant workforce it lowers the wages and conditions available across the economy. When we have workers in hospitality or in horticulture or in beauty or in transport or in any other industry working for as little as $4 an hour, that makes it really hard for other businesses to compete on price and it lowers the wages and conditions. It's perhaps not surprising coming from a government that said that low wages were a design feature of their economic plan. This is the design feature they have for Australia. They are building an economy based on a low-paid, migrant, temporary and exploited workforce. The fact that they cannot stand here today in the Senate and answer basic questions after 30 days about the number of people who are coming through our airports and claiming asylum—when they have no recognition that this is a problem, when they have their own ministers and members calling out for them to take action and when they have the horticulture industry in the building today trying to get solutions in front of government—means they should stand condemned, and they are condemned. I look forward and hope that, when the minister finally answers my questions, he gets his maths right and he gets his answers right. But, more importantly, I hope we get action on this problem and we get a solution.