Page 1811 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
land of their birth and mine was destroyed by war and then further affected by the terrors of communism. So I do understand the importance of giving refuge to people who are under so much threat in their current homelands. But there has to be a balance between compassion and affordability.
Quite recently, the federal Treasurer, Scott Morrison, suggested that “soon, it could take eight out of 10 income taxpayers to finance welfare expenditure”. The welfare bill that Minister Morrison is referring to is the $149.91 billion estimated expenditure on social security and welfare by the midyear economic and fiscal outlook 2014 15 .The same document is also the source of the total individual income tax revenue that Minister Morrison refers to, which stands at just over $180 billion. Very simply, the minister is implying that 80 per cent of Australian income tax goes straight towards the welfare bill.
Despite some strong attempts to ridicule this as scaremongering and poppycock, reviewers had to acknowledge that, in essence, the implication in that claim was broadly correct. With a deficit the size of which is horrendous, from a Labor government that started its six-year term with a surplus of some tens of billions of dollars, and with a welfare bill close to $150 billion, one needs to be mindful of just how many people this country can physically and financially support.
It is a reasonable question for an immigration minister to ask. Even the Labor Party’s own policies acknowledge that one-third of humanitarian entrants speak little or no English. Australia is not xenophobic; it is not lacking in charity. But we must all recognise that in these current uncertain financial times we need to take a cautious approach to all things, including immigration. We have a generous immigration policy and we have demonstrated recently how we are able to respond to humanitarian needs and emergencies.
I refute the implications in Mr Hinder’s motion and I am disappointed that he would resort to such a loose connection with such a noble celebration as World Refugee Day to make misleading attacks on Australia’s refugee policies.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.54): I will be supporting Mr Hinder’s motion today, and I welcome him bringing it forward. The Greens have a long, consistent and proud record of welcoming refugees into our community and solid, compassionate policies around refugees. Federally we are the clearest choice for voters who are deeply concerned about the policies of the major parties on refugees. While I acknowledge that there are members of the ALP—and some in this place—who do not support Bill Shorten’s mandatory offshore detention and boat turn-back policy, unfortunately they remain in the minority.
The Greens have been consistently loudly advocating for a better system to manage refugees both offshore and onshore. The Greens are calling for an increase in the humanitarian quota, and offshore quotas separate from the onshore arrivals or other programs. The Greens want the elimination of mandatory and indefinite detention. We want the abolition of offshore processing where an asylum seeker or refugee is returned from Australian territory to another nation to be assessed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video