Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the sensible amendments to our migration system. Protecting our borders is one of the most successful policy initiatives of the Howard government. It was a policy I strongly supported during my 2001 campaign to gain election to the seat of Stirling. It is a policy that has the overwhelming support of people in my electorate. They recognise that by taking a strong stand Australia was able to send an appropriate signal that we are not a soft touch for illegal immigrants, and consequently the flow of illegal arrivals ceased. Not everybody agrees, of course. I have had several people contact me urging me to oppose these amendments. I have had quite a few more who have expressed to me the view that we need to do more.

I want to start today by addressing some of the broader issues that arise when this parliament discusses border protection. I think there is a lot of woolly thinking associated with this debate, and there is also a fair bit of moral vanity—a pretension that sees you believe that you are far more compassionate and caring than people who oppose your point of view, that you somehow have a mortgage over what is good and right, and that your opponents do not care about human rights, do not care about the suffering of others, do not care about women and do not care about children. I strongly support the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 and I completely and utterly reject the idea that that somehow makes me less caring or less sensitive to the suffering of the world’s refugees.

If a generous program of allowing humanitarian arrivals is coupled with a weak regime that encourages illegal arrivals to take those places, that is completely against the interests of the most desperate people in the world. I say this as a representative of an electorate that accommodates more of these humanitarian arrivals than any other electorate bar one in Australia. In the north metropolitan region of Perth, which I represent, from January 2001 to December 2005, close to 3,000 African migrants have resettled. I am in regular contact with them and with representatives from their communities. They are people who have come here from the Sudan, Somalia, the Congo and Sierra Leone. They are people who in many cases have suffered, and suffered enormously, and who have now been granted refuge under one of the most generous programs operated anywhere in the world. They are enthusiastic new Australians and they are eager to grab all the benefits that this country has to offer and to create a better life for themselves and their families. I wonder how anyone could say to them that their claim of refuge in Australia is less valid than that of someone who has the money and the wherewithal to make it to Australia via a people smuggler or via some other means.

If you are growing up in a refugee camp on the Sudanese border, you will never be able to make it illegally to Australia. You will have to wait in the queue and hope that the UNHCR will judge you desperate enough to qualify for a visa to Australia, one of the few nations that offers places for refugees. So if you agree with the proposition that Australia can only take a limited number of refugees—and, obviously, it would be impossible for Australia to accommodate the millions of people who sadly find themselves with this status—then it follows that you have to make a judgment on where these refugees will come from. You have to prioritise need, however hard that is.

Currently, Australia does this by following the guidance of the UNHCR as to where the greatest areas of need are at any given time. For the last few years the UNHCR has identified the Horn of Africa and other parts of that difficult continent, particularly the areas that are involved in vicious civil wars which have displaced large amounts of their populations. Citizens of these countries will never make it to Australia by boat. They do not have the resources and they obviously do not have the geography working in their favour. I do not believe that that makes them less worthy candidates for asylum. If Australia is to maintain control over who is allocated places under Australia’s refugee program then we require effective control of our borders. That requires continued vigilance. We need to respond to new challenges as they arise if we are to continue to effectively control who immigrates to Australia.

Having listened to earlier contributions to this debate, it is obvious that not all of my colleagues agree with all the amendments in this bill. But, contrary to some of the speculation and commentary from the opposition, I do not consider this to be such a terrible thing. The idea that we in a political party agree on everything all the time is plainly ridiculous. In the Liberal Party we are free to think for ourselves. Liberal members of parliament are allowed to exercise their vote according to their own conscience, and members in this chamber have done so on many occasions. This is in stark contrast to opposition members who are required by their party to vote along party lines. In fact, any Labor member of parliament who votes against their party will be automatically expelled from the Labor Party. They are not allowed a voice of dissent within Labor. Stalin would have been proud of the rules that govern the ALP. Labor members who have made so much of the fact that some Liberal MPs may vote against these amendments should remember that they have the option to do so. That is a poor reflection on people who do not and a poor reflection on the allegiances of the members of the ALP in this chamber when their party insists that loyalty to the ALP takes precedence over every other loyalty. I would never subject myself to that insistence and Liberal members of this parliament are not required to do so. So, if members on this side of the House vote against the bill, I hope it reminds the Australian people that only one political party in this country allows its members the latitude to do so.

I hope this does not happen, because this bill is an important piece of the architecture that protects our orderly migration system. The bill will amend the Migration Act to expand the offshore processing regime, successfully introduced by the Howard government in October 2001, to all people who arrive illegally in our waters. It will end this ridiculous distinction: if you can make it to mainland Australia then you will be treated differently from someone who has only managed to make it to the outlying islands. Strong decisions made now on this legislation will further strengthen the control over our borders, as well as preserve Australia’s obligations to refugees.

This bill will stop people who arrive illegally in Australian waters from accessing the visa application process. They will be subject to resettlement in another country, provided that country meets the strict standards that have been set out by the Australian government. It will mean that all persons arriving on mainland Australia unlawfully by sea, retrospective to 13 April this year, will be treated in the same way as though they had landed in an excised place. This legislation will not affect the visa status of any persons who arrived in Australia before 13 April this year, and any visa applications lodged in Australia by such persons will continue to be processed in the normal manner. In many respects, this is a logical progression of the offshore processing arrangements that have been in place since October 2001 which, I remind the House, have been extremely successful in ensuring the integrity of our borders. It makes absolutely no sense that an unauthorised boat arriving at an offshore place is subject to the offshore processing arrangements, while an unauthorised arrival arriving only a few kilometres closer on the mainland can access Australia’s onshore protection arrangements.

This bill will eliminate that ridiculous distinction between unauthorised boat arrivals at an excised offshore place and those who reach the mainland. The changes will apply to all unauthorised boat arrivals, regardless of nationality. The changes will not only correct these inconsistencies but send a clear message to people who may risk their lives by travelling to Australia illegally. It is important to remember that our strong stance on border protection has already stemmed the flow of illegal and unauthorised arrivals. I do not want to see a return of unsafe boats attempting the dangerous journey to Australia, filled to breaking point with people who are little more than easy money to people smugglers, who have managed to put a price on human lives. We do not know how many people have lost their lives attempting this voyage but we must not pretend that, by encouraging them to do so, this is a compassionate approach.

Australia has maintained two offshore processing centres on Nauru and on Manus Island in PNG since late 2001. Since that time, 1,547 people have been processed offshore at these centres. Every one of those persons has had access to the refugee assessment process through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or by trained Australian officials. Not one person found to be a refugee in the offshore process was forced to return to their home country.

See this speech in context