Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Customs Legislation Amendment (Name Change) Bill 2009. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I will respond to some of the comments made by members opposite, in particular the member for Murray and the member for Cook. The first comment I make is that, if I were in their shoes, I would not be too proud of the Howard government record when it comes to the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. It was a deplorable record and one that I have heard condemned more than any other single policy issue that I have been associated with since being elected to this parliament.

I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. I have visited almost all of the detention centres in Australia, including the Christmas Island facility. I have spoken with people in detention and I have also spoken with countless people who are associated with providing services, support systems and the like for those centres and the people within them. We as a committee have received countless submissions and representations in respect of them. Not one submission received by the committee supported what was being done in the past in respect of the way asylum seekers and refugees were treated in this country—not one. I think that speaks for itself.

I want to refer to another matter—that is, the perception given by the member for Cook and the member for Murray that this government has gone soft on dealing with border protection and refugee matters. On 29 July last year the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced a policy change. I make this very simple point: that policy change was considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The member for Murray, the shadow spokesperson for immigration and citizenship, is a member of that committee. The committee presented an interim report in December. In that first interim report the committee not only embraced the minister’s new policy but also suggested that it should have gone further—that it should have been softer.

But the issue goes further. There was a dissenting report written by the member for Kooyong, Senator Eggleston and Senator Hanson-Young—and that list includes two members of the coalition party. They dissented because they believed that the committee did not go far enough in softening the policy in the recommendations that we put to the government. So they thought not only that the minister’s policy did not go far enough but also that the committee’s recommendations did not go far enough. They wanted the committee to go even further. So for the member for Murray and the member for Cook to come into this chamber and suggest that this government has gone soft on border protection and refugee matters, when the coalition have signed off on that report to this parliament, is totally contradictory to what the coalition have done in terms of their position on the committee.

The bill implements a measure outlined by the Prime Minister on 4 December 2008 when he presented the government’s national security policy and vision for a reformed national security structure. In that statement the Prime Minister announced that the Australian Customs Service is to be renamed the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to better reflect its new role of being the leading Commonwealth government agency on maritime people-smuggling issues.

People-smuggling has become a lucrative international criminal activity. It is generally a well-organised, relatively low-risk activity for people smugglers and is carried out by sophisticated and well-organised international networks. It is an activity that seems to have flourished in recent years, probably because of the number of people fleeing from war-torn countries or other appalling conditions that they are living in. People smugglers, however, appear to have little regard for the wellbeing and safety of those who are fleeing and little regard for what confronts them when they reach their country of destination. One need only look at the poor condition of the vessels that have been intercepted by authorities to understand the callous nature of smugglers. Many of these vessels have been found to be both unseaworthy and overcrowded. In fact there is much anecdotal evidence that many of these vessels never reach their intended destination. Just how many lives have been lost will never accurately be known, but there is little doubt that people smugglers are placing at extreme risk the lives of those who pay for their services.

I will just digress on that point. That was one of the matters I raised as part of the inquiry on detention centres in Australia with some of the agencies that were presenting evidence. I was trying to get a handle on just how many lives might possibly have been lost. It is not possible to get accurate figures about illegal matters and therefore there is no factual material to use. But from the evidence given by people who had come here as refugees there was no doubt whatsoever that many of their fellow refugees never made it to the mainland, or to any other country for that matter—and that is of real concern. That people are prepared to pay people smugglers and place their lives at such risk is evidence of the desperation of people fleeing from their homeland. I say this to the members opposite: at the end of the day it will not be the policies of any country which determine whether someone will attempt to flee to that country; it will be the desperation that they face in the land from where they come—desperation which in many cases is a matter of life or death. And if you are faced with a life or death situation, you will flee anywhere regardless of what the possible outcomes might be further down the track. That has been substantiated by the authorities we spoke to during the course of our inquiry.

Whilst people smugglers use very crude vessels they are nevertheless highly organised and have access to up-to-date sophisticated technologies so as to avoid detection. Routes and methods of arrival change at short notice in response to detection activities by authorities. The most effective action by authorities to prevent people-smuggling operations comes from governments working together and sharing intelligence information. In 2002 ministers and law enforcement agencies from 42 countries initiated what is referred to as the Bali process. The Bali process was aimed at combating people-smuggling, drug trafficking and related transnational crime in the Middle East, Asia and Pacific regions. As a consequence of initiatives taken, regional countries have been active in preventing and deterring the activities of people smugglers and the movement of potential illegal immigrants towards Australia.

Since 2002 the number of maritime people-smuggling ventures to Australia has reduced significantly. In 2001-02, six vessels carrying 1,212 illegal immigrants reached Australia. In 2007-08, 25 people arrived illegally on three boats. This shows the difference that process has made—all because governments and authorities were working together, sharing intelligence information and cooperating in their efforts to stop people smugglers. Over that same period there have also been several successful prosecutions of persons associated with people-smuggling activities, with some of those people having been extradited to Australia in order to be prosecuted.

Of course, in addition to people-smuggling there has also been an ongoing problem with illegal fishing in Australian waters. Again, as a result of greater cooperation with neighbouring countries and a more effective sea and air surveillance strategy by Australian authorities, there has been a steep decline in illegal fisher apprehensions over recent years. The detention of illegal fishers, the apprehension and destruction of their vessels, and the prosecution of key people in the trade are clearly having a deterring effect on illegal fishing activities in Australian waters.

Border protection, whether it relates to people-smuggling, illegal fishing, illegal drug importation or any other security purpose, is of national importance. There is, of course, a secondary benefit from and purpose to the need to have an effective border protection strategy in place, particularly with respect to people-smuggling activities. Many of the people seeking refuge in Australia are exploited and deliberately misled by the people smugglers. I certainly heard, in evidence to the inquiry, stories of people being misled. And, when you hear it firsthand, you understand just how callous these people smugglers are. Fees of up to $18,000 per person are reported to have been charged, with smugglers knowing full well that those seeking refuge are very likely to lose their lives along the way or, if they do reach their destination, are highly likely to either be returned to their country of origin or spend lengthy periods in detention and then still be returned to their country of origin—as has happened with so many of them. People smugglers have little regard for human life and largely prey on desperate people fleeing from a life-threatening situation in their own homeland. For those people who may be fortunate enough to reach their intended destination and to be allowed to remain here in Australia, the whole experience—going across the seas, being in detention centres and then being released years later—can be soul destroying. These people might be free at the end of that journey but, from the evidence received by the committee, most of them come out of it very deeply scarred.

In closing, I simply want to quote the remarks of the Prime Minister when he introduced this proposal to parliament on 4 December 2008. He said:

The government has decided therefore to move quickly to better enable the existing Australian Customs Service to meet this resurgent threat to our border integrity. To this end we will in coming weeks establish new arrangements whereby the Australian Customs Service is augmented, retasked and renamed the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. This arrangement will create in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service a capability to task and analyse intelligence, coordinate surveillance and onwater response, and engage internationally with source and transit countries to comprehensively address and deter people-smuggling throughout the operating pipeline from source countries to our shores. … The colocation of agencies and capabilities in this way is a concept strongly supported by the Homeland and Border Security Review.

I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context