Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the Leader of the Opposition for saying that it is important to have a calm and rational debate about this matter. Indeed it is.

It is a complex international issue and at the end of the day there is an Australian expression: ‘the proof of the pie is in the eating’, or in the facts. Is it the case that these countries that had such a dramatic increase in people seeking asylum in their countries have suffered that increase as a result of failed policies? The figure for Greece during 2008 was 15,300 asylum seekers; Italy, 36,000; Spain, 13,400; and indeed even tiny Malta had 2,700. The figure for Canada shows a 30 per cent increase during 2008; Norway had a 121 per cent increase during 2008; and the Netherlands had an 89 per cent increase during 2008. Clearly, there are global factors at play that are influencing the number of people seeking asylum in Australia.

The fact of the matter is that it is quite damaging—if I might say so, with respect—to suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition did, that Australia’s policies are not tough. In fact, we have one of the toughest regimes of any country in the world. We have mandatory detention of those persons seeking asylum for the purpose of conducting security and health assessments. We have excision of offshore islands. We have offshore processing conducted on Christmas Island and we have compulsory return, as we have seen recently, of those persons who were judged not to have legitimate claims to asylum.

We recognise the Leader of the Opposition’s respect for our defence and police and other agencies involved in border protection. The reality is that before the last budget we had more ships on the water with an enhanced interdiction capability. That was significantly enhanced in the last budget and it was significantly enhanced because we saw these global factors—the ‘push factors’, as they are known—at play. In fact, in the last budget we injected an additional $654 million into border protection, enhanced surveillance and interdiction capability, enhanced intelligence capability and enhanced law enforcement capability, both domestically and in terms of capacity building in our neighbours.

We have also been working very closely with our neighbours. Indeed, President Yudhoyono, as I indicated in the House yesterday, has indicated that these are complex international issues. They involve regional cooperation and will ultimately be resolved only through regional cooperation. In that regard we have contributed $44 million to assist Indonesia with movement alert capability. We have engaged with our neighbouring states, most specifically Indonesia and Malaysia but also with Sri Lanka as well as other countries, in enhancing information sharing. We have worked with law enforcement agencies through the Australian Federal Police and other agencies to develop our transnational crime network. In addition, to assist these countries to process those who are seeking asylum in their countries, we have recently announced an additional $18 million to assist in the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Office of Migration.

To again outline the reality, since the government was elected there have been significant global pressures at work. Indeed, the United Nations Secretary-General noted in a recent report to the Security Council that 2008 ended as the most violent year in Afghanistan since 2001 and that in 2008 there was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghan asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries worldwide. At the same time, Sri Lanka has just emerged from a decade-long civil war which cost tens of thousands of lives, uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans and left an economic divide between north and south, and east and west. It is estimated that there are currently 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people.

The reality is that with our regional partners we are having an impact in this pernicious trade of people smuggling. Since September 2008 there have been 82 disruptions of planned smuggling ventures to Australia involving about 1,497 persons. Since 2008—these are figures as at 15 October—the Australian Federal Police have charged 49 people with people-smuggling offences under the Migration Act relating to 26 irregular maritime arrivals involving 44 alleged crew members and four alleged Australian based organisers. We have seen the apprehension of Captain Bram, as indicated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House yesterday, and with the cooperation of Indonesia the alleged people smuggler Ahmadi has recently been extradited to Australia for prosecution.

So the message that is being sent to those who would become involved in people smuggling is that we have a coordinated law enforcement action that is aiming to find them and is having success at finding them, charging them and successfully prosecuting them. That is the message that we want to send. We are tough. The figures are tough and the policies that we are implementing indicate that the government is tough on border protection. But to send that message, to convey that message, we will not detain children behind razor wire, we certainly will not be reintroducing the Pacific solution and we will not be introducing temporary protection visas. In fact, I might say with respect to the Leader of the Opposition that, while he claimed the Rudd government had unpicked the framework introduced by the former Howard government, he has not named one single policy item that he would reverse.

I remind the House that yesterday was the eighth anniversary of the sinking of the SIEV X—suspect illegal entry vessel No. 10. That sinking resulted in the deaths of 146 children, 142 women and 65 men in distress, at night time and at sea. There are two things that event demonstrates. One is the evilness of people smuggling. I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition and would endorse his comments regarding the naivety at best, and the counterproductive comments at worst, of those who would suggest that it is anything other than a completely evil trade. The second thing the sinking of SIEV X indicates are the consequences of the temporary protection visa policy. I will not use my words but those of the member for McMillan, who said that temporary protection visas were an ‘extraordinarily harsh instrument’ that had not worked and should not be brought back. He said ‘We had women and children trying to get here on boats’ because the refugees could not sponsor them. He said, ‘Some of these boats are so tiny you wouldn’t go fishing in them.’ The member for Kooyong said, ‘I think we need to realise we are dealing with extremely vulnerable people.’ The member for Pearce said, ‘When we had TPVs people brought children on perilous boats because it was the only chance to keep families together.’ The number of women and children who were on board SIEV X who lost their lives was testament to the flaws—it is worse than flaws—and inhumanity of the policy.

More than that, the policy was a failure. It was introduced, as I recall, in October 1999. In the two years following, there were 8,455 arrivals. I note that the Leader of the Opposition said that the goal of policy in this area should be focused on repatriation. Well, in fact, 90 per cent of those persons who were granted temporary protection visas were ultimately given permanent visas. Again, the Leader of the Opposition referred on a number of occasions to the unpicking of Howard government policy. I note the shadow minister for justice and customs last week issued a press release, or at least a press release went out in her name advocating a return to Howard government policies. These things can happen—it happened once to me in opposition—but the point of the matter is that that press release was quickly withdrawn, indicating that the opposition have no intention of returning to those policies they had in government. Indeed, as the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship said on 7 October 2008 with respect to the Pacific solution:

Minister Evans made much of the closing of the detention and processing centres at Nauru and Manus Island but failed to mention that these facilities were being replaced with the just-completed detention and processing facility at Christmas Island.

And I think over the weekend she repeated that it was not the opposition’s intention, if elected, to reintroduce the Pacific solution. So, again, that is ruled out.

The Leader of the Opposition also referred to a quote of the former Prime Minister of Australia and I will also quote him in a similar context where he said:

It remains our very strong determination not to allow this vessel or its occupants—

that is, the people held on the Tampa

… to land in Australia, and we will take whatever action is needed—within the law, of course—to prevent that occurring.

In fact, a total of 1,637 people were detained on Nauru or Manus Island under the Pacific solution and, of those, 70 per cent were ultimately resettled to Australia or other countries. Of those resettled, around 61 per cent were resettled in Australia. Again, with respect, that entire Pacific solution was a con. Worse than that, it was a distortion of priorities. The Pacific solution cost $289 million to detain people on Nauru and Manus Island. During that same period, $264 million was spent on surveillance and interdiction.

What does this mean? It comes back to the same issue: the opposition have said that we have unpicked Howard government policies and this has resulted in an influx of people to Australia seeking asylum. Those other countries which I have mentioned obviously have not unpicked any similar policies, but the same numbers are occurring—in fact, in many instances, considerably higher numbers. But what is the opposition’s response? Their response, according to the words earlier this week of the Leader of the Opposition, is not to rule in or out any policy. Indeed, the fact that the opposition’s response is only to call for an inquiry has been referred to by a number of commentators as reflecting more the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned not to aggravate any particular views held within his party—some being deeply held views indeed.

The bottom line on the matter is this. Australia does have tough border protection policies—indeed I would say among the toughest border protection policies in the world. We are sending the message that we are determined to lock up those who would perpetrate this pernicious trade. We are doing so by delivering arrests. We will not send a message via locking up children behind detention wire, but we have strong and solid policies. (Time expired)

See this speech in context