Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Hansard source

This is a very sad little MPI. What we have is an opposition in desperate hope of a catastrophe. Firstly, they were hoping for a recession. That would have been a politically useful thing to have. But, sadly, they have not had a recession. Then they were hoping and praying that our relations with China or the USA or India and now Indonesia would collapse. That would be pretty useful! But, no. So then they were encouraged by that rather dubious Newspoll a fortnight ago to think that maybe it is asylum seekers that is their political salvation. So this might be their big opportunity. It was a dud poll, it is a dud approach and it is a dud policy.

If you notice the wording of the MPI, it implies that they have an alternative policy. It implies ‘the response to the weakening of border protection’. It implies that they actually think we should still have the policy we had in 2007. But they will not say that. When challenged by the foreign minister to say whether that was their policy, there was a stony silence. It is based on the apparent view that asylum seekers in our region occur in isolation from global issues and that we are uniquely affected by this set of circumstances. But we all know, as the Minister for Home Affairs pointed out, that refugees and asylum seekers are a global issue. Internal and international conflict around the world, combined with famine and political and social unrest, compel millions to seek refuge across national borders. It is foolish to think of Australia as the only country affected by these global push factors or that we are uniquely affected by pull factors.

Less than two weeks ago I visited the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya. It is not the only refugee camp in Kenya, but it is the biggest one. There are 300,000 people there in a camp that was built for 90,000. Six thousand people cross the border of Kenya every week. And here we have an assumption that somehow or other 52 boats and 2½ thousand people is a crisis uniquely about Australia; it is uniquely a response to a policy adopted by the Australian government! But the people coming to Kenya are not attracted by changes in policy in Kenya; they are fleeing because of the push factors from Somalia, and they are fleeing a terrible and ongoing conflict—as people are fleeing circumstances from Afghanistan, from Iraq and from Sri Lanka. We should perhaps send the member for Wentworth and the member for Murray over to see the Kenyan Prime Minister, Mr Odinga, and give him a copy of their detailed policy on the issue. It might stop the problem flooding across the Kenya-Somali border, because I am sure that with a little bit of toughness they could prevent these 6,000 people fleeing for their lives every week!

To assume that people come to Australia because of pull factors and go to the rest of the world because of the push factors is just irrational. Let us have a look at what has happened to increases in asylum claims as at the end of 2008, which are the last figures I have. There was an increase in asylum claims in Australia of 19 per cent. That is quite a lot. There was an increase in Italy of 122 per cent; there was an increase in Canada of 30 per cent. Oh, those clever, clever people smugglers! They say: ‘Australia has changed their policy; we’ll go to Italy! Australia has changed its policy; we’ll all flee to Canada!’ They are very clever these people smugglers. In France the increase was 20 per cent; Norway, 121 per cent. They are very clever these people smugglers. Netherlands, 89 per cent; Switzerland, 53 per cent.

If we say, ‘Oh no, that can’t be right; it’s just about boats,’ in Australia from 2006-08 we had an increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals by boat, it is true. The figures were quoted. In Greece they had an increase from 9,000 to 15,000 over the two years 2006-08. That is a 66 per cent increase in two years. It can hardly be a consequence of the Rudd government’s policy, I would have thought. In Italy they had an increase of 13,000, a 50 per cent increase. There were 13,000 unauthorised arrivals in Spain and 50,000 in Yemen.

It is impossible to believe that we have on the one hand people going to every other country in the world because of push factors but uniquely coming to Australia because of the Rudd government’s policies. It is the same people smugglers. There is not an Australian lot of people smugglers who are different in character from those who ply their trade to Canada or France. The psychology is the same, the approach is the same, sometimes the people are the same, and yet more of them are choosing to go elsewhere. We all have a problem. Australia has a problem. We have to deal with it, but we do not have it uniquely; we do not have it specially.

If the statistics about Australia stood out as different from the statistics of every other country you would think it might be a home-grown Australian problem. Probably on balance it is slightly less than other countries, but I do not think the figures are strong enough to say that. It is certainly no worse than in any other country similarly placed. Therefore, you cannot argue that this is the people smugglers responding to our policy. They are doing exactly the same everywhere, because the people are desperate. They will try to come here, they will try to go to Italy, they will try to go to France and they will try to go to Canada.

You need to have a sense of balance and proportion about this. We need to have a response that is strong against people smugglers but treats asylum seekers as human beings and fellow residents of our planet who are in trouble—even the ones who come who are finally found not to be refugees and get sent back, as they should be. These are not horrible people; these are people trying to find a better life. They do not meet the requirements of the refugee convention, so they should be sent back, and people who do meet the requirements should be allowed in. But those are innocent victims both of the problem in their own country and of the people smugglers. We need to respond to them humanely.

Let us have a look at theOceanic Viking. Where were the choices that would have led to a different circumstance? When we received a call to provide assistance to people at sea, the choice was to save them or not to save them. I do not think the opposition is arguing they would not have gone to the rescue, and I would not make that allegation against them, of course. I know they would have done the same thing we did. Then the choice was to send them to Indonesia or Australia. The proper thing was to send them to Indonesia. That was where they were found. I assume that is what the opposition would have done. They could have brought them to Australia, but I do not think that is what they would have done.

Once the boat got to Indonesia and the people would not get off, they had two choices: they could force them off, with guns, or they could persuade them to come off, which would take longer but would ultimately be successful and be a more humane and appropriate response. It may be that the opposition is saying that they would have brought on the troops and forced them off. I have not heard them say that. Perhaps they would—I would like to hear. That is the choice. They could leave them there, negotiate for them to go off or they could force them off. There is not an infinite array of policy options; that is it. We have not heard which of those the opposition would have taken up. In fact, whenever they are asked they say, ‘No, that’s a problem for the government.’ It is not as though there is a unique bit of information which the government has; those are the choices. Which would you have taken that we did not? I do not blame you for not answering the question because it would put a big hole in your argument, but you have to accept that failing to answer exposes your weakness.

I am proud that people are not being marched off at gunpoint. I am proud they are not being sent off to Nauru. This matter of public importance implies that the opposition is sorry that Nauru has been closed. They are sorry that there are no temporary protection visas. If they want to return to the pre-2007 policies, they should say so. They imply it, they hint at it, they squirm around it but they have not yet said what their policy is and until they do it will simply be seen as the opportunist stunt that it is. They will be very sad when this matter of the Oceanic Viking is resolved and they have to return to debating the central issues facing this country and have their divisions on those issues exposed for all to see.

See this speech in context