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

I take the opportunity to speak on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. This bill complements a series of other measures already implemented by the government to counter people-smuggling activities. I want to reiterate the purpose of this bill, as outlined by the Attorney-General. The bill will establish a new offence in the Migration Act and the Criminal Code of providing material support and resources towards a people-smuggling venture. The maximum penalty for this offence will be imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty units—that is, $110,000—or both. Prescribing a maximum penalty still allows judicial discretion to take account of the circumstances of the case. The bill will harmonise people-smuggling offences between the Migration Act and the Criminal Code to strengthen the criminal framework and to provide greater consistency. The legislative framework for criminalising people smuggling is contained in the Migration Act and the Criminal Code. Together, the legislation covers ventures entering Australia under the Migration Act and ventures entering foreign countries, including those that transit Australia, under the Criminal Code.

The bill inserts into the Migration Act the aggravated offence of people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm. Currently, this aggravated offence is contained in the Criminal Code. However, the Migration Act does not provide for these aggravated circumstances associated with people smuggling and, therefore, the provision does not apply to ventures seeking to enter Australia. Inserting this offence into the Migration Act will ensure that this aggravated offence consistently applies to all people-smuggling ventures. Currently, the Migration Act contains mandatory minimum penalties for the aggravated offence of people smuggling: a five-year sentence with three years non-parole or an eight-year sentence with five years non-parole for repeat offenders.

The bill extends the application of the mandatory minimum penalty to the new offence of people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm. The higher mandatory minimum sentence of eight years and the non-parole period of five years will automatically apply to this aggravated offence, irrespective of whether it is a repeat offence. This is to reflect the serious nature of the offence. The bill will also extend the higher mandatory minimum sentence and non-parole period to a person who is convicted of multiple aggravated people-smuggling offences. The bill will improve the capacity for law enforcement agencies and national security agencies by making associated changes to the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the TIA Act to enable them to have consistent access under both acts to the appropriate investigative tools in relation to the existing people-smuggling offences, which are serious offences under the TIA Act, and the new offences in the bill.

The bill will also amend the ASIO Act to enable ASIO to use its intelligence capabilities to respond to people smuggling and other serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity. The bill will enable, where appropriate, ASIO to play a greater role in support of whole-of-government efforts to combat people smuggling and other serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity. The bill will also align the definition of ‘foreign intelligence’ in the TIA Act more closely with that in the Intelligence Services Act 2001.

Amnesty International estimates that, each year, four million people are trafficked or smuggled across international borders in a criminal trade estimated to be worth $10 billion. People smuggling is a serious global criminal issue—serious because of the dollar value of the people-smuggling trade; serious, because of the extreme risks to the lives of those seeking refuge; serious, because it causes problems in settlement countries and for the UNHCR; and serious, because, with a criminal activity estimated to be worth $10 billion worldwide, the risk of corruption cannot be dismissed.

Over the past year we have seen a rise in refugee arrivals in countries across the world, including here in Australia. Of course, the coalition, in their desperate attempts to make political mileage out of people fleeing Afghanistan and Sri Lanka because of the terrible conditions, lay blame on the Rudd government for the boats recently headed for Australia. Between 2008 and 2010 there were 3,494 boat arrivals. The seven nationalities comprising most of the boat arrivals were: Afghanis, 1,966; Sri Lankans, 801; Iraqis, 284; Kurds, 151; Iranians, 121; Indonesians, 62; and Burmese, 43. Together, those nationalities made up over 98 per cent of boat arrivals in that period. Those statistics present a very clear picture: it is push factors, not pull factors, that underlie boat-people arrivals. These are people fleeing from their homeland because of the very real risk to their lives, not because of a change of government policy. They are fleeing countries where terrible atrocities are being committed against them or where their homeland and their personal safety are affected by war. That is why, as the homeland situation settles and stabilises, the number of refugees declines. That is consistent with the figures I have just read out in respect of the people from Iraq, Kurdistan and Iran. As the situation stabilised, the number of people fleeing those countries and coming to Australia declined.

The UNHCR estimates that there are over 42 million displaced people around the world; 16 million of those are refugees and asylum seekers; 26 million are people displaced within their own countries. If the number of boat arrivals was driven by Australia’s immigration policies then we should be seeing an increase in boat arrivals not only from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka but from every other country from which people are trying to leave, and they would also be paying people smugglers. But that is simply not happening. The opportunities for people from those countries are no less than the opportunities for people fleeing Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. In fact, their opportunities would probably be greater. Yet we are not seeing people from those countries fleeing to Australia in the numbers that would underpin the opposition’s argument that it is all to do with Australia’s immigration policies.

People smugglers are exploiting vulnerable people in desperate situations, placing their lives at risk and causing them additional suffering. There is little doubt that people smugglers use modern communication and navigation equipment. They may use leaky and unseaworthy boats, because they know the boats will ultimately be destroyed, but other aspects of their operations are much more sophisticated—and I noted the comments in respect of this matter by the member for O’Connor who quite rightly said that they use sophisticated means. I do not know but I suspect that it may also be a contributing factor to why we are seeing an increasing number of refugees leaving their countries and going to other parts of the world right now, because the operations of people smugglers have certainly improved over the last decade.

Counter people-smuggling activities rely on global strategies, cooperation between world governments and equally sophisticated intelligence-gathering and surveillance systems. To that end, I welcome and applaud the statement made in his address to this parliament by the President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, that Indonesia would introduce a five-year prison term for people convicted of people smuggling. Indonesia is a very important Australian ally in Australia’s fight against people smugglers. I understand that many other countries already impose substantial penalties on convicted people smugglers. I know that people have been convicted of people-smuggling activities in the UK, with one person being sentenced to 12 years, and that only last month in France a mother and son were facing sentencing for people-smuggling offences. People smuggling, assisting people smugglers and placing the lives of refugees at risk of death or serious harm are all serious criminal acts. The harmonisation of the immigration, security and intelligence acts to combat those activities, and the extension of the discretion and powers of the relevant organisations, makes good sense.

Of course, the most effective strategy to counter people smuggling is to remove the need for people to flee their home countries. And you do that by improving living conditions within those countries, by ending the internal military and racial conflicts, by stabilising the respective governments and by giving people a real future in their own countries. With that in mind, I acknowledge the Australian government’s $35 million in aid to Sri Lanka. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of internally displaced people assisted by the UNHCR increased from 324,699 to 504,800—an increase of 55 per cent. Following the end of civil war in Sri Lanka, there are currently about 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people, living in atrocious conditions. Can I say here, in respect of the queue-jumping comments: there is no queue for those people, because, from my understanding of the briefings I have received from people from the Sri Lankan community, the world aid agencies are hardly allowed to go in there and provide them with the kind of aid that might create some kind of queue. So I am not sure how they can be accused of queue jumping when it is not clear that there is a queue.

The claim that people smugglers are targeting Australia because of ‘softening’ of government policy is a nonsense being spouted by an opportunistic opposition. The facts are that Australia, in comparison with other Western countries, has a very robust refugee policy that is tough on people smugglers but humane with refugees. Australia receives far fewer boat arrivals than other advanced countries, and the trend of boat people arriving in Australia follows the same trends in numbers fleeing to other advanced countries, where there has been no change in refugee policy whatsoever. Conversely, the Howard government’s temporary protection visa policy and Pacific solution made no difference to refugee trends in Australia compared with trends in other countries. Decreases in boat arrivals between 2001 and 2003 coincided with decreases in numbers fleeing to other parts of the world and, importantly, with decreases in asylum-seeker numbers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

During that time, between 2001 and 2003, the number of Iraqis claiming asylum globally dropped from 52,412 to 27,352—a 48 per cent drop. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally dropped from 52,927 to 14,216—a 73 per cent drop. And between 2001 and 2003, the number of Sri Lankans claiming asylum globally dropped from 14,532 to 5,633—a 61 per cent drop. Conversely, between 2005 and 2008, the number of Iraqis claiming asylum globally increased from 14,511 to 42,748—that is, a 193 per cent increase. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Sri Lankans claiming asylum globally increased from 5,628 to 9,673—that is, a 72 per cent increase. And between 2005 and 2008, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally increased from 7,723 to 18,440—again, a 139 per cent increase.

But here is the real hypocrisy of the opposition: the opposition never opposed our changes to the Pacific solution announced in December 2007 and ended in February 2008. They did not make a stand at that time. But now they come into this place and criticise the changes in policy.

Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, you would be aware that that committee has released three reports. You would also be aware that, on listening to the evidence presented to the committee, there was an overwhelming response by members of the committee to the policies adopted by the government. Those policies are encompassed in the recommendations within those three reports. From my recollection, the only variances from those reports were variances which suggested that the government should have gone further with the policies that it was amending in terms of making them even ‘softer’, if I could use that term.

Furthermore, by the time temporary protection visas were abolished nearly 90 per cent of people granted a temporary protection visa were then granted a permanent visa and only three per cent of those granted a TPV departed Australia. Having people here on TPVs simply encouraged other family members to come to Australia by any means in order to be reunited. Under the Rudd government our borders are being protected. They are secure. The reality is that none of the boats, to my knowledge, reach Australia. So when members opposite make the claim that our borders are no longer secure I put this question to them: how can they not be secure if not one single boat has reached our shores? That effectively means that our borders are as secure as ever because boats are being intercepted before they reach Australian shores and those on board are being detained until health, identity and security checks are carried out. In fact, the greatest undermining of the integrity of Australia’s immigration policies is coming from the opposition’s rhetoric that Australia’s border protection policies are soft. The opposition are encouraging boats to Australia through their constant mantra that Australia’s border protection policies are soft.

One of the cruel fallouts of the opposition exploiting the issue for political gain is the demoralising impact it has on refugees who have endured incredible suffering and risk prior to getting here, but who are being portrayed as criminals, economic opportunists queuejumpers, illegals and by any other term that turns Australians against them. These are real people with aspirations and values many of whom, since being granted asylum, have made outstanding contributions to our country. One such person is South Australia’s Lieutenant Governor, Hieu Van Le. Hieu Van Le fled Vietnam in 1997 with his wife, Lan. He was 23 years old at the time. His journey to Australia had detours and all the elements of risk imaginable. He finally arrived in Darwin along with others on board a leaky boat seeking refuge and asylum. He was greeted by a couple of Aussies on a fishing boat with the welcome comment, ‘G’day mate—welcome to Australia.’ How things have changed. I wonder what kind of welcome Hieu would have received today if he were arriving under the same circumstances.

Hieu Van Le settled ultimately in South Australia, studied at the University of Adelaide and completed a degree in economics. Hieu and Lan have two children, Don and Kim, both born in Australia and named after cricketing greats Don Bradman and Kim Hughes. In 2005 Hieu was appointed chairman of South Australia’s Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission, a role that he has fulfilled superbly. On 31 August 2007 he was appointed as Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, again in a role that he is fulfilling with dignity and distinction. This year, in the Australia Day awards, Hieu Van Lee was awarded the Order of Australia.

I have known Hieu Van Le and his wife Lan for many years. They are two great Australians. Hieu Van Le’s Order of Australia was very much deserved and I congratulate him on his award. His contribution to Australia has been outstanding. He was not a threat, not a risk and not a burden on our country. On the contrary, for a person who arrived here under very similar circumstances to those who are today being demonised by the opposition, Hieu Van Le is a model citizen whom we could all be inspired by, but he would not be here today if you believe the opposition.

In closing I want to respond to a couple of comments made in the course of this debate. One was made in the MPI today by the member for Cook when he said ‘We need to stop the boats because people die on the boats’. If people die on the boats, and I believe they do, and they are prepared to risk death then the policies of destination countries pale into irrelevance. There could be no greater deterrent than the risk of dying and if that does not deter people then nothing else will. Certainly, not the policies of the governments of the countries for which they are headed. Where is the opposition’s logic in saying that? The cold hard reality is that there is none. Through that very comment they have effectively argued the case that it is not the policies of this government or any other government for that matter that draws people to those countries and causes them to flee the country from where they depart. There is simply no logic in that argument.

It is clear that this whole debate is being run for political opportunism. To make matters worse I have not heard, to date, an alternative to the government’s policies on any of these matters. So the opposition criticise but they give no alternative. I commend this bill to the House because this is a complex matter and the government is dealing with it in a measured, responsible way.

See this speech in context