Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 as, indeed, I would be happy to support any measures which proposed to strengthen the integrity of our borders and oppose people smuggling as an activity. However, I do want to record, especially for the member for Werriwa’s benefit, that people smuggling is not a new phenomenon in Australia. Indeed, it has dominated the political landscape for some time now. Listening to members opposite in the recent contributions that we have heard, it is as if somehow people smuggling has become a new phenomenon and somehow we need special legislation to deal with this phenomenon.

For some time now, the opposition has been warning the government that weakening the integrity of our borders would lead to this situation. We warned people like the member for Werriwa—indeed, the government—that if you weakened the border protection system of Australia you would create pull factors which would encourage more people smuggling and more people to attempt to come to Australia by boat. That is exactly what has happened. The member for Werriwa said that we salivate each time there is a boat or another arrival of a group of people here in Australia and I record here that that is absolutely and utterly not the case. The opposition is very concerned at the risk to life and limb of asylum seekers attempting to get here by boat and at the risk to ADF personnel who are sent out to intercept boats. That is why we are so concerned to warn the government that weakening the border protection system of our nation is something that you ought not do and we have warned them of this repeatedly.

In August 2008, we saw the government remove the successful system which prevented people smuggling from being a major concern. I note that, in the contribution of the Attorney-General, he said that conflicts and turmoil in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Sri Lanka were driving a global surge in asylum seekers. It is interesting to make a short reflection on this comment which opened his remarks. Conflicts and turmoil in Afghanistan and the Middle East have been occurring for a long time and certainly push factors have been around for a long time. So why would there be a change in the climate or in the circumstances of people attempting to arrive here by boat from Afghanistan and the Middle East? The answer is the pull factors and the policies of the Australian government. I think that is borne out by all of the evidence in front of us as a nation today.

In fact, I would contend that the only reason we are here debating this legislation is the weakening of our border protection. What we have here in this anti-people-smuggling legislation is a graphic illustration for the Australian people of cause and effect in operation. I think it is true to say that the last government was tough on border protection. This government, however, has sent out a mixed set of signals. Before the election, it was tough on border protection. Of course it would have talked tough because that was before the election. After the election, the government went soft on border protection: ‘Let us undo the Howard government’s successful system because it is too hard line and has too many problems and why do we need it anyway?’ So it was tough before the election but soft after the election. Then we had the Prime Minister have a bet both ways and say he was going to be tough but also compassionate with his border protection policy. That is called being all things to all people.

This policy has failed. The result of the government’s changes in policy has been to relegate the claims of people who form part of the legitimate humanitarian refugee queues—the thousands of deserving people waiting to have their claims for asylum processed legally. I think that is the main failure of the weakening of the border protection system that the Rudd government has engaged in. Even last year, after we saw the increasing surge in arrivals in boats and people-smuggling activity, the Prime Minister had to come out, as the member for Werriwa was happy to record, and say that people smugglers were engaged in ‘the world’s most evil trade’. They were the ‘absolute scum of the earth’, he said, and ‘they should rot in hell’—very strong language indeed. I do record that the sending out of these consistently mixed signals has resulted in an increase and that pull factors are certainly playing a part in what is going on with our borders at the moment.

People smuggling is a criminal activity, and all members in this place are happy to record that that is their view. In 2010, long after the abolition of the Howard government’s highly effective program, we can see that there is now an increase in this criminal activity. I think people will recall, if they cast their minds back just a short few years to the time after the attacks of 9-11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, that there was plenty of turmoil in Afghanistan—plenty of reason for people to seek asylum or to leave Afghanistan and seek Australia. However, in the year following those activities, 2002-03, there was not a single boat arrival in Australia. In 2003-04, there were only three boat arrivals and, in 2004-05, there were again no boat arrivals. In 2005-06, there were eight boat arrivals. In 2006-07, there were four boat arrivals and, in 2007-08, up to the point when Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party changed the Howard coalition government’s border protection policies, there were just three boats. So, for the last six years of the Howard government, there were only 18 boats in total.

We heard the Prime Minister in question time today talk about 1999 and all of the factors that led to offshore processing, temporary protection visas and all of the things that the Howard government put in place to attempt to deal with the problem that had come up earlier. It was a successful program. So when you look at the three boats a year over the six years after the Howard government action—showing resolve and taking the action required—we now see a different situation. In August 2008, Labor changed the laws on border protection. I do not think they understood at that time that this would lead to consequences. I think those on that side genuinely thought that this could be done and the system would remain in place and nothing would happen, but since the Labor government weakened the robust border protection system we have had 92 illegal boats arrive, carrying over 4,100 people. We have had incidents on the seas which have involved ADF personnel and which have put them at great risk. It is certainly a great problem we now have to deal with in this legislation before us tonight. This year alone—we are only 10 weeks into this year—we have attracted 24 illegal boats carrying over 1,100 arrivals. Last week, we witnessed chaos, with five boats arriving in just six days. It does appear that pull factors are leading to an upsurge in people-smuggling activity and in asylum seekers seeking Australian shores by boat.

Of course, the purpose of this particular bill is to amend Australia’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework, and I want to speak very briefly on the issues that are contained within this bill. In relation to the Criminal Code, this bill creates a new offence of supporting the offence of people-smuggling. It targets people who organise, finance and provide other material and support to people-smuggling ventures entering foreign countries, whether or not in Australia. The penalty proposed for this new offence is imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years, a fine of $110,000 or both. This bill also creates two new people-smuggling related offences within the Migration Act: firstly, supporting the offence of people-smuggling and, secondly, the aggravated offence of people-smuggling involving such things as exportation, danger of death or serious harm. This will carry a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum of 20 years, a fine of $220,000 or both. Of course, these are good, quality measures, and certainly ones that we support within this bill.

There are concerns, of course, with this legislation, and I want to turn to those. One in particular is how agencies which are being given extra powers and extra responsibilities in this legislation will meet the requirements that this legislation will impose upon them. In relation to the Surveillance Devices Act, the bill will extend emergency authorisation for the use of a surveillance device in investigations into the aggravated offence of people-smuggling. Currently, the ability to obtain emergency authorisation for a surveillance device does not extend to offences under the Migration Act. In relation to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, the bill will simplify the criteria to be satisfied by agencies when applying for telecommunications interception warrants for offences which are contained within the people-smuggling offences of the Migration Act. Under these amendments, agencies will no longer have to establish that the offence involved two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation—again, worthy objectives of this bill.

The bill will amend the definition of ‘security’ in the ASIO Act to officially give the agency statutory power to obtain and evaluate intelligence relevant to the protection of Australia’s territorial border integrity from serious threats. This intelligence can then be communicated to various agencies such as the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and other law enforcement agencies. Those amendments are made in schedule 2 of the bill. These particular functions, which will include obtaining, correlating and evaluating intelligence relevant to security and communicating that intelligence are worthy objectives.

However, with the increase in responsibility for ASIO, this bill contains no measure to increase the funding or the capability of ASIO. Indeed, there are significant increases in the responsibilities of that agency in this bill, so for the bill not to contain any extra funding—and the bill’s explanatory memorandum states specifically that this bill will have no financial impact, so the government obviously intends not to increase the resourcing of this agency—is of concern. Clearly ASIO will have to find the resources within its existing budget—which, of course, will mean changes to the way it conducts itself and organises itself. This could have an effect on domestic security. It is a concern that the government needs to take seriously, especially when we are seeing an increase in the number of arrivals and an increase in people-smuggling activity. If you are going to propose that an agency like ASIO become a relevant agency in dealing with these serious criminal threats then, if you are not to provide those resources, you need to take seriously the diminishment of the responsibility of that organisation to deal with all of the threats that it is asked to deal with. Indeed, we do ask ASIO to deal with a series of domestic and external threats.

They are the concerns that I and the opposition have in relation to various provisions of this bill. But, in general, it is easy for me to say that I support measures which increase the integrity of Australia’s borders. People-smuggling is a horrific crime. The Prime Minister is of course right to speak very strongly about it. I just wish that he would at times be more consistent in his approach to people-smuggling because, if you do not take into consideration both the pull and the push factors in relation to this matter, I think you are ignoring a major relevant contributor to the activities of the people smugglers. If you are not severe in your ability to treat people-smuggling and its effects when they arrive here at the other end then I think you are encouraging people to take advantage of that system. That, of course, is something we do not want to do, for all of the reasons I have outlined: the risk to the lives of the people who are involved in the people-smuggling activity, that it relegates genuine asylum seekers and people waiting in refugee and humanitarian camps around the world for a place in our generous refugee program—and we have some 13,000 places available, which is very generous per capita as a country—to a longer and more difficult time waiting, and that it provides an incentive, if you like, or a system whereby people-smuggling is easier. That is what we warned the government about and have consistently warned the government about since their election in 2007.

In closing, we are here because of the government’s weakening of our border protection legislation. We are passing a bill called the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill because we have—if you want to term it this way—a crisis in people-smuggling activity which has been generated out of the weakening of Australia’s border protection laws and the abandoning of our tough system in August 2008. I am not here tonight to say to the government, ‘We told you so.’ I am here tonight to say to the government that this is a serious matter involving criminal activity and the government simply ought not be so inconsistent with its politics. It promised one thing prior to the last election then tried to deliver something for the left of Australian politics that ended up resulting in this bill before the House tonight.

See this speech in context