Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am really not surprised that the government has brought this bill, the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, before the parliament now. The government’s abject failure on border security is evident, and we are now averaging 10 boats a month. The government is stuck in a hard place on this issue, although it has abandoned any mention of a tough policy. Maybe that is because it is such a simply ludicrous term, given the current flow of boats. Nevertheless, the government cannot reconcile the divisions within the party. The left holds a total commitment to supporting illegal arrivals while the remainder cannot actually take any action of strength, because that would be a total backflip and clear evidence of the stuff-up that has been created. Instead, they are left with trying to stop the boats—or at least the adverse publicity—with special deals, such as the Oceanic Viking fiasco, trying to get transit countries to do the work, or even the presentation of this bill.

Perhaps the Rudd government has not worked out yet that, if you promise no more than three months on Christmas Island and certainty of settlement in Australia after that, illegal immigrants will walk past our embassies, bypass the UNHCR and pay the people smugglers. It is a risk they see as worth taking and they consider the money well spent. Until the government addresses that reality, the government will continue to fail. It was previously the case that nowhere was the failure of the government’s policy more evident than in border control. Comprehensive as that failure continues to be, it is clear that in the last six months border protection failure has increasing competition across other policy areas, such as the bungled home insulation program with its and dangers and rortings, the green loans, the overpriced BER program et cetera.

As concerning as the loss of border control is, I nevertheless welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. I recall that at the end of 2008 I made a speech in this place against the failures of the government in this precise area. I recall the member for Maribyrnong interjecting repeatedly in support of the government’s alleged border control policy, and he did so again yesterday when I asked a question on the government’s border protection failure. This proves what an embarrassment the lack of border control is for the government. We fixed the problem in the past, and since the government was elected it has wrecked the integrity of our borders. Indeed, thanks to the Rudd government, the borders of this nation are as porous as the 2007 Labor Party election promises. This Rudd government policy failure represents yet another example of all talk and no action.

Before going on to the bill, it is important to review what has happened leading up to this point. In this financial year there has been a $132 million blow-out in the cost of processing illegal immigrants. It is little wonder, because since 1 July 2009 there have been 67 boats and more than 4,000 people on those boats—a lot more than the 200 people the government planned on at the time of the last budget. That, of course, has also resulted in the need for $34 million to increase the number of beds on Christmas Island. It has been estimated that this financial year at least $230 million beyond what has been budgeted for will be required, and it will be required to deal with the numbers arriving as a direct result of the changes to the laws that this government said would not see an increase in arrivals. Indeed, if these illegal arrivals continue at this pace, the government may face up to $300 million per year in additional costs, with $1 billion being exceeded in the fourth year. This issue is very clear. Those with money are jumping the queue. Those without money remain in refugee camps, hoping that the numbers of illegal arrivals do not amount to enough to bump them beyond our humanitarian program numbers for the year, only to be reassessed for inclusion on the legitimate queue for next year. There are only around 13,500 on the humanitarian program list. What about these illegal arrivals? There are over 4,000. Surely this is not good news for those in refugee camps.

Before going on I would also go over some previously covered ground in relation to these matters. I have in the past been critical of the validity of many of those who have arrived by boat. I have questioned how much they were in fear of their lives, when they bypassed several countries on their way here. I am often asked by my constituents how it is that we have had Afghani people arrive in Australia by boat when their country is landlocked. Clearly the facts are that these illegal arrivals have passed by many countries on their journey, and that has included road and air travel. This was always my understanding of the situation. Therefore, I thought I would confirm that understanding by putting questions on the Notice Paper back on 16 November last year. With reference to illegal arrivals by boat, I asked firstly about arrivals from Sri Lanka and how many had some form of identity document with them upon processing. I was informed by the Attorney-General that between 27 November 2008 and 9 December 2009 742 Sri Lankan nationals arrived by boat. Of those 742 just 20 per cent, or 147, had some form of identity document. I was also informed that 492 of the 742 are understood to have used air travel to transit via South-East Asia. It would be a reasonable assumption that the 492 as an absolute minimum would have had identity documents in order to use civil aircraft. This information would therefore suggest that a lot of identity documents were lost between getting off the aircraft and arriving at Christmas Island. I would question the motives of anyone who throws their identity papers into the Timor Sea.

As part of those questions on notice, I also asked about those from Afghanistan who arrived by boat. I was informed that as at 31 December 2009 1,532 Afghan nationals had arrived by boat and that every one of them had used air travel to get to South-East Asia so that they could get on the boats. I will say again that I cannot reconcile a claim of a desperate fear for one’s life with firstly bypassing Australian embassies then bypassing UNHCR missions and transiting through airline departure halls before getting on a boat in Indonesia. So when those on the government side accuse my colleagues and me of a lack of compassion regarding those who arrive by boats, I would deny it. I say to them that I have compassion and regard for those in refugee camps. I have compassion for those who have done the right thing—not those who have paid for their airfares and perhaps even picked up their duty-free purchases on the way. There is no duty-free at the refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border. Clearly the opportunity exists to properly apply for entry to Australia under the humanitarian program, or for other visas, from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and other points along the way. The fact that illegal arrivals have instead chosen to bypass opportunities to apply for legitimate entry to Australia suggests nothing more than a deliberate intent to illegally bypass Australia’s immigration law to gain access to Australia by jumping the queue.

It used to be the case that when the Navy or Customs intercepted a boat of illegal arrivals it was bad news for the people smugglers and those on the boat. It used to be the case that this nation had border control systems with integrity so that there were no guarantees of staying—but that is all over. The interception of boats, as the minister calls it, is what the people smugglers call a successful delivery. The Navy or Customs taking a boatload of people to Christmas Island is mission accomplished for the smugglers. That so-called interception begins a stay of up to three months on Christmas Island with full use of the gym and unmonitored internet access, followed by a visa and permanent settlement in Australia. The only thing that can stop that certain resettlement is an adverse security assessment.

I therefore ask the question: is the $10,000-plus that is paid to people smugglers a good investment for those who achieve a permanent visa? If they get intercepted or dock at Christmas Island then any observer would have to agree that it is. If your dark past is not detected, you are in and there is no doubt that you will get one of those places in our humanitarian program—much easier and certainly much quicker than applying at the Australia embassy in your homeland or dropping into the UNHCR station in your homeland or at any point along the way. Perhaps it is more expensive, but why be diverted to another less desirable country when you can ensure success with around $10,000?

I would also ask the question about how this sort of money was generated in the first place. We know that these origin countries are of far poorer economic standing than our own. My question would be: how is the money generated? If it is generated legally then it would seem that they are not the desperate people that their advocates suggest they are. If the money is generated illegally, we should question their legitimacy and investigate that matter closely—perhaps that is a matter for ASIO.

Since my election to this parliament I have always wondered why there is no accountability for those who pay the people smugglers to come here. Why is it not an offence to pay a people smuggler? Beyond those who can pay, the refugee camp occupants on the Burma-Thailand border—the Karen, the Chin and the persecuted Burmese people—have to wait in line. They do not have the money. They have to wait while those with money take what may prove to be 4,000 places out of the humanitarian program. It is little wonder that people in this and other countries are unhappy with this situation.

Australia is a fair and tolerant country. This issue is not about racism. It is not about the colour of a person’s skin or their religion. It is about a fair go and whether we are still in control of who comes here. It is clear to me that what this nation needs is a return to the days when there were no guarantees about where you would end up if you tried to jump the queue. We need to get back to offshore processing, resettlement options beyond our shore, visas that are not permanent and a humanitarian program where we decide where the refugees will come from.

That brings me to the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. I say at the outset that we will be supporting this bill. It does not, however, address the core problem and we will see if it helps the current situation in any way. The bill seeks to deter the people smugglers, whilst expanding ASIO’s charter and modifying interception powers. Specifically, the amendments will create a new offence of providing material support or resources toward a people-smuggling venture. It will establish in the Migration Act an aggravated offence of people smuggling which involves exploitation or danger of death or serious harm. There is also an amendment to apply mandatory minimum penalties to the new aggravated offences, and to multiple offences, of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and a maximum penalty of 20 years and/or a $220,000 fine.

I note that there is a specific element of this legislation that suggests that a payment to a people smuggler for one’s own travel, or for that of a relative, is not included as providing material support. In other words, this legislation attacks some of the income for people smugglers but allows other income. I again struggle to understand why there is such an inconsistency. Although the bill does not address this inconsistency—or, rather, promotes this inconsistency—fortunately it does seem to leave the door open for ASIO to make an adverse security finding upon those who seek to circumvent our immigration system. Therefore, I encourage ASIO to examine the intent to bypass legitimate processes and also the intent in concealing one’s identity by getting rid of identity papers. These should be considered strongly as reasons to make an adverse security finding.

It is not my intention to speak to the intricate details of the sections of this bill. I see no point in restating the amendments line by line as I said that we would be supporting this bill, but I do say that the core of the issue remains a problem. Upon arrival at Christmas Island, they are as good as here, and that is wrong. The Rudd government changed the rules. The Rudd government ensures that they will come to Australia and that they will take up places on our humanitarian program. The Rudd government does not question their legitimacy or their intent to bypass legitimate application processes in order to come here, and the Rudd government, through their softness on this matter, ensures that those without the money for airfares or people smugglers will languish in refugee camps even longer.

I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments today. I look forward to seeing how these amendments will assist the current situation. However, I do not hold out great hope because I do not see that they provide any form of accountability for those who bypass our immigration system. Until those who refuse to apply for entry at our embassies or through UNHCR missions are forced to do so, they will continue to see their actions as worth the effort—which means they are jumping the queue. There has been a tendency to see this whole problem as caused by the people smugglers. Of course, we object to and abhor their reckless risk taking with the lives of others but, if there were no market for their product, they would not exist.

As I said before, I am not going to go through line items on this bill. The trouble with this bill is that it does not address the core problems of why people are paying to come here. It does not reverse the government’s changes from two years ago and it does not take away the surety of success that the government gave these illegal arrivals. Because it does not do these things it will not work and the government will find that their failure remains clearly evident into the future. I can see the future clearly: this problem will only be solved when the coalition again forms a government and direct action can be undertaken on this problem.

See this speech in context