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

The shadow minister’s thesis was based on a desire to save lives, and I take him at face value—I know him and I know he is genuine in saying that—but I point out that the central theme of the opposition’s policy is the reintroduction of temporary protection visas and the Pacific solution. In respect of the temporary protection visas, I ask members to reflect back to October 2001. On 18 October 2001, a vessel left a port in Indonesia carrying a bit over 400 people. The following day, that vessel sunk on the high seas in international waters. Upon that vessel there were women, children and some men. The women had one thing in common, aside from losing their lives. The women were coming to Australia to make contact, to resume their relationships, with male partners in Australia on temporary protection visas. The children were on that vessel because they were seeking to be reunited with their fathers in Australia on temporary protection visas.

On the night of 19 October 2001, 146 children lost their lives, 142 women lost their lives and 62 men lost their wives. The number of women and children on that vessel was significantly greater because of the then government’s temporary protection visa policy. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and I think that has been recognised by a number of members on the other side. Those events, more than anything, should cause the opposition to review their policies.

From analysing the issues, I can say that dealing with those seeking asylum internationally is a complex global challenge. From 2009 figures, in the order of 36 million people are of concern to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and in the order of 983,000 people are seeking asylum. It is a massive and complex international problem that is confronting the rest of the world. The United States takes by far the greatest number of asylum seekers—in the order of 50,000—and Canada takes 30,000. The European Union countries take 250,000 and eight of those countries received in excess of 10,000 asylum seekers in 2009—France, 40,000; the United Kingdom 30,000; Germany, 30,000. Australia received 6,000 people seeking asylum in 2009. That puts the issue in context. This issue requires perspective, balance and a proportionate response, not a response based on emotion, fear and rhetoric and, in particular, not a response that involves adopting policies that are draconian in their application and not based on the evidence.

The Australian government have some of the toughest border protection policies of any country in the world. We have excision of the offshore islands; we have offshore processing; we have mandatory detention for the purpose of conducting health, identity and security assessments; and, we have compulsory return of persons found to be not genuinely in need of asylum in our country. Indeed, in recent months there has been a rejection rate in the order of 50 per cent of those seeking asylum on the basis of information from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and in-country information. As a result of that updated information and the need to obtain additional information, the government made a decision in April of this year to suspend processing claims for asylum for people from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Both the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Prime Minister indicated that, on resumption of processing and being in receipt of that updated information from the UNHCR and in-country information, it is likely that the rate of rejection will increase.

I note the text of the MPI criticises the government’s actions. This government has, more than any other peacetime government, devoted more to border protection in terms of interdiction capability, intelligence gathering capabilities and capacity building, working in cooperation with regional countries, introducing laws into Australia to introduce serious penalties for providing material support to a people-smuggling operation and giving the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation the ability to assist law enforcement agencies in fighting people smuggling.

These are very significant steps that the government has taken and with quite some results. Domestically there have been 149 arrests, 45 convictions and 102 prosecutions. I note the shadow minister indicated the importance of working with and having good relations with our neighbours. As a result of significant international cooperation with our neighbours, Indonesia has undertaken 158 disruptions involving 3,810 people and has made 92 arrests; Malaysia has undertaken 28 disruptions involving 873 people and has made 12 arrests; Sri Lanka has had 16 disruptions with 275 people involved and 55 arrests. You have to ask yourself—and I do ask—what would be the consequence and the attitude of those countries if we effectively thumbed our noses at them in terms of working for a regional approach to this issue?

In that context I note the one issue the honourable member did not mention in his presentation was the policy of turning boats back. I again ask the question: what would have been the consequence of turning back SIEVX or suspect illegal vessel 10, which was the vessel on which the women and children perished on 19 October 2001? What would be the consequence of asking our servicemen and servicewomen to turn a boat such as that around? In reality the argument is a sham. Out of 242 boats involving 14,000 people, there were only ever seven boats turned around by the opposition. Again, I suggest it is all talk.

What the honourable member did not refer to in his speech is the evidence base that is required before draconian actions against people are introduced as a policy commitment. What are the facts? I note in his op-ed today the shadow minister referred to around 2001 when he put forward that, as a result of the then coalition’s policies, there was a dramatic decline in people seeking asylum in Australia. I think he acknowledged that between 1999 and 2001 there were some 12,000 people seeking asylum in Australia. That happened incidentally after the temporary protection visas were introduced in 1999. But what he does not advise the Australian people is that internationally there was a dramatic decline in the number of people seeking asylum between 2001 and 2003. In terms of Iraqis, there was a 50 per cent reduction from 50,400 to 25,300; Afghans, a 73 per cent drop from 52,900 to 14,216; and, Sri Lankans went from 14,500 to 5,600, a 61 per cent drop. In fact, 2001 and 2002 saw the largest scale returns in the 59-year history of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Those figures have not been disclosed by the opposition but they coincide with the reduction that the opposition is claiming to have occurred after 2001.

If I can bring that forward to the current situation to indicate that desperation is the motivator of people seeking asylum in Australia, between 2005 and 2008 the number of Afghans seeking asylum internationally went up 139 per cent from 7,700 to 18,400, the number of Sri Lankans went up 72 per cent from 5,600 to 9,600, and indeed the figures in respect of Afghans last year went up a further 34 per cent from 18,452 to 24,657. These numbers indicate the subsidence in those seeking asylum in 2001 and the re-emergence of those seeking asylum after those years to which I referred. They are the facts. Temporary protection visas did not work. They were introduced in 1999 and we saw the biggest influx under the former government during that period.

I question whether Australians want to go back to the Pacific solution. If you look at the facts—and they are considered by the Australian people—I do not think they will. There were 1,637 people on Nauru and Manus Island. Seventy per cent of those people were resettled and 95 per cent of them were resettled in Australia. Ninety-five per cent were recognised as refugees. The so-called Pacific solution—that is, using these third countries—cost $314 million, whereas the amount spent by the government on surveillance during that period was only $264 million. So more was spent by the government in that offshore solution, in the words of Paul Kelly, ‘cajoling’ governments to accept these people.

In addition, if we think of the former government’s motives, their whole policy framework was based on treating people in the harsh and draconian manner that I have referred to for the purpose of creating a disincentive. That was the approach they previously adopted and I would remind the Australian people, and indeed members of the House, how children were treated under the period of the former government. In 1999-2000, there were 976 children in detention. In 2000-01, there were 1,923 children in detention. In 2001-02, there were 1,696 children detained behind razor wire. The concerning thing is not only the numbers but the length of time that children were detained. The average time was one year eight months and 11 days in 2003 and, as at 1 October 2003, more than 50 per cent of children had spent greater than two years in detention.

This is a serious issue. It is an issue of concern to the Australian people. The government is taking serious and very strident measures—indeed, some of the toughest policies in the world. But Australians do not want to see women and children drowning on the high seas trying to make contact with their partners who are here because family reunions have been precluded under temporary protection visas. They do not want to see 50 per cent of children being detained for in excess of two years on Nauru, Manus Island or some other third country. Australians are fair. They are decent people. They are prepared to make reasonable, proportionate decisions based on the facts. The opposition in their policy development have ignored those facts and I call on them to revise their views. (Time expired)

See this speech in context