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

I thought that, given that the government has no more speakers on the MPI, I would stand and have my comments as well. We have heard a lot about what has happened in the six years since the last time the coalition was in government. The story is not good. The story is a tragedy for a lot of people who have lost their lives along the way. The story is a tragedy for the finances of this country: some $6 billion in overspending and waste this government has presided over when there was a working system which discouraged people from risking their lives, because they knew the chances of making it to Australia were very slim. The trickle of boats that took place from 2001, when the Howard government saw a problem and created a solution, became a flood when the current government, under the former Prime Minister and continued in every respect by the current Prime Minister, changed the system completely, encouraging people to come to this country, risking their lives and putting money into the pockets of people smugglers and other international criminals. That is a tragedy. This is what happens to this country when a government that does not understand the priorities and wisdom of strong borders is let loose.

Look at what actually took place. We hear a lot from those on the other side about compassion. We hear a lot from those on the other side about the circumstances of those who come to this country. No-one says that the people who come by boats are coming from a great place. The point is that this immigration system—even our humanitarian refugee program—must have integrity. Currently, all those who come by boats take the emphasis away from all those stuck in refugee camps around the world.

I have plenty of refugees in my electorate—plenty of people who have come from Africa, plenty of people who have come from Burma. There are a lot of places in the world where we need to do our best to support refugees and to give people a better life, but the fact that you have money should not matter; your need should matter. I have been to a refugee camp up on the Burma-Thailand border. I have been to a refugee camp and seen the faces of little children who are going to be stuck longer in those refugee camps because this government cannot do the job the Australian people are paying them to do. That is a damn tragedy. Why should the children in refugee camps in Thailand—those Karen and Chin children, those strongly persecuted minority groups—finish second? Why should they be delayed any day longer than they have to be because this government cannot get its priorities right? What about those who know their families are stuck in refugee camps back in Africa and are desperate to get their families out of those circumstances? Why are those people stuck in refugee camps in Africa with no chance of coming here? The answer is that this government has dropped the ball. They created the problem out of the solution that the Howard government had.

I hear this a lot in schools and from the government as well. They talk about the terrible circumstances of those who come by boat and why they want to come here. As I said before, no-one doubts that there are bad circumstances in other countries—in Afghanistan, in the Middle East. No-one doubts that these circumstances are unpleasant and desperate, but it remains a matter of priorities.

I was at a function last year—just upstairs in Parliament House—where there were a lot of refugee advocates. I heard some people questioning the coalition's knowledge of the refugee convention. Article 31 is the main part of the convention that a lot of us think about when we talk about those who come by boat. Article 31 talks about people coming directly. In case there is any doubt that I am trying to paraphrase this, article 31 of the refugee convention prohibits states and parties from imposing penalties on refugees who come:

… directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened … enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This is often held up by some as the reason there should be no detention of those who come by boat, but the key part of article 31 is that it talks about people who come directly from a territory. I say to everyone here that, when you talk about directly from Afghanistan, there is a big difference between Afghanistan and Christmas Island or the Australian mainland or Ashmore Reef. You cannot hop on a boat in Kabul—or, in fact, anywhere in Afghanistan—and go to a different country. It is a landlocked country. So none of this 'directly' business comes into it. Those who come from Afghanistan do not move directly to Australia; they would have to go normally through Pakistan and, of course, as we know, hop on a plane. So they would go maybe from Karachi airport or maybe Islamabad airport—I am not sure—and probably then go to Malaysia or to Indonesia. So they wait in that departure lounge and then hop on a plane—maybe they get a meal or something like that—and then they land, maybe even in Jakarta. There is not a lot of directness in these circumstances. It really does bring into question how article 31 of the refugee convention comes into it. There is no moving directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened. That does not apply whatsoever. Of course, article 31 also talks about illegal entry.

I cast doubt on the legitimacy of many of those who come by boat to be considered as a refugee under article 31. Despite the fact that the circumstances in their old country are terrible circumstances—there is no doubt about it—it is not like they are coming directly from a threat and landing here. They go through other places where that threat does not apply and yet they still hop on a boat and take the places of those people that I spoke about before: those in refugee camps in Africa or in places like the Burma-Thailand border.

I say again, as I have said so many times in this place in numerous speeches: I might be accused of dog whistling or being a racist or something like that, but the reality is that what this government has done since 2008 when it changed the policies is take the emphasis away from those who are legitimately in need, those who are stuck behind barbed wire in refugee camps around the world, and, instead, give the opportunities through numerous places and through the support systems that they have here to those who come by boat. Under article 31 of the refugee convention I cast doubt on those who come by boat and I certainly cast doubt on their legitimacy to be received here under the humanitarian program in contrast to those who are stuck behind wire. This is an indictment of this government and in September the Australian people will get their chance to pass judgement.

See this speech in context