Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The consequences of the Government’s policy failures that have increased the people-smuggling trade.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is failing the Australian people in one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any sovereign government: to secure and protect our borders. It is failing because of the changes to our immigration laws, which have had the effect of increasingly outsourcing Australia’s generous humanitarian immigration program to the predations of people-smugglers; it is failing because it is exposing the vulnerable victims of this pernicious trade to the great danger of making perilous journeys across the ocean in unseaworthy vessels; it is failing because of the unnecessary stresses and dangers this places on our defence forces, our police and our Customs officers as they attempt to do their job and stop this illegal trade; and it is failing because an outcome of these policies is to relegate further back in the queue thousands of deserving people waiting to have their claims for asylum processed legally.

The government’s policies are not tough or hardline, as the Prime Minister states they are—nor are they fair or humane. This government’s border protection policies are none of these things because they are not working. They are not working because they have led to a perception that Australia has softened its stance. This vital issue of people-smuggling and the integrity of our borders and our immigration policy is one which deserves and demands calm and rational debate. The simple fact is that the object of government policy should be to eliminate people-smuggling so that, as far as practicable, there are no unauthorised maritime arrivals of people seeking asylum in Australia. To say that is not racist—nor is it heartless or lacking in compassion. People-smuggling is a vile trade. Millions of dollars are made by the people-smugglers as they put at risk not just the lives of their often desperate passengers but the lives of the Australian defence personnel who have to intercept them, or indeed rescue them, on the high seas.

This issue is not about refugees or whether Australia should accept refugees into our community. As honourable members know, Australia has a substantial and generous humanitarian program, where some of the most disadvantaged people in the world are sought out and brought to the safety and the opportunities of life in Australia. We accept around 13,000 refugees every year. This, relative to our population, is one of the largest humanitarian programs in the world. In 2008, based on the figures of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, Australia alone accepted about 10 per cent of the 121,000 refugee claims submitted by the High Commission on Refugees for resettlement. We were exceeded only by the United States of America. So let us not have anyone pretend otherwise: Australians have always brought a generosity of spirit to the principle of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution around the world. We are a nation of open minds and open hearts.

But we must always be clear-eyed about the balance to be struck in this debate. There are two goals to be achieved here. One is to be compassionate and welcoming to refugees in generous acknowledgement of our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on Refugees. The other goal is to ensure the processing of the refugee intake is orderly, fair and just so that the integrity of the system is not able to be compromised or thwarted by those who seek to circumvent the rules. And, as we have learned over the decades, across governments of both parties, it is not always easy or straightforward to strike an effective balance between the two.

Let us just recall the heartbreaking example of nine-year-old Brindha, the Sri Lankan girl aboard the boat in Merak, Indonesia. She was apparently flown to Malaysia from her home in Jaffna, to spend a month in a jungle camp, only to be put aboard a crammed fishing vessel and then set sail across the waters of the Indonesian archipelago, destined for Australian territorial waters hundreds of kilometres away. Do any of us consider it compassionate to countenance the idea of a nine-year-old girl being subjected to that extremely hazardous journey? And, as we know only too well, many of these boats are unseaworthy—some of them capsize, some of them sink. The plain and simple truth of it is that the criminal syndicates who run this trafficking in human cargo are prepared to gamble with the lives of those on board, having made the cynical calculation that the Royal Australian Navy will come to the rescue. As we have seen with the case of SIEV 36, these pernicious practices not only can lead to serious loss of life but can endanger the lives of our service men and women who go there to save lives.

And what are the people-smugglers doing? They are busy counting their profits. Their normal practice is to depart from the people-smuggling vessel just before it reaches the Australian zone. Captain Bram, who is now in custody in Indonesia, apparently missed his rendezvous—but that was his plan. The Australian Navy will tell anyone who cares to inquire into this that they will come onto those boats and find all of the electronic navigation gear taken out. It is taken out by the people-smuggler, the captain, when he disembarks and leaves some junior people on the boat to be arrested. This is a pernicious trade. Yesterday we heard the Australian Workers Union national secretary, Paul Howes, offer this view:

One man’s people-smuggler is another man’s liberation hero.

I find it hard to imagine a more reckless statement than that. With the best will in the world towards the vulnerable, we should not, as Mr Howes was doing, ever seek to justify the people-smugglers’ vile and pernicious trade. Australians expect their governments to protect their borders against this trade. In doing so we protect the interests of the passengers and we protect the interests of the thousands, indeed millions, of people who are in refugee camps around the world and who would love to be able to come to be resettled in Australia.

It should not ever be controversial to state, as a matter of policy and principle, that Australians have the right to decide who comes to this country, our country, and the manner in which they come. The previous Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was criticised for saying that, but the fact is that that is what every Australian expects of their government. Under the Howard government it took a range of strong measures and years of vigilance to halt people-smuggling. The Rudd government, on the other hand, has quite deliberately, and with dangerous naivety, unpicked the fabric of that suite of policies, sending an unmistakeable message to people-smugglers that our borders are open for business. In short, Labor has lost control of our borders.

We heard a lot of numbers today from the Acting Prime Minister. So let us have a look at the numbers and at some facts. When the Howard government was faced with a growing tide of asylum seekers arriving by boat, it took hard decisions to stop the flow. In 2001-02 there were 19 boats, with 3,039 people on board. The following year no boats arrived. Over the next five years there were a total of 18 boats, carrying 301 people. On average 60 asylum seekers arrived by boat each year. In just over a year, since the Rudd government began dismantling the immigration policies of the Howard government, we have, as I remind the House, had 41 boats arrive, carrying nearly 2,000 people. If the object of policy is to prevent and discourage these unauthorised maritime arrivals, this enormous upsurge in arrivals must be a failure of policy. Of that there can be no question.

The government’s response, the Acting Prime Minister’s response today in particular, is that this has nothing to do with the government’s changes to policy, the so-called pull factors; it has nothing to do with the fact that people-smugglers—and we can rely on the media, the Federal Police report or any range of sources—are out there marketing Australia as a more certain target. Because they are selling a service. Their service, after all, is to say, ‘Pay us your $10,000’—or your $15,000—‘and we will guarantee that we will get you to Australia and that you will get permanent residence.’ So the more certain that outcome, the better a proposition they have to sell. The government says: ‘It’s got nothing to do with that. It’s all push factors.’ Mr Speaker, the push factors have always been there. There are millions of refugees in the world. The tragedy of the case of refugees around the world is such that it is almost demeaning to talk about it in terms of statistics—this enormous total of millions of people, in positions of terrible suffering around the world. This is a gigantic push factor. There are millions of people who are refugees who would dearly love to come to Australia. So the push factor has always been there.

Without wanting to diminish the scale of this human tragedy of refugees around the world, I want to address the misrepresentations and inaccuracies that the Acting Prime Minister recited in the course of question time today. Here are a few facts and I will draw all of these from the UNHCR publication 2008 global trends: refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced and stateless persons, dated 16 June this year. Firstly, page 7 states:

In 2008, the refugee population under UNHCR’s mandate dropped for the first time since 2006.

According to the UNHCR, at the start of 2008 the total number of refugees was 11.4 million people. What a toll of misery that is. At the end of the year, the figure had decreased by eight per cent, which is still an incredible number, but the fact is it had not increased.

The Acting Prime Minister spoke about pressure from Afghanistan. To again quote the UNHCR:

Afghanistan has been the leading country of origin of refugees for the past three decades with up to 6.4 million of its citizens having sought international protection during peak years. As of the end of 2008, there were still more than 2.8 million Afghan refugees.

The figure is significantly below the number it had been previously.

The Acting Prime Minister also should have drawn attention to this very important point: less than one per cent of the world’s refugees benefit from resettlement—coming to a country like Australia. Over 10 years 807,000 have been resettled versus 11 million refugees who were repatriated. So, the goal of policy—our own and global policy and the UN’s policy—should always be focused on repatriation, because that is frankly where the greatest difference can be made.

The Acting Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that in 2008 there had been a 28 per cent increase of the individual applications for asylum or refugee status. What she did not tell the House was that this was almost entirely the consequence of the dramatic number of asylum applications in South Africa, because of the tragedies in southern Africa. The UNHCR notes that if South Africa alone is excluded—this does not include the other big increases in applications for protection in the rest of Africa—‘the global increase in 2008 would have been only four per cent’. It is still an extraordinary toll of misery, but the proposition that she was putting to the House that there had been a sudden increase in the push factors since the election of the Rudd government, or since August last year, is just untrue and it is proved to be untrue from the very document that she was misrepresenting.

This Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, unpicked the fabric of the policy measures that had been carefully developed and refined and changed over many years. The policies were controversial and much criticised. Many of the aspects of them that were the subject of the greatest criticism had been changed under the Howard government. But they worked. At the same time, the Prime Minister, in choosing to meddle with this policy mix, claimed that there was no change that he had made that would have any impact on arrivals. He cannot credibly maintain that position. He has to first acknowledge that his policy has failed and then tell the Australian people how he will address his own failure. (Time expired)

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

I commend the Leader of the Opposition for saying that it is important to have a calm and rational debate about this matter. Indeed it is.

It is a complex international issue and at the end of the day there is an Australian expression: ‘the proof of the pie is in the eating’, or in the facts. Is it the case that these countries that had such a dramatic increase in people seeking asylum in their countries have suffered that increase as a result of failed policies? The figure for Greece during 2008 was 15,300 asylum seekers; Italy, 36,000; Spain, 13,400; and indeed even tiny Malta had 2,700. The figure for Canada shows a 30 per cent increase during 2008; Norway had a 121 per cent increase during 2008; and the Netherlands had an 89 per cent increase during 2008. Clearly, there are global factors at play that are influencing the number of people seeking asylum in Australia.

The fact of the matter is that it is quite damaging—if I might say so, with respect—to suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition did, that Australia’s policies are not tough. In fact, we have one of the toughest regimes of any country in the world. We have mandatory detention of those persons seeking asylum for the purpose of conducting security and health assessments. We have excision of offshore islands. We have offshore processing conducted on Christmas Island and we have compulsory return, as we have seen recently, of those persons who were judged not to have legitimate claims to asylum.

We recognise the Leader of the Opposition’s respect for our defence and police and other agencies involved in border protection. The reality is that before the last budget we had more ships on the water with an enhanced interdiction capability. That was significantly enhanced in the last budget and it was significantly enhanced because we saw these global factors—the ‘push factors’, as they are known—at play. In fact, in the last budget we injected an additional $654 million into border protection, enhanced surveillance and interdiction capability, enhanced intelligence capability and enhanced law enforcement capability, both domestically and in terms of capacity building in our neighbours.

We have also been working very closely with our neighbours. Indeed, President Yudhoyono, as I indicated in the House yesterday, has indicated that these are complex international issues. They involve regional cooperation and will ultimately be resolved only through regional cooperation. In that regard we have contributed $44 million to assist Indonesia with movement alert capability. We have engaged with our neighbouring states, most specifically Indonesia and Malaysia but also with Sri Lanka as well as other countries, in enhancing information sharing. We have worked with law enforcement agencies through the Australian Federal Police and other agencies to develop our transnational crime network. In addition, to assist these countries to process those who are seeking asylum in their countries, we have recently announced an additional $18 million to assist in the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Office of Migration.

To again outline the reality, since the government was elected there have been significant global pressures at work. Indeed, the United Nations Secretary-General noted in a recent report to the Security Council that 2008 ended as the most violent year in Afghanistan since 2001 and that in 2008 there was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghan asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries worldwide. At the same time, Sri Lanka has just emerged from a decade-long civil war which cost tens of thousands of lives, uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans and left an economic divide between north and south, and east and west. It is estimated that there are currently 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people.

The reality is that with our regional partners we are having an impact in this pernicious trade of people smuggling. Since September 2008 there have been 82 disruptions of planned smuggling ventures to Australia involving about 1,497 persons. Since 2008—these are figures as at 15 October—the Australian Federal Police have charged 49 people with people-smuggling offences under the Migration Act relating to 26 irregular maritime arrivals involving 44 alleged crew members and four alleged Australian based organisers. We have seen the apprehension of Captain Bram, as indicated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House yesterday, and with the cooperation of Indonesia the alleged people smuggler Ahmadi has recently been extradited to Australia for prosecution.

So the message that is being sent to those who would become involved in people smuggling is that we have a coordinated law enforcement action that is aiming to find them and is having success at finding them, charging them and successfully prosecuting them. That is the message that we want to send. We are tough. The figures are tough and the policies that we are implementing indicate that the government is tough on border protection. But to send that message, to convey that message, we will not detain children behind razor wire, we certainly will not be reintroducing the Pacific solution and we will not be introducing temporary protection visas. In fact, I might say with respect to the Leader of the Opposition that, while he claimed the Rudd government had unpicked the framework introduced by the former Howard government, he has not named one single policy item that he would reverse.

I remind the House that yesterday was the eighth anniversary of the sinking of the SIEV X—suspect illegal entry vessel No. 10. That sinking resulted in the deaths of 146 children, 142 women and 65 men in distress, at night time and at sea. There are two things that event demonstrates. One is the evilness of people smuggling. I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition and would endorse his comments regarding the naivety at best, and the counterproductive comments at worst, of those who would suggest that it is anything other than a completely evil trade. The second thing the sinking of SIEV X indicates are the consequences of the temporary protection visa policy. I will not use my words but those of the member for McMillan, who said that temporary protection visas were an ‘extraordinarily harsh instrument’ that had not worked and should not be brought back. He said ‘We had women and children trying to get here on boats’ because the refugees could not sponsor them. He said, ‘Some of these boats are so tiny you wouldn’t go fishing in them.’ The member for Kooyong said, ‘I think we need to realise we are dealing with extremely vulnerable people.’ The member for Pearce said, ‘When we had TPVs people brought children on perilous boats because it was the only chance to keep families together.’ The number of women and children who were on board SIEV X who lost their lives was testament to the flaws—it is worse than flaws—and inhumanity of the policy.

More than that, the policy was a failure. It was introduced, as I recall, in October 1999. In the two years following, there were 8,455 arrivals. I note that the Leader of the Opposition said that the goal of policy in this area should be focused on repatriation. Well, in fact, 90 per cent of those persons who were granted temporary protection visas were ultimately given permanent visas. Again, the Leader of the Opposition referred on a number of occasions to the unpicking of Howard government policy. I note the shadow minister for justice and customs last week issued a press release, or at least a press release went out in her name advocating a return to Howard government policies. These things can happen—it happened once to me in opposition—but the point of the matter is that that press release was quickly withdrawn, indicating that the opposition have no intention of returning to those policies they had in government. Indeed, as the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship said on 7 October 2008 with respect to the Pacific solution:

Minister Evans made much of the closing of the detention and processing centres at Nauru and Manus Island but failed to mention that these facilities were being replaced with the just-completed detention and processing facility at Christmas Island.

And I think over the weekend she repeated that it was not the opposition’s intention, if elected, to reintroduce the Pacific solution. So, again, that is ruled out.

The Leader of the Opposition also referred to a quote of the former Prime Minister of Australia and I will also quote him in a similar context where he said:

It remains our very strong determination not to allow this vessel or its occupants—

that is, the people held on the Tampa

… to land in Australia, and we will take whatever action is needed—within the law, of course—to prevent that occurring.

In fact, a total of 1,637 people were detained on Nauru or Manus Island under the Pacific solution and, of those, 70 per cent were ultimately resettled to Australia or other countries. Of those resettled, around 61 per cent were resettled in Australia. Again, with respect, that entire Pacific solution was a con. Worse than that, it was a distortion of priorities. The Pacific solution cost $289 million to detain people on Nauru and Manus Island. During that same period, $264 million was spent on surveillance and interdiction.

What does this mean? It comes back to the same issue: the opposition have said that we have unpicked Howard government policies and this has resulted in an influx of people to Australia seeking asylum. Those other countries which I have mentioned obviously have not unpicked any similar policies, but the same numbers are occurring—in fact, in many instances, considerably higher numbers. But what is the opposition’s response? Their response, according to the words earlier this week of the Leader of the Opposition, is not to rule in or out any policy. Indeed, the fact that the opposition’s response is only to call for an inquiry has been referred to by a number of commentators as reflecting more the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned not to aggravate any particular views held within his party—some being deeply held views indeed.

The bottom line on the matter is this. Australia does have tough border protection policies—indeed I would say among the toughest border protection policies in the world. We are sending the message that we are determined to lock up those who would perpetrate this pernicious trade. We are doing so by delivering arrests. We will not send a message via locking up children behind detention wire, but we have strong and solid policies. (Time expired)

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is an old phrase: lies, damned lies and statistics. Never has a government been more deserving of that rebuke than this Labor government with its misleading use of statistics as it seeks to deny its policy failings. And nowhere is that more apparent than in its excuses for the failings of its border protection policy. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked to take responsibility for the changes his government implemented to our border protection system, which have led to a dramatic rise in boat arrivals. As every Australian knows, since the Labor government softened our border protection laws in August 2008, 42 boats—which I believe is the figure as of today—carrying around 2,000 people have been intercepted by Australian authorities or arrived on our shores. But the Prime Minister yesterday deliberately used selective statistics to insinuate that these figures are just average, nothing out of the ordinary. He indicated that, as Labor has been in government for two years, that is only 20 boats on average for each year. And he said, ‘That is basically the average over the period of the Howard government.’ But he is damned by his own misleading use of statistics.

It is a fact that up to the years 2001 and 2002 there were a significant number of boat arrivals as part of an increasingly sophisticated people-smuggling trade through increasingly sophisticated criminal organisations. But the Howard government took action in response. It took tough decisions. It took responsibility. It was not easy, but it put the security of our borders as a No. 1 priority, and it made the integrity of our orderly migration program a priority. The Howard government introduced a series of initiatives that collectively sent a message to people smugglers that Australia would not be a soft target for their trade. That message was sent, and that message was heard, because the statistics speak for themselves. In 2002-03 there was not one boat arrival. In 2003-04 there were three boats. In 2004-05 there were no boat arrivals. In 2005-06 there were eight boats. In 2006-07 there were four boats. In 2007-08, up to the point that the coalition’s policy remained intact, there were three boats. That is an average of three boats over the six years after the border protection policies were toughened.

But in the 14 months since Labor weakened the policies and thus sent a message to the people smugglers that Australia is a soft target, there have been 42 boats. But Labor would have you believe—and the Attorney-General was doing it again in this MPI—that this is just an unhappy coincidence, that it is nothing to do with Labor policy failings. They are refusing to acknowledge the pull factors. It is no coincidence according to the Australian Federal Police. In a report finalised in March this year—which has been suppressed by the government ever since—the AFP stated that the changes to the laws were making Australia an attractive target for people smugglers. It is not a coincidence according to the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, who said people smugglers are using the weakening of the laws as a marketing tool. It is no coincidence according to the International Organisation for Migration’s chief in Indonesia, who said people are well aware of the weaker laws and are ‘testing the envelope’. It is no coincidence according to the many asylum seekers in Indonesia who have been interviewed by the media and confirm that the Labor government’s weaker laws have encouraged them to make the trip to Australia believing it is now much easier for them to get in.

What is really disturbing about this debate is the government’s hypocrisy. Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs lectured us on the inhumanity of the Howard government’s border protection policies. Yet in 2004, a year in which only three boats arrived, the then shadow minister Stephen Smith said in a press release dated March 2004:

The arrival of a boat on Ashmore Reef should be a wake up call for the Howard government to adopt Labor’s tough stance on people smugglers.

So, if one boat is a ‘wake up call’, what are 42 boats? Thanks to Laurie Oakes’s demolition of the Deputy Prime Minister’s credibility on this issue on Sunday, Australians now recall the 2003 press release of the then shadow minister for immigration, Julia Gillard, with a headline screaming ‘Another boat on the way, another policy failure’. This was in 2003-04, when there were three boats in total. So, if ‘another boat’ is a policy failure, what are 42 boats? Apparently, three boats in one year is a policy failure but 42 is a policy triumph—according to Labor. Labor was right onto that third boat in 2003-04 with yet another press release from the now Deputy Prime Minister: ‘Boat proves government has no solutions’. So, if one boat proves ‘no solutions’, what do 42 boats prove?

Yesterday the foreign minister, in a barely controlled outburst in which he denied the pull factors, demanded to know if the coalition would introduce temporary protection visas—another example of the Howard government’s supposed inhumanity. Temporary protection visas—just like the temporary protection visas that the Deputy Prime Minister, when in opposition, announced were Labor Party policy. Temporary protection visas were a policy announced by the then shadow minister for immigration and now Deputy Prime Minister. The hypocrisy of Labor has to be witnessed to be believed.

The AWU is the most influential union in Australia and one of the most influential factors within the Labor Party. When the head of the AWU said that we should roll out the red carpet to the people smugglers, when he called people smugglers ‘liberation heroes’, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the AWU has no influence, direct or indirect, on the Labor Party. Nobody believes that—certainly not Comrade Shorten, the former head of the AWU; certainly not, Comrade Smith, a current member of the AWU; and certainly not Comrade Emerson, a current member of the AWU. Labor suggests that the AWU, which likens people smugglers to liberation heroes, has no influence at all over government policy. It is simply unbelievable.

And still Labor refuse to take responsibility for their policy failure. They blame everyone and everything. They outsource the problem to Indonesia. They call the Indonesian President in a panic and make it Indonesia’s problem. They wash their hands of it. The Deputy Prime Minister said of the boat that was intercepted at the Prime Minister’s request: ‘Oh well’—she shrugged her shoulders—‘it’s Indonesia’s problem now.’ Instead of admitting policy failures and fixing them, Labor seek to blame the coalition for not coming up with the answers. They demand that we come up with the solutions to fix the problems that Labor have caused. They constantly demand that the coalition provide the policies to fix Labor’s failures. The coalition has a policy that we have an orderly migration program. We have a policy that we manage the flow of migrants to this country. But we also have a policy to deter the people smugglers from plying their trade. The former border protection system acted as a strong deterrent to people smugglers and allowed Australia to maintain the integrity of our orderly humanitarian and refugee program with an intake at record levels.

Labor inherited a strong border protection system but took it for granted. Labor changed it. Labor sent a message to people smugglers that Australia is now a soft target. Labor must fix it. Back in 2003—remember, that is the year of the three boat arrivals—when the then shadow minister for immigration, Nicola Roxon, was asked what the opposition would do, her response was: ‘I think you should direct those questions to the minister.’ Precisely! The Minister for Immigration and the Prime Minister must tell the Australian people what they will do to fix the failings of their border protection policy and stop the people-smuggling trade which has seen 42 boats arrive since Labor changed its policies and weakened our border protection system. (Time expired)

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I say before I commence that I thank the Leader of the Opposition for remarking upon the need for us to have this debate calmly and dispassionately, because, firstly, we are dealing with very complex issues and, secondly, we are dealing with human beings. But we do not resile from the fact that the Rudd government has very strong border protection. That is why we dedicated more resources than ever before to providing extra aerial and maritime surveillance within the region. We now provide more AFP resources in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and other countries within the region in order to focus our attention on the criminal organised syndicates that are willing to exploit desperate people in many circumstances who seek haven in First World countries. Therefore it is important that we ensure, by working closely with our friends in the region, that we dismantle those organised syndicates and that we do not place desperate people in a situation where they are enticed onto vessels and perilous journeys.

Clearly there is a different view between the government and the opposition on this matter. The government is of the view that the primary reason for the increase in the number of people seeking haven in First World countries, including Australia, is because of the increases in conflicts very recently. Firstly, it is important to note that there have been irregular arrivals to this country in each of the last 20 years. I think we also agree that there have been surges from time to time. The largest surges were in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Then there was an abatement of such arrivals. We have seen a smaller but not insignificant surge recently. We believe that the facts lay bare the assertions by the opposition that this is about pull factors. The facts are that the Sri Lankan civil war, which has been long and bloody, concluded this year, which of course has led to the significant displacement of hundreds of thousands of people within that country.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Clare interjecting

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is analogous—as I have just been reminded by my colleague at the table—to the situation in Vietnam in the mid-seventies. In 1975, when there was the fall of Saigon—as it was then called—we saw an influx of boats towards Australia subsequent to that particular conflict. We are now seeing an increase in the number of displaced people seeking haven in this country as a result of that conflict. Equally, it is important to note that it is true that Afghanistan has had conflicts over the last 30 years, and 2008 was the most violent year according to the United Nations. The United Nations Secretary, reporting to the UN Security Council, made clear that 2008 was the most violent year in Afghanistan, leading to an increase in the number seeking haven. It is also important to note that, whilst we have seen an increase in the number seeking haven in Australia, we are the target of approximately 1½ per cent of those people. Ninety-six per cent of those people from Afghanistan were seeking haven in Europe; 97 per cent of those people from Iraq were seeking haven in Europe; and 82 per cent of those people from Sri Lanka, I am advised, were seeking haven in Europe or, indeed, North America or Canada. The fact is that we still have to deal with this very important issue and we need to do it by balancing a hardline approach against people smugglers with a humane approach towards those people who find themselves, in many cases, in a desperate situation.

That is why in the last year the Australian Federal Police, through their efforts and in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies within the region, have contributed to the charging of more than 50 people. There have been 15 convictions in the last year that go to people-smuggling offences. That is evidence of the increased dedication to resources to dismantle those organised syndicates. There are still plenty of challenges, and for that reason we will continue to work very closely with our friends within the region. Only last month, the Indonesian national police established a people-smuggling task force for the very first time which comprises 145 sworn officers in 12 locations in Indonesia tackling this particular problem. That should be commended. They are now working very closely with the Australian Federal Police in relation to efforts to prosecute those people smugglers.

I think it is disingenuous of the coalition to suggest that they were not aware that there would be surges from time to time. Clearly, the reason why the coalition constructed the Christmas Island detention centre, completed quite recently, was that they knew, regardless of the surge declining after 2001, that there would be a significant number of arrivals again. The reason why the coalition spent $405 million of taxpayers’ money on constructing the detention centre after 2001 is proof positive that they knew then what they know now, which is that conflicts will arise around the world, but particularly in our region, which will lead to people seeking haven in this country. That is what we have seen as a result of the conflicts in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, and therefore we have to continue to work very closely with our friends within the region to prevent those people from attempting to get to this country improperly.

Let us be very clear about this. What we do not want to do is return to a time when people were sewing their lips together in detention centres because they were of the view that they were locked away forever. We do not want to return to children behind barbed wire. We do not want to return to a situation which caused enormous angst and anxiety within our country. Therefore it is very important that we—as leaders of this country, representatives in this chamber—have a temperate debate because we are dealing with not only complex issues but also very emotional issues. Clearly it is incumbent upon the government to act in a calm and temperate manner and I do believe, respectfully, that it is incumbent upon the opposition in matters like this, when we are dealing with very vulnerable people, to also conduct the debate in a humane and temperate manner. It is important that we do that.

Clearly there are some that choose not to go down that path. It is always unfortunate when people seek to blame the government of their own country for fatalities. It is always awful to see some person so desperate as to try to blame this country, or its policies, for tragic fatalities. I would advise those opposite that that is certainly not the way that people would expect them to behave. We know, of course, that there have been tragedies in this country. We know there are maritime fatalities. But I do not believe that should be used in a manner to level an attack against the government of this country. Governments of either political persuasion should not be placed in that position. It is not the way we should be embarking upon this debate.

I accept the community has concerns about this issue. It is why the Rudd Government will continue to dedicate resources to protect the integrity of our borders, to protect the integrity of our immigration system, to provide humanitarian relief for those people who are desperate, to ensure we continue to fund the UNHCR—an international organisation of migration—in order to provide assistance to our friends within the region, to provide assistance at least to some of those many millions of people around the world who are suffering through conflicts. (Time expired)

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In thrashing around looking for an excuse for their policy failure, looking for an excuse for their being totally paralysed when it comes to knowing what to do, this government is saying that the Howard government’s policies did not work. We have heard it from the last two speakers. Well, yes they did, and let us look at the facts.

Those facts are that in late 1999, when we noticed that there was a fourfold increase in boat arrivals and their passengers to more than 4,000, we acted. We did not sit on our hands and say it was all about the push factors. We acted, and we introduced a strategy that was humane and just. So, in the next year, we saw the numbers come down. By 2001-02 we had halved the number of boatloads that thought it was worth their while coming down. By 2002-03, as we have heard, zero boats. Not a one. No deaths at sea, no burnings, no explosions. In the next year, just three; the year after, again, zero boats—not a boat. That was the Howard government strategy in action.

Then, of course, we had Labor come into office. What happens? They say, let us abolish temporary protection visas, let us abolish the 45-day rule, let us abolish mandatory detention for all seeking asylum, let us introduce a complementary protection visa as an alternative if they do not make the grade as a visa claimant through the refugee convention, and let us also along the way signal to the people smugglers that we are going to get you all through in 90 days with full rights when you come to Australia. Tragically, that triggered—as we know—the 41 boats that have come into Australia with over 2,000 people and the 82 interceptions on Australia’s behalf by the Indonesians. It would seem they are now supposed to do the dirty work for this government.

The second excuse Labor have made is: ‘Well, we can’t do anything about it because it is all about the push factors. There is nothing we can do.’ The Howard government did not say that, despite the Iraqi war, the Gulf war, the Bosnian-Balkan war. We knew there was trouble in the globe, and there always will be. But we said we would respond to those troubles by the front door offer of refugee and humanitarian places for people we selected to come to this country. Once selected, we offered them full new settler support. We took them into communities where they could learn English, get a job, have accommodation.

What this government has done now is to say, ‘We don’t know what to do—there is nothing we can do—it’s all about the push factors.’ I want to ask the government when they last saw a Congolese or a Sudanese on one of these boats, or someone from Eritrea. They are not on these boats because they do not have the cash or the contacts. They are some of the most desperate and destitute refugees in the world. The women face desperate situations of starvation with their children, and mutilation. They are not on these boats. The reason is that the people smugglers are not interested in their plight because they do not have the cash. It is all about the cash.

Unfortunately, yesterday, when confronted with Labor’s problem and its policy failure, Foreign Affairs Minister Smith plumbed new depths of personal insult and displayed his abject failure to have a clue about what to do. He said, ‘Would you see kids behind barbed wire again?’ to us, the coalition opposition. We heard this echoed just a minute ago by the previous speaker, desperately trying to politicise this issue and play the person. Let me remind the Labor government: it was a Labor government which introduced mandatory detention, including for women and children. It was the coalition which changed the rules about detention of women and children. We built the alternative community accommodation, not this government. Indeed, we did not hear policy out of the then opposition—in particular, the shadow minister for immigration—saying that was a problem. We changed Labor’s mandatory detention of women and children.

It is a tragic situation today where we have people smugglers deciding who comes to this country, who is most in need. I think this debate brings out the best in Australians, not the worst as implied by the union officials today. The best in Australians say: ‘Let the government decide who is most in need. Do not allow criminals to decide who comes to this country. Do not allow our border security to be trashed so we have the most heinous and vile of international criminals coming through our open door and peddling their vile trade.’ (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to those opposite: you took to mandatory detention like a duck to water and you took it to its zenith. I know we are trying to be calm and rational, and we must be in this debate, because it is a debate that we need to have. But we also do it with compassion, and that is essential—that this debate is conducted with compassion.

First of all, I want to talk about the push factors, which are seminal to what we are talking about. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said in a statement in March that the increase in the number of asylum seekers in industrialised countries was due to international factors:

Insecurity, persecution and conflict around the world are leading to greater numbers of people seeking asylum in industrialized nations including Australia …

With regard to the global displacement of refugee populations, the UNHCR 2008 Global Trends report shows that there were 42 million forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2008. That is a lot of people displaced, both externally and internally. This included 15.2 million refugees. One-third of all refugees were in the Asia-Pacific region. That is our region. That is our backyard. The opposition just put the question: why aren’t people from Africa on the boats? It is because a third of all refugees are from our region—and tyranny of distance is a factor. Refugees from the African nations are in other nations closer to them; we can read about that. Afghanistan is still the leading country of origin for refugees: 2.8 million Afghans received assistance from the UNHCR in 2008. That represents one in four refugees worldwide. Currently, another country of origin for refugees in our region is Sri Lanka, as we are seeing.

There has been talk of temporary protection visas. Temporary protection visas were odious, and nobody should ever think about returning to that system. It makes me despair and it makes me dismayed when I hear the opposition talking about them. But I want to talk in a rational way about temporary protection visas. In 1999, there were 3,721 asylum seekers who arrived on boats. We call them ‘irregular maritime arrivals’. In 2000, there were 2,939 and, in 2001, there were 5,516. When were temporary protection visas introduced? It was in 1999. So, if we are looking at a policy failure issue, that would have to be it. I do not want to get into that debate. I do not want to get into ‘Am I tougher? Is mine bigger than yours? Blah, blah, blah.’ That is not the debate I want to get into.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very patriarchal, in context. But this debate is about being calm, rational and compassionate, and it is about having bold border protection, and that is what the Rudd government is doing.

There will be push factors, and we have to respond to them. We are responding to them in the best way that we can and we will continue to do that. The relationships with our neighbours—particularly with Indonesia and Malaysia, countries that asylum seekers are coming from or through—are stronger and closer, and they are trying to deal with those issues too. We are funding a whole range of mechanisms in our region to deal with those issues, and we are talking with those countries and working cooperatively with them. I think it was Minister O’Connor who said earlier that with regard to how we respond, in particular in the area of border protection, we have to work closely with our friends.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.