Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the importance of Australia’s strong relationship with Indonesia and its significance in tackling regional challenges faced by both countries?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Werriwa for his question. It was my pleasure and privilege yesterday to visit Jakarta to attend the inauguration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as President of Indonesia. I was there with the Prime Minister of Singapore, the Prime Minister of Malaysia and representatives of governments from around the region and around the world.

This was an important occasion in our bilateral relationship. After 10 years of the return of democracy to Indonesia it is good to see we have now seen three successfully concluded elections in Indonesia. Indonesia represents a strong global and regional partner for Australia, now through the councils of the G20; increasingly on the question of climate change through the Bali road map, which leads to Copenhagen at the end of this year; and also of course in our combined efforts to combat transnational crime. I was also pleased to be able to speak with the President of Indonesia about Australia’s efforts in assisting Indonesia with recent natural disasters, including the appalling earthquake and its human consequences at Padang and Sumatra.

Together with the President of Indonesia, the Prime Minister of Singapore and the Prime Minister of Malaysia I also discussed separately our cooperation on transnational crime, particularly the challenge we all face with people smuggling. We expect to expand our cooperation with these governments into the future, including Indonesia, and we believe that is the right way to go. This is a global problem; it is a regional problem; it is a national problem for all of us.

When the question of people smuggling arises, what we have been witness to in this place and in the community more broadly for the last period of time is the Liberal Party’s most recent campaign, which is a fear campaign on immigration. The fear campaign is based on two core claims. The first is as follows—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Randall interjecting

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

Dr Stone interjecting

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it would be useful for the honourable members opposite to actually listen to some figures. The first claim is that it was their immigration policy, the Pacific solution, which had children behind razor wire, that caused a reduction in asylum seekers coming to our shores. That is their first claim. The second claim is that it is this government’s approach to immigration policy that has caused the increase in asylum seekers coming to Australian shores—leaving aside the fact that, when we changed temporary protection visas, those opposite did not vote against it; leaving aside the fact that, when we said we were abolishing the Pacific solution, the shadow minister for immigration said she supported that course of policy action; leaving aside the fact that, when we said we were going to remove children from behind razor wire, they embraced that as a policy solution as well. Let us leave aside those minor technical details and go to the two core claims.

The first claim is that Liberal immigration policy was the cause of the decrease in boat arrivals in Australia in the period following 2001—particularly in 1999, when temporary protection visas were introduced. Because of that, those opposite claim, there were significant reductions in the arrival of boatpeople from Afghanistan, from Iraq and also from Sri Lanka. That is the essence of their claim. The Liberal Party claims that this data is unquestionable and completely definitive proof that it was their policy that led to a reduction in asylum claims. But here is the unfortunate statistical fact: over the same period of time the reduction in the numbers of Afghans, Sri Lankans and Iraqis claiming asylum around the world also dropped—and by significant orders of magnitude. Around the world, between 2001 and 2003, Afghan asylum applications dropped from 52,000 to 14,000—that is around the world. Iraqis claiming asylum around the world dropped from 52,000 to 27,000. For Sri Lankans, that number dropped around the world from 14,500 to 5,600.

The reduction in asylum claims by Afghans, Iraqis and Sri Lankans, of which the Liberal Party is so proud in their belief that that was actually a direct cause of their policy, is in fact a global reality happening in every country around the world at about the same time. This was not Australian government policy at work at the time; it was because of the global reduction caused by local events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sri Lankan, and the global response to it.

Let us go to claim No. 2 advanced by those opposite. The second core claim of the Liberal immigration debate—the fear campaign currently being launched—is that it was the introduction of the government’s immigration policy that led to an increase in asylum seekers arriving on our shores. Again, the script goes like this: because of these government changes we saw an increase in the number of Afghans arriving in Australia from 31 in 2005 to 52 in 2008 and the number of Sri Lankans increasing from 320 to 417 over the same period. Unfortunately for the Liberal Party, over the same period the number of Afghans claiming asylum around the world increased in the same period approximately from 7,700 to 18,000. The number of Sri Lankans applying for asylum around the world increased from 5,600 to 9,600. The increase in asylum claims by Afghans and Sri Lankans, which the Liberal Party is, shall we say, claiming to have been due to a change of government policy here in Australia, has been reflected around the world.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The dimensions of their injections suggest that the facts confront them again. The two core claims that underpin the member for Wentworth’s engagement in this fear campaign on asylum seekers are in fact based on statistical fiction. These core claims are nothing more than Liberal Party fantasy. But they have been dreamt up in the same dark corners where the Liberal Party dreamt up the Pacific solution, where the Liberal Party dreamt up children behind razor wire and where the Liberal Party dreamt up other parallel measures.

The Liberal Party is not about fact on the question of immigration policy; it is about the politics of fear. There is no substantive basis to their claims of policy success. There is no basis to their claims of policy failure. Asylum claims in Australia by Afghans, Sri Lankans and Iraqis have basically followed the global trend around the world. When numbers have fallen around the world, they have fallen in Australia. When numbers have increased around the world, they have increased in Australia. What we have seen in this place and beyond it is the party of children overboard, the party of Cornelia Rau, the party of Vivian Alvarez and, of course, the party of the forged email affair at it again at every level. On the question of immigration policy, this is a party without factual credibility on people smuggling, a party without policy credibility on people smuggling, but, worst of all, this is a party without one skerrick of moral compass when it comes to people smuggling as well.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.