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

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

The impact of the Government’s changes to Australia’s border protection policies.

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

Day after day, week after week, Australians have watched anxiously as Australia’s border protection policies unravel before their eyes. All the while, Australians have been seeking straight answers to simple and uncomplicated questions. Why is this happening? What has changed? What is the Prime Minister going to do to stop the boats coming? What do we get from this Prime Minister? A daily diet of weasel words, obfuscation and blame shifting. We have seen a Prime Minister, in an abject abdication of leadership, washing his hands of the responsibility for his own colossal policy failures. As recently as question time today, we heard a Prime Minister who refuses to give straight answers to simple, straightforward, factual questions. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who is tying himself up in tighter and more complicated verbal knots, as he tries to slip and slide away from the answers to the questions he cannot bring himself to answer.

It all began with his fanciful claim that the surge in unauthorised boat arrivals had nothing to do with his own deliberate weakening of our border protection through policy changes he introduced in August last year. Since then, the Rudd government has deliberately unpicked the policies of its predecessor, the coalition, and he has trumpeted his own moral superiority for doing so. He does a great line in sanctimony—I think all of us here recognise that.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Keenan interjecting

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

It is his forte, indeed. I thank my honourable friend for the assistance there. The Prime Minister has boasted that you could weaken the policies of the previous government without sending a signal to the people smugglers that Australia was a softer target. He has been proved manifestly wrong. The facts speak for themselves: 53 boat arrivals, carrying more than 2,300 people, since August last year. The Prime Minister cannot say he was not warned. He was warned by the Australian Federal Police, by the International Organisation for Migration and by senior Indonesian officials, all sounding the alert that the changes introduced by his government would deliver a powerful marketing tool to the racketeers and criminals charging vulnerable people $10,000—and more—for a seat on an all too often unseaworthy vessel bound for Australian waters. Those warnings have been proved right, just as the Prime Minister has been proved wrong. Yet he remains in complete denial. Now, as the boats keep coming—no less than a boat a day, for the last four days—he wants to shirk and shrug off responsibility for this colossal policy failure.

He refuses stubbornly to acknowledge what everyone else knows to be true: that is, through his misguided and naive policy blunders he has laid out the welcome mat, rolled out the Rudd carpet, indeed, to the people smugglers and their customers. Faced with this chaotic saga surrounding the Oceanic Viking, the Prime Minister and his ministers announced with much fanfare a special arrangement reached with the government of Indonesia to disembark the 78 asylum seekers in an Indonesian port. The Prime Minister stood here in this parliament on 21 October and made the following claim:

The President of Indonesia and I have made no secret of the fact that we intend to continue to develop a framework for further cooperation on people smuggling. This is what we intend to do. That will mean providing additional assistance to our friends in Indonesia to help with the resettlement task and to help with all the associated functions which they might undertake in the future to assist Australia and other countries in dealing with this regional problem. There is nothing remarkable in that. It is the right thing for Australia to do.

So spoke the Prime Minister. The headlines were big and bold and spoke of his Indonesian solution. We now know this was to prove to be yet another Rudd mirage—nothing more than a hollow sound bite created to cushion the Prime Minister through the next day’s media cycle. And, now, another bout of weasel words and obfuscation, misleading claims and misleading explanations; never giving a straight answer to a clear question.

A month after the Oceanic Viking picked up the 78 asylum seekers in the Indonesian search and rescue zone, we have the farce of this Prime Minister denying point blank that there has been a special deal, a special offer, to persuade these asylum seekers to leave the boat. He comes into this parliament and makes this ludicrous assertion of ‘no special deal’ despite the existence of incontrovertible documentary evidence in the form of a written offer by the Australian government to the people on board the Oceanic Viking. The letter not only proves that a special deal exists; it specifies in detail the generous and unusual—unique, I would say—terms for resettlement in Australia which have been offered to not one other refugee in one other Indonesian detention centre. Yesterday in parliament the Prime Minister said:

These are not preferential arrangements. They are consistent with normal processes. There is nothing remarkable about the timeframes.

Well, let us go through some of the details of the offer. I quote from the offer document itself:

The Australian government guarantees that mandated refugees will be resettled. If the UNHCR has found you to be a refugee—Australian officials will assist you to be resettled within four to six weeks from the time you disembarked the vessel.

If you have already registered with the UNHCR—Australian officials will assist with your UNHCR processing. If you are found to be a refugee, you will be resettled within 12 weeks from the time you disembark this vessel.

If you have not yet registered with UNHCR—Australian officials will assist you with your UNHCR processing. If you are found to be a refugee, you will be resettled within 12 weeks from the time you disembark the vessel. When you are safely onshore in Indonesia an Australian immigration officer will be in contact with you every day until the resettlement process is finalised.

Does the Prime Minister seriously, honestly, expect us to believe that this special deal is what every asylum seeker and refugee is offered in Indonesia? Does every asylum seeker, does every refugee, now in Indonesia get the assistance of a highly professional team of Australian officers every day to assist them in processing their claims? Is every refugee in Indonesia guaranteed resettlement within four to six weeks? Is every asylum seeker guaranteed resettlement within 12 weeks? This is not just special treatment. This was a gold-plated inducement to persuade the 78 asylum seekers to leave the vessel. It is obvious that this was a very, very special deal.

But when we asked the Prime Minister how many other refugees in Indonesia would be offered resettlement here in four to six weeks, or whether he could identify a single other refugee there to whom the specific promises in this deal would apply, he offers no answer—because, as we know from the data, there has never been a deal like it. The UNHCR’s own figures indicate there were 2,107 people registered as asylum seekers in Indonesia as at 26 October 2009. Yet the figures from Australia’s own immigration department indicate the following resettlement numbers from Indonesia over recent years: in 2008-09, 35 and in 2007-08, 89. What does this tell us? It tells us that the resettlement of refugees into Australia from detention centres in Indonesia is a slow and painstaking process occurring over many months and many years. We know, from these figures alone, that the offer accepted by the asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking is without any precedent. What other reason could they have had to have stepped off the boat they had refused to leave for the best part of four weeks, other than the guarantee—the guarantee, no less—of a fast-track entry into Australia.

The Prime Minister will not admit to any of this. He simply stands up and says a special deal was not a special deal. Yet the fact that it has not been offered to any other asylum seeker in Indonesia, or indeed to any other asylum seeker in any other country, indicates that it is a unique and special arrangement. The Australian people are incredulous that he cannot bring himself to tell it for what it is—a special, preferential deal. He knows that this offer makes a nonsense of his claim to be tough on the people smugglers. It sends out a signal to the people smugglers a mile high that Australia is a soft touch: that the Rudd carpet has been rolled out; that Kevin will fix you up; come on down. This is the politics of weakness and capitulation.

He comes in to the parliament and, when asked some simple questions about how this offer came to be made, refuses to provide any detail. He says that this offer—this momentous and unique offer, which has never been extended to any other people, to any other refugees—was formulated by the Border Protection Sub-Committee of Cabinet. He said that he had no knowledge of it being made. He said that he was not aware of it before it was being made. He said his staff were on the committee. So he is asking the House and the Australian people to believe that an offer as important as this—as central to the resolution of an immigration-border protection crisis, which has been on the front page of every newspaper in Australia, day after day for a month—was made by a committee of the cabinet, on which his own staff were present, and that he was not consulted about the terms of that offer nor was he told about the offer prior to it being made to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. It strains credulity. This is a Prime Minister who is known for his workaholism, who is said to be a control freak, who is said to have his fingers in every pie. Here is the biggest political challenge he is facing and yet the offer to resolve it, he says, was made by a committee with his staff upon it and he was not consulted or advised about it. I suppose it is possible, but it is hardly credible.

The reality is this. We are dealing with criminal people smugglers who are running businesses. Those businesses involve them offering a product and that product is the near certainty of permanent residence in Australia. That is what they are asking people to part with $10,000 or $15,000 for. That is what they are marketing. The more certain that outcome is, the softer Australia is seen as a target and the more seats on more boats they can sell. It is as simple as that. The approach the Prime Minister has taken to the Oceanic Viking has sent precisely the wrong message. The New Zealand Minister of Immigration, Jonathan Coleman, spoke plainly about his government’s attitude. He spoke for consistency of policy. He said:

The New Zealand Government does not believe that an ad hoc approach to dealing with individual cases like the Oceanic Viking will send the right message.

If he did not like that advice, he could have had regard to the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations, who went further. Contradicting the Prime Minister, he said the policy changes we have made here are the main factor in this surge. He said:

If the pull factors are addressed, attempts to enter Australia will cease. The lucky country is a magnet and many will seek to enter it.

We have a Prime Minister who has rolled out the Rudd carpet and sent up a big signal to the people smugglers. He is promoting the trade that we should all be trying to prevent. By having a weaker and softer border protection policy, he is inviting people smuggling instead of stamping it out. (Time expired)

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

I rise to oppose the assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this matter of public importance. The fact is that the government have been working very hard to ensure that we continue to prosecute people smugglers and that we continue to smash organised criminal syndicates in the region that have been seeking to lure people—sometimes desperate people—on unseaworthy vessels and on perilous journeys for an empty promise. We will continue to do that with our friends in the region. We will continue to fight this vile trade and continue to work through these matters, because they are regional challenges; they are international challenges needing regional and international solutions. That is what this government has been doing since it was elected. It was elected also on a commitment to make changes to a number of areas in this realm, none of which changes were opposed by the opposition. It is rank opportunism, to say the very least, that at a time when we see people—and desperate people on occasion—in difficult situations, the opposition seeks to gain political mileage.

I believe it is very important that, as a government that wants to assure our people and a government that wants to bring those people to justice, we act in a consistent manner and wherever possible—particularly because these matters sometimes go to issues of national security—we act in a bipartisan manner. Clearly, the opposition does not seek to take that path. Clearly, the opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, seeks to take an opportunistic path, seeks to create fear among our community and seeks to smear not only the government but also those that work for the government and those that work for our departments. They are the choices we have. This government will continue, as the Prime Minister has made clear, to be tough on people smugglers, to provide wherever possible a humane approach for those people who are genuinely seeking asylum. We have a reasonable and, I think, a generous resettlement program, where we allow up to 13,750 people to be resettled in this country. We, like almost all developed nations, have such a program, so we do provide our fair share of opportunities for people to seek asylum.

But I think it is really important, when we enter this chamber to have this debate, that we consider the context in which we are debating these matters. We should consider the sheer scale of this global problem. According to the UNHCR, there are 42 million displaced people around the world, 15 million of whom are approximated to be refugees, five million of whom are within our region. It is of course a major problem for all nations and therefore we need to deal with source countries, transit countries and indeed destination countries in order to find solutions. That is why since we have been elected we have continued to develop and enhance cooperation in the region. That is why, for example, as recently as September this year we saw the Indonesian national police, with our support and with the support of our agency, the Australian Federal Police, develop for the very first time a people-smuggling task force of 145 dedicated officers in 12 locations in Indonesia in order to dismantle organised syndicates. That is why we have seen very recently the announcement of the Malaysian government to criminalise people smuggling for the very first time in order to tackle this regionally. We need to continue to do that because there is going to be no end of people seeking asylum in First World countries. The numbers of those who seek to come here will wax and wane but there will always be this issue and we have to ensure in that environment that we do everything we can to prevent criminals from seeking to exploit such people—and we will continue to do so.

We have said all along that the primary reason for the increased incidence of people seeking a haven in this country is the increased conflicts in our region. We have said all along that, as a result of the increased violence in Afghanistan in 2008—in fact, the United Nations have assessed that last year was the most violent year in Afghanistan for seven years—we have seen an increase in people seeking to go to First World countries. Some seek to come here but most seek to go elsewhere. We have also said that, clearly, as a result of the long and bloody civil war in Sri Lanka, there has been an increased number of people seeking a haven in our country whilst of course the majority have sought to go elsewhere among the First World nations.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ruddock interjecting

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

That is the primary reason for the increased incidence of people seeking to enter our waters and to also find their way to the Australian mainland.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ruddock interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Berowra will cease interjecting.

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

The former minister, like Banquo’s ghost, is still in the chamber wanting to have an argument that he should have had when he was the minister. Clearly, this matter is of such importance to the government that we will continue to do what we think is right and we will continue to maintain what I think is a tough but humane policy. I believe it is therefore important that, for example, we continue to increase our resources to ensure that we have effective maritime surveillance and increase our resources to ensure that we have aviation surveillance as well so that we can detect any vessels that seek to come into our territorial waters. We have done just that. In every circumstance we have managed to take those vessels to Christmas Island, as the former minister would know. But what the former minister could never explain was this: if, as the previous government liked to assert, they had stopped asylum seekers coming to this country once and for all, why did they build a detention centre on Christmas Island well after 2001? They did so because they knew then what they know now: there will be from time to time an increase in the likelihood of people seeking to come to First World countries. We will therefore continue to work through these matters with our neighbours in the region, the UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration, other international agencies and authorities in the region to do just that, to focus on dismantling criminal syndicates while at the same time ensuring that we provide opportunities for people seeking asylum. I believe you can do both things at once. Some like to assert you cannot.

It is politically irresponsible and indeed immoral to attempt to deliberately blur the line between victims and culprits. I know some seek to do that, but this government believes we can delineate in almost every circumstance as to the differences between those that are genuinely seeking asylum and those that are seeking to exploit those people that are doing so. We have seen the recent figures, with Europe remaining the primary destination for asylum seekers with 333,000 claims registered last year, predominantly in France, with 35,400 for the United Kingdom and 30,300 for Italy. It is also the case that the United States received 49,600 new asylum claims and Canada received 34,800. For South Africa it was an extraordinary number of 207,000 new claims by asylum seekers. In that same period Australia had 4,750 people seeking asylum. So, whilst we accept this is a challenge for Australia, we have to place it in the context that all comparable countries are dealing with this matter and to that extent we are dealing with an issue of a much smaller scale. Nonetheless, it is a very important one to this country and this government, so we will continue to work our way through those things.

It was interesting to see the Leader of the Opposition build up for a censure motion today but squib it. There is no doubt that the reason why he failed to proceed to move a censure motion was it would probably be a good thing, if you were going to have a censure motion against a minister or indeed the Prime Minister of this country, to have some evidence. There is no doubt that in the past the Leader of the Opposition has already shown himself to be unable to distinguish between his own fantasies and fact in relation to a forged email that he sought to use against the Prime Minister and this government in such an irresponsible way. On this occasion he has failed to move his censure motion, because in the end the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to suggest for one moment that this government is not acting consistently are wrong. The fact is the Leader of the Opposition is wrong in asserting that we have acted in any other way than to be consistent with our obligations internationally and consistent in terms of the way in which we deal with other authorities in other countries and also with international agencies such as the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration. That is the reality.

In terms of the Oceanic Viking, it is very important to put on the record the context in which this matter occurred and remind members that this commenced when there were distress signals from a vessel in some trouble in the Indonesian search and rescue zone. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority received that information, as did the Indonesian authority. As it was in the Indonesian search and rescue zone, the Indonesian authority was the lead and coordinating agency and sought our assistance. Pursuant to international maritime law and pursuant to the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, HMAS Armidale, followed shortly after by the Oceanic Viking, went to the assistance of that vessel. What was the alternative? What else would we have done other than go to the rescue of that vessel? What would have been the potential cost if we had not? The potential cost would have been the loss of 78 lives, five of whom are women and five of whom are children. That is something that this government would not contemplate and nor should any government of this country.

What then occurred? The Indonesian authority, as lead agency in this search and rescue mission, sought us to take the rescued people to a safe port. Indeed, there had been discussions between the two governments in relation to where the vessel would go, based on humanitarian grounds, and that is where we sought to take it. We are now looking at working through these issues with the remaining passengers on the vessel. We have been working through these matters in order to realise the agreement struck between our two countries. We will continue to do so in a manner that reflects our views on these issues. Of course, we are aware that some of these passengers are mandated refugees; we are aware that those matters cannot be properly processed until they disembark the vessel. We are happy with the fact that a significant group has disembarked. We will continue to work with the passengers and the Indonesian authorities at Tanjung Pinang in order to ensure the finalisation of the agreement that was struck some time ago. That is the responsible thing to do.

The government will not panic. The government will not respond to the hysteria that has been drummed up by the opposition. The government will continue to maintain its consistent approach. We refuse to accept the lowest common denominator. We refuse to respond to the rank opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition in attempting to not only smear the department and its advice but also create fear amongst our community. We have had enough of that in this country. We have had enough of the efforts by leaders in our community, and indeed the previous government, who seek to exploit the fear amongst our community in a way in which I believe we should be collectively ashamed. Therefore, the government will stay the course and ensure that those passengers disembark that vessel in accordance with the agreement between Indonesia and Australia. It is the right thing to do. This will occur. We will continue to dedicate every effort we can to ensure we realise this agreement as soon as practicable.

This matter is a global issue. It is a regional issue needing global and regional responses. That is why we will continue to work very closely with our friends in the region in order to, on one hand, be very tough on people smugglers who seek to exploit people and, at the same time, ensure order wherever possible for people who are seeking asylum after being persecuted and going through very difficult times. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia’s border protection policy is in ruins. Before the last election, the woman who is now Deputy Prime Minister said that when one refugee boat arrived in Australia it was a demonstration of policy failure on the part of the previous government. Now, when she is Deputy Prime Minister of the nation—52 boats and 2,300 people later—we are seeing monumental policy failure. This government’s soft touch on asylum seekers has been signalled around the world. The floodgates have opened and the armadas are at the gates as news comes of more vessels arriving in Australia day after day. This is policy failure on a gigantic scale and the implications for our country are clearly enormous.

Today there is also the message that the policy is to get even softer—special deals for people who are rescued at sea. The Prime Minister has been asking us to believe that the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking have just chosen to leave. Some have already left and I understand, from news breaking at the present time, that the rest will be leaving in a few hours. These people are not leaving because they were offered any kind of special deal; they have just voluntarily chosen to get off the boat. They have decided to take a break from the air conditioning and good food on the Oceanic Viking and enjoy some life in an Indonesian detention centre instead. They have decided they can do without the safety and care that they are getting on the Oceanic Viking and they will just take a little bit of a break in a detention centre in Indonesia. Who can believe that story? No special deal, in spite of the fact that a letter was written to all of these people giving them a host of guarantees—a letter, approved by a special committee of cabinet, that the Prime Minister has apparently not seen or could not care less about; a special letter giving these people an assurance that they will be processed and will basically be in Australia within four to six weeks; indeed, a special deal to encourage them to come to Australia and let them break through all of the processes that other people have to go through to come into this country. They are going to have rolled gold entry.

If there was any doubt that there was some sort of special deal, the cat was let out of the bag, firstly, this morning by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith, on ABC radio and television when he acknowledged that there were special arrangements but these were special circumstances and, secondly, at the beginning of question time today when the Leader of the House, with his very recognisable foghorn, yelled out that these people were getting this special deal only because they had been rescued at sea. He tried to change the words later to say, ‘These people were rescued at sea.’ It does not make any difference. It was not just the people in the House who heard that there is a new criterion for dealing with refugees. It was not only the people in this House who heard the Leader of the House’s message. It will have already been relayed to the people smugglers around the world. There is a new modus operandi to get this special priority entry into Australia: just pick up your luggage off the carousel and the Rudd carpet will be there to give you a special entrance into the country; you just get rescued at sea. So now, instead of bringing the vessel into Australian waters, before you get to Australian waters you pull the plug, get rescued at sea and then you will be in Australia within four to six weeks.

This is a classic example of further weakening and softening of this government’s approach to border control. Its policy is completely out of control. These special deals were not offered to other refugees awaiting processing in Indonesia and not even to those who have already been processed by the United Nations and approved for entry. They are not getting any of these special deals. This is an arrangement that has been made with the Oceanic Viking and the people on board in mind. The reality is that this government is either completely lost or being dishonest with the parliament in the answers that have been given in relation to these issues.

The fact is that Australia has always had a generous and compassionate approach towards people from troubled nations, from trouble spots around the world, who seek to come to Australia as refugees. Many Australian families, including my own, can trace their heritage to forebears who came to Australia to escape persecution in other parts of the world.

However, the coalition believes that Australia has a right to decide who enters our country and our decisions should not be compromised by those who seek to enter Australia through unauthorised channels. In government we introduced tough border protection policies to deter the flow of people arriving unlawfully. We continued to bring properly assessed refugees to Australia, but we succeeded in getting the message through to the people smugglers that those who sought to jump the queue would not be welcome. Those policies did have a significant impact and the number of unauthorised boat arrivals was dramatically reduced. However, they have increased significantly since Labor came to government. By abandoning the coalition’s policies, Labor has sent a message that Australia will be a soft touch—and the people smugglers were very quick to reopen their businesses.

How has the Prime Minister responded? He said he was going to be tough and his tough approach was to call people smugglers bad names. He called them ‘vile species’. That was supposed to frighten them. He uses stronger language than that on his caucus colleagues and his own staff, yet the people smugglers were supposed to be scared away by being called a ‘vile species’. This is what the Prime Minister said last month:

The key thing is to have a tough, hard-nosed approach to border security, dealing with the vile species who are represented by smugglers on the one hand, and a humane approach to our international obligations on the other.

Sadly, the Prime Minister is failing on both counts. The people smugglers have been given the green light, and a few insults from the Prime Minister are not likely to deter them. There is nothing tough or humane about Labor’s approach. It is weak and pathetic, full of mixed messages but no deterrents. I understand that people are desperate to leave their embattled homelands. I understand there are economic reasons why people choose to come to Australia and I also understand that, without a sense of order in the process, those waiting patiently to be granted refugee status in Australia in the proper way are being shunted further and further back down the line.

Labor has lost control of immigration policy. Its softness on border protection, however, is not just in dealing with asylum seekers. It has wound back Australia’s border protection. Customs has been hit with a $70 million cut in its funding and 220 staff have been sacked. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service has lost $35.8 million with another 150 staff sacked. There will be 4.7 million fewer cargo consignments inspected this year as a result of Labor’s cutbacks to Quarantine and Customs. There will be 2,150 fewer vessels boarded. Labor has indeed softened our approach to the security and protection of our nation. The decisions of the government to wind back quarantine, allow banana imports from the Philippines and allow live FMD virus and meat from countries with BSE are all examples of a government that does not really care about border protection issues.

Let us look at the Oceanic Viking. What is the Oceanic Viking doing up in Indonesian waters in the first place? This is a vessel that was chartered to patrol in the Southern Ocean. It is supposed to be down protecting Australia’s fisheries from the plundering of the patagonian toothfish. It is supposed to be there to watch for illegal whaling. It has been chartered from P&O to spend between 200 and 300 days in the Southern Ocean. Why has it been diverted up into the waters of Indonesia? The reality is that this government again lost its priorities and is desperate to get some resources. Having wound back the border protection services of our nation, it now needs to commandeer a vessel that is supposed to be protecting our fisheries, to act as a hotel for asylum seekers in Indonesia.

The fact is that this government has no plans to deal with this issue. It is not tough and it is not humane. Lives are being lost as a result of people being encouraged to take journeys on leaky boats and dangerous vessels because of the government’s soft approach to immigration and asylum seeker issues. The reality is that this response is not only weak but also cruel and heartless. The government needs to think properly about how it can deal with these issues to protect our borders and to keep them secure and to make sure that those people who have been assessed as refugees and have a right to come to this country do not have to wait even longer in the queue. (Time expired)

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very sad little MPI. What we have is an opposition in desperate hope of a catastrophe. Firstly, they were hoping for a recession. That would have been a politically useful thing to have. But, sadly, they have not had a recession. Then they were hoping and praying that our relations with China or the USA or India and now Indonesia would collapse. That would be pretty useful! But, no. So then they were encouraged by that rather dubious Newspoll a fortnight ago to think that maybe it is asylum seekers that is their political salvation. So this might be their big opportunity. It was a dud poll, it is a dud approach and it is a dud policy.

If you notice the wording of the MPI, it implies that they have an alternative policy. It implies ‘the response to the weakening of border protection’. It implies that they actually think we should still have the policy we had in 2007. But they will not say that. When challenged by the foreign minister to say whether that was their policy, there was a stony silence. It is based on the apparent view that asylum seekers in our region occur in isolation from global issues and that we are uniquely affected by this set of circumstances. But we all know, as the Minister for Home Affairs pointed out, that refugees and asylum seekers are a global issue. Internal and international conflict around the world, combined with famine and political and social unrest, compel millions to seek refuge across national borders. It is foolish to think of Australia as the only country affected by these global push factors or that we are uniquely affected by pull factors.

Less than two weeks ago I visited the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya. It is not the only refugee camp in Kenya, but it is the biggest one. There are 300,000 people there in a camp that was built for 90,000. Six thousand people cross the border of Kenya every week. And here we have an assumption that somehow or other 52 boats and 2½ thousand people is a crisis uniquely about Australia; it is uniquely a response to a policy adopted by the Australian government! But the people coming to Kenya are not attracted by changes in policy in Kenya; they are fleeing because of the push factors from Somalia, and they are fleeing a terrible and ongoing conflict—as people are fleeing circumstances from Afghanistan, from Iraq and from Sri Lanka. We should perhaps send the member for Wentworth and the member for Murray over to see the Kenyan Prime Minister, Mr Odinga, and give him a copy of their detailed policy on the issue. It might stop the problem flooding across the Kenya-Somali border, because I am sure that with a little bit of toughness they could prevent these 6,000 people fleeing for their lives every week!

To assume that people come to Australia because of pull factors and go to the rest of the world because of the push factors is just irrational. Let us have a look at what has happened to increases in asylum claims as at the end of 2008, which are the last figures I have. There was an increase in asylum claims in Australia of 19 per cent. That is quite a lot. There was an increase in Italy of 122 per cent; there was an increase in Canada of 30 per cent. Oh, those clever, clever people smugglers! They say: ‘Australia has changed their policy; we’ll go to Italy! Australia has changed its policy; we’ll all flee to Canada!’ They are very clever these people smugglers. In France the increase was 20 per cent; Norway, 121 per cent. They are very clever these people smugglers. Netherlands, 89 per cent; Switzerland, 53 per cent.

If we say, ‘Oh no, that can’t be right; it’s just about boats,’ in Australia from 2006-08 we had an increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals by boat, it is true. The figures were quoted. In Greece they had an increase from 9,000 to 15,000 over the two years 2006-08. That is a 66 per cent increase in two years. It can hardly be a consequence of the Rudd government’s policy, I would have thought. In Italy they had an increase of 13,000, a 50 per cent increase. There were 13,000 unauthorised arrivals in Spain and 50,000 in Yemen.

It is impossible to believe that we have on the one hand people going to every other country in the world because of push factors but uniquely coming to Australia because of the Rudd government’s policies. It is the same people smugglers. There is not an Australian lot of people smugglers who are different in character from those who ply their trade to Canada or France. The psychology is the same, the approach is the same, sometimes the people are the same, and yet more of them are choosing to go elsewhere. We all have a problem. Australia has a problem. We have to deal with it, but we do not have it uniquely; we do not have it specially.

If the statistics about Australia stood out as different from the statistics of every other country you would think it might be a home-grown Australian problem. Probably on balance it is slightly less than other countries, but I do not think the figures are strong enough to say that. It is certainly no worse than in any other country similarly placed. Therefore, you cannot argue that this is the people smugglers responding to our policy. They are doing exactly the same everywhere, because the people are desperate. They will try to come here, they will try to go to Italy, they will try to go to France and they will try to go to Canada.

You need to have a sense of balance and proportion about this. We need to have a response that is strong against people smugglers but treats asylum seekers as human beings and fellow residents of our planet who are in trouble—even the ones who come who are finally found not to be refugees and get sent back, as they should be. These are not horrible people; these are people trying to find a better life. They do not meet the requirements of the refugee convention, so they should be sent back, and people who do meet the requirements should be allowed in. But those are innocent victims both of the problem in their own country and of the people smugglers. We need to respond to them humanely.

Let us have a look at theOceanic Viking. Where were the choices that would have led to a different circumstance? When we received a call to provide assistance to people at sea, the choice was to save them or not to save them. I do not think the opposition is arguing they would not have gone to the rescue, and I would not make that allegation against them, of course. I know they would have done the same thing we did. Then the choice was to send them to Indonesia or Australia. The proper thing was to send them to Indonesia. That was where they were found. I assume that is what the opposition would have done. They could have brought them to Australia, but I do not think that is what they would have done.

Once the boat got to Indonesia and the people would not get off, they had two choices: they could force them off, with guns, or they could persuade them to come off, which would take longer but would ultimately be successful and be a more humane and appropriate response. It may be that the opposition is saying that they would have brought on the troops and forced them off. I have not heard them say that. Perhaps they would—I would like to hear. That is the choice. They could leave them there, negotiate for them to go off or they could force them off. There is not an infinite array of policy options; that is it. We have not heard which of those the opposition would have taken up. In fact, whenever they are asked they say, ‘No, that’s a problem for the government.’ It is not as though there is a unique bit of information which the government has; those are the choices. Which would you have taken that we did not? I do not blame you for not answering the question because it would put a big hole in your argument, but you have to accept that failing to answer exposes your weakness.

I am proud that people are not being marched off at gunpoint. I am proud they are not being sent off to Nauru. This matter of public importance implies that the opposition is sorry that Nauru has been closed. They are sorry that there are no temporary protection visas. If they want to return to the pre-2007 policies, they should say so. They imply it, they hint at it, they squirm around it but they have not yet said what their policy is and until they do it will simply be seen as the opportunist stunt that it is. They will be very sad when this matter of the Oceanic Viking is resolved and they have to return to debating the central issues facing this country and have their divisions on those issues exposed for all to see.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on today’s MPI, which is about the impact of the government’s failed border protection policies. We have witnessed the epic failure of those policies, having seen four boats arrive in just under four days. It is evidence that the Prime Minister has lost control of Australia’s border protection system. He refuses to take responsibility for the chaos he has caused with his handling of the Oceanic Viking stand-off in Indonesia over the past 31 days. He shows no leadership; he takes no responsibility. The Australian people are entitled to know who is in control of Australia’s border protection policy because it is certainly not the Prime Minister. One might ask whether it is the people smugglers or perhaps even the Indonesian President.

The micro-managing, all-controlling Prime Minister has now lost control. The House was told yesterday that he was not aware of any special deals negotiated with the Sri Lankan asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking and that his staff were involved. However, he was not kept in the loop. No-one reported back to him before the deal was struck. It was signed off without his knowledge. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s staff are responsible for Labor’s colossal failure in border protection. It seems it was his staff who approved the offer. The deal negotiated with the Sri Lankan asylum seekers was a fast-tracked resettlement into Australia in four to six weeks—and the Prime Minister continues to claim that it is no special deal.

I was intrigued by his answers in question time today. In a desperate attempt to remain at arm’s length from the problem, he said that the border protection committee of cabinet is chaired by the immigration minister and includes ministers or their representatives, staff, his own staff and officials. Yes, he was aware that negotiastions were under way but he had no prior knowledge—he did not authorise a particular course of action. So this committee, chaired by the immigration minister, appears to have only staff and officials in attendance. But wait: it operates under standard cabinet procedures of confidentiality. The Prime Minister told us that in a subsequent answer. So here is a committee which does not report to him, which consists of officials and staff and about which it is inappropriate to ask questions—questions about its conclusions, its outcomes or its documentation—because we should know that it operates under standard cabinet procedures of confidentiality. It is ridiculous—entirely ridiculous.

Either the Prime Minister is so out of touch that he does not realise that this is a matter of great concern to the Australian people or he did know but he will not fess up; or, worse still, he has failed to provide leadership on this difficult issue to a divided cabinet, a bit like his decision on the book industry. He was absent from Australia, yes, but no-one knows what he thinks. He was unable to provide leadership. Maybe he is backing away from this border protection committee of cabinet. He does not want to know and he does not want to be told. Whatever option is really the truth, we can conclude that the Prime Minister lacks political courage. In the House yesterday, a copy of the proposal put to the asylum seekers said:

If UNHCR has found you to be a refugee—Australian officials will assist you to be resettled within four to six weeks …

According to the UNHCR’s website, the number of refugees under its mandate worldwide is approximately 11.4 million. So when the Prime Minister was asked if there were any other refugees in Indonesia who had been guaranteed resettlement within four to six weeks, he had no answer because no others had been offered this special deal to be fast tracked to Australia. There are also no other asylum seekers within Australia who have been guaranteed resettlement within four to six weeks. The Prime Minister needs to be up front with the Australian people and confirm the special deal for what it is.

Nowhere is this colossal policy failure more evident than on Christmas Island, which I have just visited. The island and the community are at breaking point. The detention centre, built for 800, is now housing 962—and more now because that was a week ago. A greenfield site is hastily being prepared out the back. Hercules aircraft are flying in with portables, tents and mattresses to build a tent city. It is ridiculous for this government to maintain that it knows what it is doing. When you see the events unfold in front of your eyes on Christmas Island you realise the complete loss of control. I remind people that, since August 2008, 52 unauthorised boats have arrived carrying more than 2,200 people. The statistics speak for themselves. (Time expired)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very sad to see the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and the member for Farrer continuing with their campaign of drumming up fear and hysteria around the country. It is a campaign that they have been attempting to wage now for several weeks. It has echoes of their disgraceful campaign in 2001 and the other disgraceful campaigns they waged in government—and I can give direct testimony of the disgraceful campaign that was waged in my electorate during the 2007 election campaign.

What is entirely absent from anything that was said by the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Nationals, let alone the member for Farrer, was any recognition of the global reality of millions and millions of displaced persons around the world escaping situations of persecution and war. The statistics that were missing—and there were plenty of statistics offered by the Leader of the Opposition—were the sorts of statistics we can read in the UNHCR 2008 global trends report, which talks about 42 million forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2008, including 15.2 million refugees. Just to add to that, a staggering 44 per cent of all refugees and asylum seekers were children, under the age of 18.

The report confirms that those seeking asylum in Australia are part of a worldwide trend which is driven by insecurity, persecution and conflict. I quote from something that the UNHCR regional representative, Richard Towle, said in March this year:

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

Not only can one point to this worldwide wave of displaced persons seeking asylum in this country and in very many other countries around the world, it is also possible to say, from looking at these statistics, that the numbers of people seeking asylum in our country are relatively small in global terms. One could start with the example of Kenya, which the member for Fraser just gave to the House, or one could point to European examples, which I will mention. In 2008 alone, there were 36,000 unauthorised maritime arrivals in Italy, 15,300 in Greece and 13,400 in Spain and the Canary Islands. For people from various African countries seeking refuge, the Canary Islands are a piece of Spanish territory that is reached by an appallingly difficult, dangerous trip across about 1,000 kilometres of open sea in the Atlantic. One can also look at the present experience of countries like Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Pakistan, all of which are harbouring hundreds of thousands—and, in the case of Pakistan, millions—of displaced persons. That gives context to the problem that is being faced not merely by Australia but by countries worldwide.

We heard not one single proposal in today’s speeches from the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and the member for Farrer as to what the opposition would do in relation to this problem. Publicly we have heard next to nothing as to proposals from the opposition to deal with this problem. We have heard a suggestion that they would like Australia to return to the failed temporary protection visa policy of the former government. Perhaps they are hinting that they would like to return to the failed Pacific solution, involving the sending of tens of millions of dollars to Nauru and the sending of displaced persons to Nauru, a tiny speck of land out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps they are hinting that they would like to see a return to the keeping of children behind razor wire, which was another feature of the policies of the former government.

We heard some more from both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party about some alleged special deal. There is nothing special about picking up people in distress at sea. Perhaps the special deal which the opposition would like to visit upon those in peril on the sea is for them to be allowed to drown, because that is the implication of what is said by those opposite. They have no policies. They are incapable of dealing rationally with this problem.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.