Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on an issue that certainly grieves me. I am aghast at the double standards of this Rudd Labor government, particularly the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, in relation to the differing principles applied to those wishing to reside in Australia. Let me set the scene. We have just witnessed the debacle of the Oceanic Viking, where 78 asylum seekers have been promised processing within four to 12 weeks when normally the average processing time for offshore asylum seekers is 52 weeks. Australia, led by our Prime Minister, has been held to ransom by economic opportunists, making a mockery of our so-called border security. Who are these people? Where do they really come from? And what do they really have to offer Australia?

The National Resource Sector Employment Taskforce met for the first time on November 16, 2009 and is charged with helping to secure up to 70,000 skilled workers required in the resource sector over the next decade. For Kevin Rudd to have initiated this taskforce, he must be aware of the economic resource boom that is ramping up in Australia, particularly in Western Australia. One of the first projects under consideration by the National Resource Sector Employment Taskforce is the Gorgon LNG project in my patch, my patch being the powerhouse of the nation—in this case, where 40 trillion cubic feet of gas will be tapped, creating a very conservative estimate of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. The Pluto gas field, with the first gas expected in late 2010, is creating up to 3,000 direct jobs during the construction stage and 300 during operation. The iron ore sector of WA employed 4,798 more people in 2008 than it did in 2007. And the gold sector in Western Australia was up by 726 personnel for the same period. In 2009, with the many burgeoning goldmines and the gold price at a record of US$1,100 per ounce, these figures are far more elevated.

The sectors mentioned are expected to continue rising, thus creating more and more demand for skilled labour. In fact, over the weekend it was reported that Pluto had suffered a potential $1 billion cost overrun. A shortage of labourers was cited as being among several factors that had contributed to the blow-out. A spokesman also confirmed that the company had fears about the availability of some trades during peak construction.

Here lies my grievance: the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has openly welcomed economic opportunists arriving on illegal boats about which we know nothing. Are they going to be able to contribute to this economic boom or are they, because of the devious process they use to into the country, going to be an economic burden to our society?

On the other hand, I have a story about a respectable community minded family who live in the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. Mr and Mrs Gerhardus Kemp and their lively cricket-playing, Aussie-lifestyle-loving boys came to Australia to help out with the economic boom. They answered the call to bring skills to our land—to sell up back home in South Africa and contribute to the Australian economy. Mr Kemp is a boilermaker with qualifications that date back 13 years. Mrs Kemp has been a qualified hairdresser, also for 13 years. They went through the right channels and were rewarded with a life in Australia—or so they thought.

Because the immigration department is in a state of disarray, it would appear that all available resources are being poured into the service of economic opportunists who have been arriving without restrictions since the changes made by the Rudd government. Now, Mr and Mrs Kemp might be sent back to a land where they have nothing. Mrs Kemp would be forced to remain in South Africa with the boys whilst Mr Kemp would need to work in Europe to support his family. Why? All because the immigration department took so long to process the family’s offshore visa application—over 12 months. By the time it was processed the laws had changed. Lost paperwork, the fact that they were unable to speak to a caseworker and numerous other monumental failures mean that this family, who are embedded into the local community, may have to uproot and relocate back to the land they left. They left only too willing to contribute to the building of the Australian economy.

Priority processing, effective as of 23 September 2009, gives the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship powers to consider and finalise visa applications in an order of priority that the minister considers appropriate. Mr Kemp applied for an offshore visa which, if the government had not bungled his application so severely, would have been granted prior to 23 September 2009. With the new processing arrangements, anyone whose application was previously lodged with the department and not yet finalised will fall under the new guidelines. Even after 23 September Mr Kemp may still have received the visa he initially applied for if his trade was on the critical skills list found on the Australian government Department of Immigration and Citizenship website.

The critical skills list has not been updated since March this year, even after all the reports by government and industry leaders that we have a resource boom around the corner and a severe lack of skilled workers to meet the demands that this boom will place on our country. The critical skills list contains the following occupations: anaesthetists, engineers, aircraft maintenance engineers, podiatrists, psychiatrists and even wall and floor tilers. In fact, 24 of the 40 critical skills listed were from the medical fraternity, which is fair, but there is no mention of welders, boilermakers, fitters and turners et cetera. Has the immigration department fallen prey to the hard-nosed militant and thuggish union leaders and their lead-swinging union members by removing the opportunity for Australia to broaden and enrich our workforce and culture, by creating an unfair playing field? It is a very good question to ask. Have the trades that will support the necessary infrastructure for our resources boom been deliberately left off our critical skills list because the unions fear they will fall victims to the many enthusiastic, hard-working potential immigrants wishing not only to contribute but to embrace and enjoy all the benefits that our great nation of Australia has to offer through doing an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay?

Here we are on the edge of a boom and we are not doing anything within the immigration department to acknowledge it. Rather, they seem more intent on giving a free leave pass to those we know nothing about, those who choose to sneak in. What of those who are left behind waiting in the queue, left to lament the fact that they did not have the money in their pockets to pay these horrendous dealers in human trade, the people smugglers? All I know is that we have right now a dilemma that will not be solved by somebody who throws the dictionary away and invents his own.

The immigration department as yet has not come up with a solution that will stop the people remaining in the queue being gazumped by individuals with money to spend on people smugglers. Perhaps I should tell my constituents to paddle out to sea, throw away all their identification, phone officials from aboard their dinghy with a claim of having a sick child on board, put an axe through the boat, be picked up at taxpayers’ expense and come to Australia the easy way, because those who come to Australia the easy way—even at risk of life and limb in a leaky boat, even at risk of sinking at sea unknown—have jumped the queue. There is no denying it. The activities of the UNHCR are well known in the refugee camps around the trouble spots of the world, yet these people with their resources—their cash and their family’s cash—choose to jump the queue. They choose to take this risk. They choose to go to sea in leaky boats and present themselves to Australian authorities so they will have an almost guaranteed opportunity for fast-tracked citizenship of this nation.

I do not believe this is humane, fair or equitable in any way. We need to get back to border protection that offers Australians the satisfaction of knowing that it is Australia—our departments and those administrators—who will choose who comes to Australia, not the people smugglers and those opportunists who happen to have money in their pocket and are able to jump the queue and leave those with a humanitarian need doing the right thing in the queue in those concentration camps. (Time expired)

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

I rise tonight to talk about the global plight of asylum seekers and refugees and the impact of this on Australia, and to return balance to the debate. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie’s speech has given us a complete example of where the opposition wants to take this debate. It is a disgrace. Playing politics with people’s lives is reprehensible. The sheer fact that the member for Kalgoorlie has no understanding about how immigration policy works was completely evident in his speech tonight.

I am very fortunate to represent one of Australia’s most multicultural and ethnically diverse electorates. As such, the asylum seeker debate is played out predominantly by my constituents. My office receives considerable correspondence regarding asylum seekers, with a wide array of opinions and views expressed. Many within my electorate are very involved in the cause of asylum seekers and refugees, and work tirelessly to support these individuals. The majority of those contacting my office want to see a more compassionate approach from government towards asylum seekers. They want individuals who risk life and limb to see a better future for themselves and their families. They do not talk about them as queue jumpers, because they understand the migration policy—and there are two totally different queues, which the member for Kalgoorlie does not seem to understand. Others contact my office seeking a harder approach to the issue and are concerned about the consequences of Australians accepting a greater number of asylum seekers. Others think we need to have a wider ranging debate on population.

This government is committed to striking the right balance on this issue and delivering an immigration policy that is fair and humane. The opposition are trying to accuse the government of introducing policies which lead to an increased number of people seeking asylum in Australia, as the member for Kalgoorlie has just amply demonstrated. This argument is easily rebutted. The issue of asylum seeker claims is a global issue that goes beyond what is happening in Australia. In fact, the number of people seeking asylum in Australia is minuscule in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in the world.

I am proud to be part of a government that has ended the failed Pacific solution, the temporary protection visa and the 45-day rule. Earlier this year, I had the great privilege of presenting to the parliament a petition organised by the Uniting Church of Australia calling for a more humane approach to the issue of asylum seekers. The Uniting Church and many other churches within my electorate have done some fantastic work in advocating the plight of refugees in the community. It is with great pleasure that I can say the government has acted to amend Australia’s policy in relation to asylum seekers and refugees, and to remove the cycle of debt forced on asylum seekers who had to pay for their own detention. We make no apologies for introducing reform which breaks from the cruel policies of the Howard government—flawed policies that failed to uphold Australia’s commitment under international law and saw legitimate refugees living in Australia denied access to health care and the opportunity to work and support their families.

The punitive treatment of refugees by the Howard government did nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Claims from the opposition that changes to these policies are fuelling an increase in asylum seeker levels simply do not add up. As with many claims by the opposition, the statistics do not support their argument. The claims made by the member for Kalgoorlie are totally and utterly flawed. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report on asylum seeker levels and trends for the first half of 2009, the numbers of individuals requesting refugee status during this time continued the upward trend already observed over the past two years. The report indicates that the increase in people seeking asylum in Australia is part of a worldwide trend driven by insecurity, persecution and conflict. In the first half of 2009, 2,503 people sought asylum in Australia. This figure remains well below that observed in 2000, when there were 13,100 claims, and in 2002, when there were 12,400 claims.

Additionally, the number of people seeking asylum in Australia is small in global terms. Europe remains the primary destination for asylum seekers, with 139,600 claims registered in the first six months of 2009, including France with 19,400 claims, the United Kingdom with 17,700 claims and Germany with 12,000 claims. This is an important point. Australia it receives very few asylum claims in comparison with other industrial nations around the world. This fact is sometimes lost in the hysteria of the asylum seeker debate here in Australia—as amply demonstrated by the previous speaker.

Five thousand two hundred people sought asylum from Sri Lanka in the first half of 2009—a 12 per cent increase on 2008 levels. There is a large Sri Lankan community in my electorate who are obviously very concerned about what is taking place in their country of birth. I have met with members of the community and listened to their distress about what is taking place. I have met with both the Tamil and Sinhalese communities. No Sri Lankan has been untouched by the awful conflict that has occurred in the country and, although military victory came to pass some months ago, there are significant concerns regarding the resettlement of hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens. This is the driving force behind thousands of Sri Lankans fleeing their country in search of asylum, with many attempting to come to Australia.

The Rudd government is continuing to respond to the humanitarian challenges facing Sri Lanka through our aid program, especially the needs of internally displaced people. In 2008-09, Australia devoted $24.5 million to meeting humanitarian needs in Sri Lanka. This financial year, we will provide more than $35 million in development assistance. We have called upon the Sri Lankan government to be more open about the conditions of displaced persons in camps and to ensure quicker and safer resettlement of these individuals back to the north where they wish to return. But we have also welcomed the end of decades of conflict. We now call upon the Sri Lankan government to reap the benefits of peace and reconcile a divided nation.

In light of the global increase in people seeking asylum, the government is committed to maintaining a strong border control policy to uphold the integrity of our immigration policy. It is our policy that all irregular maritime arrivals are subject to mandatory detention on Christmas Island while health, identity and security checks are undertaken and claims for asylum are assessed. Unlike the Howard government, it is our policy that no child be held in a detention centre. Children and, where possible, their families are housed in temporary accommodation on Christmas Island, not a detention centre.

We believe that this is only right—that we should treat people who seek our protection humanely. It is right that we meet our international obligations under the UN refugee convention. I mentioned that we have ended the 45-day rule. Many of my constituents had been supporting asylum seekers who were living in the community. We focus greatly upon those who are in detention centres, but there are some thousands who have been seeking asylum while in the community and have been placed under a bridging visa E regulation, which gave them no work rights. During this time, they were left to starve. They could not work, they could not seek government support and they could not seek Medicare—they could seek nothing. This was the most inhumane part of a very flawed system, one that supposedly stopped the boats coming. The boats kept coming. People still seek asylum. We will always have asylum seekers in our world. Tragically, we have never been devoid of conflict in any of our lifetimes in the history of our world, in the history of humanity walking the earth. And we will always have people who are caught up in tragic circumstances needing to find somewhere safe to reside. Australia has the opportunity to provide that safe haven.

I am not, as the member for Kalgoorlie claimed, throwing open the doors, but I am advocating for a humane approach to individuals—one that treats people with respect and dignity, one that does not play politics with human lives. It seems that the asylum seeker debate brings out the worst in the coalition—though not all, I must admit. But it does seem to have created a situation where sound and fury seem to have taken over: ‘Here is the debate; we will jump on this debate and traumatise individuals who have been so traumatised already.’ Although we have, thankfully, avoided the toxic debate that ensued in 2001, it is disappointing to see the coalition attempt to deceive the public into believing government policy has led to an increase in asylum seeker levels here in Australia. In doing so, they are attempting to exploit the issue of vulnerable people for political gain, and for this they should be condemned. The Australian government is committed to a more compassionate approach to this issue that does not reject the fundamental issue of border protection. I am proud to be part of a more compassionate government that has wound back the Howard government’s intrinsically cruel and inhumane policies. I am hopeful that a sensitive approach will continue to be deployed into the future.