Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you in several ways, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, for facilitating my participation in the debate today by taking my chair duty and allowing me to continue with the debate. It is greatly appreciated. I continue with the very brief comments that I made last night before debate was interrupted. I indicate to the House my support for the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. It is my intention, for the information of the House, to take about 10 minute to complete my comments. I want first of all to outline the provisions that are in this bill, then to put the bill within the context of the government’s actions on anti-people-smuggling measures and then to wrap up with some general comments about where the debate is at the moment.

I should indicate to the House that this bill seeks to amend some other acts in order to increase the capacity to deal legally with people smugglers. It establishes a new offence of providing material support and resources towards a people-smuggling venture. This is contained in the Migration Act and Criminal Code. The offence will apply to a person who provides material support or resources to another person or organisation and to the provision of support or resources aids if there is a risk that the provision of support or resources will aid the commission of the offence of people smuggling. The offence applies if a person is reckless about whether the money or resources they provide will be used in or to assist with a people-smuggling venture. It would not apply to a person who pays smugglers to facilitate their own passage or entry to Australia or to a person who pays for another person in that venture. The maximum penalty for this offence will be 10 years, 1,000 penalty units—$110,000—or both.

This bill also extends the mandatory minimum penalties in the Migration Act. The Migration Act currently contains mandatory minimum penalties for the aggravated offences of people smuggling. That is a five-year sentence with three years non-parole or, for repeat offenders, an eight-year sentence with five years non-parole. The bill extends the application of the mandatory minimum penalty to the new offences, which are people smuggling involving death, people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm, and providing support or resources for people-smuggling activities. The higher mandatory minimum sentences of eight years and the non-parole period of five years will automatically apply to the offences of people smuggling resulting in death and exploitation or danger of death or serious harm irrespective of whether it was a repeat offence. This is to reflect the serious nature of these offences.

The bill will also extend the higher mandatory minimum sentence and non-parole period to a people-smuggling offence involving children and to a person convicted of multiple people-smuggling offences. The bill before the House also seeks to harmonise people-smuggling offences between the Migration Act and the Criminal Code. This is in order to strengthen the criminal framework and for greater consistency. There is also a section of the bill that improves the capacity for law enforcement and national security agencies to undertake the new tasks that become operative with the bill.

The bill before us sits within a context of a wider range of border protection policies that the Rudd government has put in place. The framework clearly outlined by the Prime Minister—which received, I have to say, a fair degree of bipartisan support early on when the opposition was endorsing some of the measures that the government put in place—was to have a more humane framework for those who were seeking asylum and to take a much harsher position with those who were seeking to make profits out of the exploitation of those people.

Within that framework, there have been a series of actions already taken to create a strong border protection policy within which the bill before us today sits. The Rudd government, for example, has maintained excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing of irregular maritime arrivals on Christmas Island. We have committed $654 million to a whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling. This is part of the Rudd government’s $1.3 billion strategy to strengthen national security and border protection. It includes $63 million for aerial surveillance to monitor a range of border threats, including irregular maritime arrivals and illegal foreign fishing. It also includes $42 million to better equip the AFP to stop people-smuggling ventures before they launch for Australia. This has involved ramping up the crucial partnership between the AFP and the Indonesian police to investigate and dismantle people-smuggling syndicates. It also involves funding to Customs and Border Protection to strengthen its international engagement in critical transit countries with people-smuggling activities, including new posts in Malaysia and Sri Lanka and boosting its presence in Indonesia.

This has been backed up by a range of other actions, including the establishment of the dedicated Border Protection Committee of cabinet to ensure the whole-of-government strategy is driven in a coordinated way; a single point of accountability for matters relating to the prevention of maritime people smuggling within the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; continued regional engagement and cooperation, including reinvigorating the Bali process at the ministerial level; working with Indonesian authorities to assist in arrests of key high-level people smugglers—and it was very good to see the Indonesian President addressing this parliament only last week; increasing maritime surveillance and patrolling by Border Protection Command; making sure we successfully prosecute people smugglers and extradite alleged people smugglers; and strengthening the offences and the penalties that apply. This is all part of an important coordinated whole-of-government approach to delivering on the commitment that we made to get tough with the people smugglers.

This sits within an international context. I am going to give a bit of recognition here to someone who is known to many in this place by the pseudonym  Possum Comitatus—otherwise known as the individual writer, Scott Steel, who only recently in the Crikey newsletter had a wonderful graphic representation. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and out of respect for our report on props in parliament, I have not brought it in with me, so I will paint a bit of a word picture for members. It was a black square that indicated the 161 boat people who arrived in Australia in 2008. That square was placed within a bigger square which was the 4,750 asylum applications that were received by Australia in that year. Then that square was placed within another square which was the 96,870 asylum applications received by France, the UK and Italy in the same year. That then was placed in another square. That square represented the 382,670 asylum applications received by all 51 countries in the UNHCR statistics program. Then in another square were the 827,000 asylum applications across the globe. The final square indicated the 15.2 million forcibly displaced refugees around the globe in 2008. The graphic gave a very, very strong visual concept to people about the size of the problem we are dealing with. It is a serious problem. The reason that we want to stop people smugglers is that they put at risk the lives of the vulnerable people that they are preying on. Nonetheless, it has to be kept within the context.

I was very pleased to see that the period we had for a relatively short time in Australia where we took a strategic approach that said that you punish the vulnerable who are seeking asylum to send a message to the others has been replaced by a view that you punish those who prey on the vulnerable to send a message. That has certainly been a bipartisan position of this country since the 1950s. We had an aberration from it, but I was pleased to see that, when we came to government and introduced new legislation that would be humane with the vulnerable and tough with those who seek to prey on them, we had bipartisan support. Sadly, that does not always persist through to today, and I think that is a very regrettable outcome. The bill before the House is part of that sensible and balanced approach to what is a very difficult issue, and I endorse the bill.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No reasonable person could oppose the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, and the aims contained in the bill are clearly laudable. It is a bill to deter people smuggling, to expand the charter of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to include border security issues and to make related amendments to the Telecommunication (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the T(IA) Act.

There does, however, appear to be somewhat of a contradiction with the provisions of this bill and the record of the Rudd Labor government, which has in effect opened the door and created a superhighway across the seas into Australia. What the Rudd government has done is to put out the welcome mat to people smugglers and those people who want to jump the queue to come here in contravention of the laws of Australia. This is of course in complete contradiction of and in contrast to the very strong position taken by the Howard government, which said that we would determine who crosses our borders and that it is really a matter for the government and the people of Australia to determine who is able to enter Australia.

What this government has done by watering down the regime it inherited from the former government is essentially to send the green light out there to people smugglers. When one looks at the appalling record of this government in recent times as far as boat arrivals are concerned it is obvious that the softened, watered down, gutted policy that we have in relation to people smuggling has failed dismally. Really what the government should do is to keep faith with the Australian people. It should adopt the promise made by the now Prime Minister prior to the 2007 election—namely, that when boats were intercepted on the high seas they would be turned around and sent back. But the government’s reaction in practice has been quite the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised to the Australian people before they entrusted him at the November 2007 election with the keys to office.

Unfortunately the government in office at the moment has as its hallmark all talk but no action. People refer to the Prime Minister and say, ‘Blah, blah, blah.’ It is starting to penetrate the collective mind of the Australian people that this government is big on noise but small on performance. I can see the minister at the table, the Minister for Resources and Energy, smiling somewhat. I am not sure whether he is privately agreeing with me. I did not want to verbal him by suggesting that. But if the government had more ministers of the calibre of the minister at the table I believe we would have less talk and more action. Unfortunately the government has to work with the material it has, and it does not have anywhere near as many effective ministers as it would like. Of course, the minister at the table is one of the best that the government actually has.

Having said that, before you accuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, of embarking on my own unity ticket with the minister at the table, let me say that I think the people of Australia are really disappointed with the approach of this government. This government has in effect set out the welcome mat for people smugglers and those people who want to jump the queue. This government has indicated that it is prepared to bow to pressure, that it is prepared to blink when confronted. What the government has to understand is that people smugglers only respect strength. They do not respect weakness.

The now government criticised us while promising strong border protection, but what we have really seen is an open door policy. The government blinks, as on the Oceanic Viking. The unauthorised arrivals on that vessel held the government to ransom, and the government has given preferred treatment to people who have in effect been rewarded for thumbing their noses at the government and the people of Australia by seeking media coverage as they did. Their plight was highlighted and the government folded. I understand that there were some people on the Oceanic Viking whose security assessments were less desirable than one would have liked, yet the government has been extremely benevolent towards them as well.

It is very important that this bill includes a provision to expand ASIO’s role. I am not suggesting that al-Qaeda is hijacking boats and bringing large numbers of people via the government’s boat people superhighway to Australia, but it is theoretically possible for people who are terrorists to get on a boat and to try and pass themselves off as genuine asylum seekers or refugees. ASIO and the other security organisations in Australia need an adequate capacity to vet those people otherwise they could enter Australia via the back door, particularly in view of the fact that, were they seeking to enter Australia through a more recognised, traditional and conventional process, they would be picked up by the very stringent checking that Australia quite appropriately does with respect to people seeking to join us. It would be terrible if we had some sort of terrorist incident because it was not possible to vet those people adequately.

I notice that the government says that this bill will not include any extra outlays. That presumably means that ASIO is going to have to fund the additional responsibilities it is quite appropriately given in this legislation from its existing budget. The government really needs to tell the Australian people—and I hope the minister at the table notices this, although I presume he is not the minister who will be summing up this particular bill—whether it considers there is so much fat and slack in ASIO that it can afford to reallocate existing resources to vet people who arrive on boats organised by people smugglers. That is a fair question, because the government has given this responsibility to ASIO. It is quite right that that should occur; however, I have to ask myself whether ASIO can afford to do what the government is asking it to do without the additional resources that it would quite appropriately need.

Is the government saying that ASIO has more money than it currently needs to perform its function? Does the government want ASIO to close down some of the functions that it already carries out to perform these new functions? ASIO simply will be unable, in my view, to carry out the excellent job that it does for Australia generally and then do this additional task, for which it is eminently suited, unless the government is prepared to provide additional resources to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It is appropriate that we should focus on the criminals who organise these boats to Australia, the people smugglers themselves. To a certain extent people who board those boats are victims, but they do so in many cases quite knowingly.

A few years ago, when the Woomera and Baxter detention centres were open and were being criticised, particularly by the then opposition, I organised to visit those two centres so that I could see with my own eyes whether the allegations of brutality and inappropriate treatment of unauthorised boat arrivals were in fact accurate. At the Baxter detection centre I was able to sit down with a lady whose religion was Sabian Mandaean. I had not heard of the faith before. Apparently, they are a group that emanates from Iran and they are followers of St John the Baptist. Water has a particular significance in their religion. I had a really good talk with this lady. She was really upset that she found herself in the Baxter detention centre. She felt it was a breach of contract because she and her family paid US$20,000 to people smugglers. They had bought an airline ticket from Amman in Jordan to fly to Jakarta. When they got to Jakarta they junked their passports and made their way overland to a port where people smugglers operated from, jumped on a boat and came to Australia. They felt they had a contractual arrangement to come to Australia and were really miffed not only because they lost their US$20,000, which is what they paid for their passage, but also because they found themselves in the Baxter detention centre.

I am not sure what ultimately happened to that family, but I did have a sense of sympathy for them. They seemed to be decent people and it just seemed to me to be entirely wrong that people smugglers were able to treat these people as they did. I believe we should throw the book at people smugglers, but that does not mean that we ought to willy-nilly allow the victims of people smugglers into Australia. As a former Labor immigration minister told me once, more than a million people are knocking on the door of Australia to come here legitimately and join our Australian family. That was quite a few years ago, so maybe now we have 1½ million people wanting to come to join us in Australia. We have freedom, we have stability and we have a way of life that has made Australia the envy of people throughout the world. While we might disagree with the result of an election—we were very disappointed that we lost in November 2007 and I am sure you were not, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now that I reflect on it!

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was that, Minister?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give you a visa.

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

Please stay on the legislation.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very interested by the admission of the minister that, as the Minister for Resources and Energy, he has the capacity to hand out visas. But thank you very much for your generosity. This minister is clearly one of the most effective and influential ministers in the government. If more than a million to 1½ million people seek to come to Australia, then it is important that we do have an orderly immigration policy—a policy that has integrity, respect, transparency and accountability. For people to be able to jump on boats, to be able to pay people smugglers to come to Australia, to be intercepted and to be taken to Christmas Island or somewhere else—we understand that large numbers are about to be transported to Darwin—and that that enables them to jump the queue, it sends a real message to the world that we do not have a policy of integrity. You have really got to feel for the million to a million-and-a-half people who want to come here legitimately while people who are seeking to come here illegitimately are given preferential treatment.

People smugglers are amongst the worst type of criminals. They place many lives in danger, they prey on the desperation of those people who are needy and they will do almost anything to anyone who wants to come to Australia to seek a better life. It is clear that they are motivated by financial gain and what they can amass for themselves. They are not remotely concerned about the lives of those people they carry as passengers. This is demonstrated by some of the horrid conditions that passengers have had to endure on often unseaworthy boats. When these boats go down at times and lives are lost, one has to ask oneself whether the people smugglers who own these boats are able to claim for insurance on the boats that are lost in the country where those boats are registered and, if they receive funds from the insurance policies, whether they are able to buy new and better boats to transport even more people to Australia.

The people smugglers who are more than willing to breach Australia’s immigration and arrival conditions and legislation have to have the book thrown at them. That is really important. People smugglers show complete disregard for the interests of the people they seek to transport to Australia. We are a compassionate country. Our refugee intake is amongst the highest in the world on a per capita basis. I understand that only Canada exceeds our effort. We are genuinely receptive to the needs of others. We are compassionate. We are sympathetic. However, one of the concerns of people in the Australian community is that the government now does have this open door policy which is encouraging increasing numbers of boats to embark for Australia. People smugglers know that the welcome mat has been put out for them. We now have a super sea highway where the government is drawing people smugglers and unauthorised arrivals like a magnet. Everyone knows that, when the boat arrives at or near Christmas Island or in other Australian territorial waters, it will be towed or escorted to Christmas Island. All the people on board know that they will receive medical attention, they will receive food and they will then be processed on Christmas Island or maybe Darwin and, ultimately, there is a pretty good chance that they will be settled in Australia or another country.

What an incredible green light for people to breach Australia’s laws, to breach Australia’s borders and to come to Australia in this illegitimate way. I hold a series of public community meetings throughout my electorate every year. Last weekend, on 13 March, we had very good attendances at three community barbecues. One was held at Sippy Downs, another was held at Dicky Beach, Caloundra, and the third was held at Kawana Forest. I was impressed with the way that people were genuinely concerned at the arrivals of people in Australia. I think that is a major worry and the government needs to take on board what the community is saying. The community is saying that enough is enough. People who discussed this matter with me at those community meetings were genuinely concerned and they were very worried. They feel that the current Rudd Labor government has completely lost control of this issue.

Since the government softened our border protection laws there has been an increasing number of arrivals and more boats on the sea. There is almost a flotilla on the sea and almost every day we have a boat arrival. Let us look at some of the statistics—and they are really quite scary—since the government watered down our border protection. From August to December 2008 we had seven boats and 179 passengers and crew members. In 2009, 61 boats arrived and there were 2,792 passengers and crew members involved, plus the four on Deliverance Island and another two in an esky. In 2010, so far, we have had 24 boats with 1,191 passengers. That is a total of 92 boats that would not be here if the government had not softened our border protection policies. Those 92 boats brought 4,162 people plus the four on Deliverance Island and the two in an esky. That is a total of 4,168 people. This indicates that the government has given the green light to those people who want to break the laws of Australia—people who are prepared to risk the lives of others who are prepared to pay passage to come to Australia.

Of course, many of these people are not genuine refugees. They might be people who would prefer to live in Australia—and you cannot blame them for that. Australia is a very desirable country in which to live. We have equality of opportunity and anyone has a chance to achieve anything. The only thing that can stop people achieving things in Australia is the individual. There are boundless opportunities, so you can understand why people would want to come from right round the globe to join the Australian family. But if we have a situation where people are jumping the queue, breaking the rules and circumventing our transparency arrangements and laws then clearly what we are doing is sending a green light. The government have brought in a total of 4,168 people since they watered down our border protection policies. That is the number of people who effectively have been brought in because of that watered down policy.

I find this personally concerning. I have lots of people in my electorate who have family members who have applied to come to Australia on spouse visas, parent visas or, in some cases, even business visas. It takes a considerable time for those people to progress sufficiently up the queue to be accepted in accordance with the provisions. Some of them have asked me whether it would be better if they went to Indonesia, bought passage on a boat and arrived into Australia’s territorial waters, where they would then be fast-tracked. I have to say to them that we obviously cannot recommend that course of action. However, the present laws encourage people to circumvent the rules and regulations of Australia. I do not think that is a good thing; I do not think it is healthy. I think it is wrong for the government to water down border protection. I think it sends the wrong message to people smugglers and to the world. The government stands condemned in the eyes of the Australian people. (Time expired)

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to voice my strong support for the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. It is important that members on this side talk to the bill that is before the House and not go off on a rant, such as those opposite have indulged in, about the so-called weakening of the laws. This bill is another example of the government’s commitment to strengthening Australia’s national security and border protection regime. The key elements of the bill will improve whole-of-government efforts to combat people-smuggling, including ensuring appropriate investigative tools are available to law enforcement and national security agencies and providing greater flexibility for Australia’s national security agencies to support anti-people-smuggling activities. This bill includes additional measures to strengthen the Commonwealth’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework by putting in place laws that further criminalise people-smuggling activities to enable prosecution of a broad range of conduct, including the consequences of that activity.

The bill sees practical reforms in six areas. It establishes a new offence of ‘providing support for people smuggling’ in the Migration Act 1958 and the Criminal Code. The bill harmonises people-smuggling offences between the Migration Act and the Criminal Code to strengthen our criminal framework and provide greater consistency, including inserting into the Migration Act the aggravated offence of ‘people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm’. It extends the higher mandatory minimum penalties in the Migration Act for the new aggravated offence of ‘involvement in exploitation or danger of death or serious harm’ to offenders convicted of multiple offences. It makes associated changes to the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to enable law enforcement and security agencies consistent access under both acts to appropriate investigative tools. The bill also amend the Australia Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to enable ASIO to perform a greater role in relation to people smuggling and other serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity. It also aligns the definition of ‘foreign intelligence’ in the T(IA) Act more closely with the Intelligence Services Act 2001.

People seeking asylum are not something new. In the 1970s, we experienced the arrival of the first wave of boats carrying people seeking asylum from the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Over half the population of Vietnam was displaced in these years. While most people fled to neighbouring Asian countries, some embarked on a voyage by boat to Australia. The first boat arrived in Darwin in April 1976 carrying five Indochinese men. Over the next five years, there were 2,059 Vietnamese boat arrivals, with the last arriving in August 1981.

My electorate of Solomon, like so many communities throughout Australia, is a vibrant, multicultural melting pot of nationalities. Over 80 different nationalities make up our fantastic community. The arrival of 27 Indochinese asylum seekers in November 1989 heralded the beginning of a second wave. Boats arrived over the following nine years, mostly from Cambodia, Vietnam and southern China. In 1999, the third wave of asylum seekers, predominantly from the Middle East, began to arrive, often in larger numbers than previous arrivals and usually with the assistance of people smugglers.

This is a global problem. There are over 42 million displaced people around the world. In recent years, global factors have meant a continued increase in the global numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. Figures published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, reveal that at the end of 2008 there were some 42 million forcibly displaced people around the world. That is twice the population of Australia. This includes 15.2 million mandated refugees, 827,000 asylum seekers and 26 million internally displaced persons.

On Afghanistan, in a recent report to the Security Council, the UN Secretary-General noted:

… 2008 ended as the most violent year in Afghanistan since 2001.

In 2008 there was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghan asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries worldwide. From Sri Lanka, for the same period of time, the number of internally displaced people assisted by the UNHCR in Sri Lanka increased from 324,699 to 504,800—an increase of 55 per cent. Sri Lanka has just emerged from a decades-long civil war which cost tens of thousands of lives, uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans and left an economic divide between the north and the south and between east and west. There are currently 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people.

This government takes the protection of our borders seriously. We have more assets patrolling our borders than the previous government had. We have retained mandatory excision of Ashmore Reef and Christmas Island. If a boat is intercepted, those on board are taken to Christmas Island where their health and identity are checked and they are checked for security risk. If someone claiming to be an asylum seeker is found not to be a refugee, they are sent home.

People smuggling is not just an issue for Australia but a global and a regional issue. I certainly welcome the contribution made in this place by the President of Indonesia last week. He spoke of the way our two countries are working together to combat this most evil of trades—that is, the smuggling of the most vulnerable and marginalised people on the planet. The commitment of our neighbours, through the bilateral cooperation of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, is critical to addressing this most serious issue. The Australian government is highly supportive of the Bali Process, which was established by Australia and Indonesia to develop practical measures to help combat people-smuggling crimes in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

The Australian government has an orderly and planned migration program and places a high priority on protecting Australia’s borders from irregular maritime arrivals by maintaining an effective and visible tactical response program of aerial, land- and sea-based patrols. Border Protection Command uses a combination of Customs and Border Protection and Defence assets to deliver a coordinated national response to security threats in Australia’s maritime domain. The global spike in people-smuggling activity around the world, including in Australian waters, means we need more resources and improved laws to deal with this global problem. That is why the government is funding a $654 million whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling and address the problem of unauthorised boat arrivals.

The strategy includes the largest surveillance and detection operation against people smuggling in Australia’s history. The massive funding increase in the budget will provide: $324 million worth of funding to increase maritime patrols and surveillance, which will see an additional maritime surveillance craft in Australia’s northern waters and increased maritime surveillance time; an almost $63 million funding increase for aerial surveillance, which means two additional surveillance aircraft; around $93 million to strengthen our engagement with our regional neighbours and international organisations; and $13.6 million to strengthen our legal and prosecution capacity and enhance regional cooperation on people-smuggling laws. The Rudd government has also established a dedicated Border Protection Committee of cabinet, which will be supported by the newly established Border Protection Taskforce to drive the government’s response to the people-smuggling threat.

Our government is determined to make the investments that are needed to protect our borders and strengthen Australia’s national security. In particular, there is clear evidence of a global spike in people-smuggling activity, which is causing an increase in people-smuggling activities in Australian waters. The government is determined to ensure we respond effectively and decisively to the global spike in people smuggling and other emerging threats to Australia’s national security. This bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to addressing the serious nature of people-smuggling activities and to targeting those criminal groups who seek to organise, participate in and benefit from people-smuggling activities.

People smuggling is a serious and organised crime involving organised criminal syndicates which depend on enablers and facilitators. Targeting the organisers and financiers of people-smuggling operations is an important element of a strong anti-people-smuggling framework. People-smuggling activities involve significant risks and dangers, including the potential for loss of life and injury. Financial gain is a key driver for smugglers, who often have little regard for the safety and wellbeing of those on board the vessel.

This bill puts laws in place to provide a greater deterrent to people-smuggling activities and to address the serious consequences of such activities. I commend the efforts of the Attorney-General on these amendments and the strengthening of these laws. As the Prime Minister of Australia said in his first National Security Statement address to the parliament in December 2008:

The Government is committed to deploying all necessary resources to prosecute those criminals who seek to undermine Australia’s border security. We will work with our partners in the region to shut down the illegal operations of people smugglers and see them put in jail where they belong.

I commend the bill to the House.

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

I am really not surprised that the government has brought this bill, the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, before the parliament now. The government’s abject failure on border security is evident, and we are now averaging 10 boats a month. The government is stuck in a hard place on this issue, although it has abandoned any mention of a tough policy. Maybe that is because it is such a simply ludicrous term, given the current flow of boats. Nevertheless, the government cannot reconcile the divisions within the party. The left holds a total commitment to supporting illegal arrivals while the remainder cannot actually take any action of strength, because that would be a total backflip and clear evidence of the stuff-up that has been created. Instead, they are left with trying to stop the boats—or at least the adverse publicity—with special deals, such as the Oceanic Viking fiasco, trying to get transit countries to do the work, or even the presentation of this bill.

Perhaps the Rudd government has not worked out yet that, if you promise no more than three months on Christmas Island and certainty of settlement in Australia after that, illegal immigrants will walk past our embassies, bypass the UNHCR and pay the people smugglers. It is a risk they see as worth taking and they consider the money well spent. Until the government addresses that reality, the government will continue to fail. It was previously the case that nowhere was the failure of the government’s policy more evident than in border control. Comprehensive as that failure continues to be, it is clear that in the last six months border protection failure has increasing competition across other policy areas, such as the bungled home insulation program with its and dangers and rortings, the green loans, the overpriced BER program et cetera.

As concerning as the loss of border control is, I nevertheless welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. I recall that at the end of 2008 I made a speech in this place against the failures of the government in this precise area. I recall the member for Maribyrnong interjecting repeatedly in support of the government’s alleged border control policy, and he did so again yesterday when I asked a question on the government’s border protection failure. This proves what an embarrassment the lack of border control is for the government. We fixed the problem in the past, and since the government was elected it has wrecked the integrity of our borders. Indeed, thanks to the Rudd government, the borders of this nation are as porous as the 2007 Labor Party election promises. This Rudd government policy failure represents yet another example of all talk and no action.

Before going on to the bill, it is important to review what has happened leading up to this point. In this financial year there has been a $132 million blow-out in the cost of processing illegal immigrants. It is little wonder, because since 1 July 2009 there have been 67 boats and more than 4,000 people on those boats—a lot more than the 200 people the government planned on at the time of the last budget. That, of course, has also resulted in the need for $34 million to increase the number of beds on Christmas Island. It has been estimated that this financial year at least $230 million beyond what has been budgeted for will be required, and it will be required to deal with the numbers arriving as a direct result of the changes to the laws that this government said would not see an increase in arrivals. Indeed, if these illegal arrivals continue at this pace, the government may face up to $300 million per year in additional costs, with $1 billion being exceeded in the fourth year. This issue is very clear. Those with money are jumping the queue. Those without money remain in refugee camps, hoping that the numbers of illegal arrivals do not amount to enough to bump them beyond our humanitarian program numbers for the year, only to be reassessed for inclusion on the legitimate queue for next year. There are only around 13,500 on the humanitarian program list. What about these illegal arrivals? There are over 4,000. Surely this is not good news for those in refugee camps.

Before going on I would also go over some previously covered ground in relation to these matters. I have in the past been critical of the validity of many of those who have arrived by boat. I have questioned how much they were in fear of their lives, when they bypassed several countries on their way here. I am often asked by my constituents how it is that we have had Afghani people arrive in Australia by boat when their country is landlocked. Clearly the facts are that these illegal arrivals have passed by many countries on their journey, and that has included road and air travel. This was always my understanding of the situation. Therefore, I thought I would confirm that understanding by putting questions on the Notice Paper back on 16 November last year. With reference to illegal arrivals by boat, I asked firstly about arrivals from Sri Lanka and how many had some form of identity document with them upon processing. I was informed by the Attorney-General that between 27 November 2008 and 9 December 2009 742 Sri Lankan nationals arrived by boat. Of those 742 just 20 per cent, or 147, had some form of identity document. I was also informed that 492 of the 742 are understood to have used air travel to transit via South-East Asia. It would be a reasonable assumption that the 492 as an absolute minimum would have had identity documents in order to use civil aircraft. This information would therefore suggest that a lot of identity documents were lost between getting off the aircraft and arriving at Christmas Island. I would question the motives of anyone who throws their identity papers into the Timor Sea.

As part of those questions on notice, I also asked about those from Afghanistan who arrived by boat. I was informed that as at 31 December 2009 1,532 Afghan nationals had arrived by boat and that every one of them had used air travel to get to South-East Asia so that they could get on the boats. I will say again that I cannot reconcile a claim of a desperate fear for one’s life with firstly bypassing Australian embassies then bypassing UNHCR missions and transiting through airline departure halls before getting on a boat in Indonesia. So when those on the government side accuse my colleagues and me of a lack of compassion regarding those who arrive by boats, I would deny it. I say to them that I have compassion and regard for those in refugee camps. I have compassion for those who have done the right thing—not those who have paid for their airfares and perhaps even picked up their duty-free purchases on the way. There is no duty-free at the refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border. Clearly the opportunity exists to properly apply for entry to Australia under the humanitarian program, or for other visas, from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and other points along the way. The fact that illegal arrivals have instead chosen to bypass opportunities to apply for legitimate entry to Australia suggests nothing more than a deliberate intent to illegally bypass Australia’s immigration law to gain access to Australia by jumping the queue.

It used to be the case that when the Navy or Customs intercepted a boat of illegal arrivals it was bad news for the people smugglers and those on the boat. It used to be the case that this nation had border control systems with integrity so that there were no guarantees of staying—but that is all over. The interception of boats, as the minister calls it, is what the people smugglers call a successful delivery. The Navy or Customs taking a boatload of people to Christmas Island is mission accomplished for the smugglers. That so-called interception begins a stay of up to three months on Christmas Island with full use of the gym and unmonitored internet access, followed by a visa and permanent settlement in Australia. The only thing that can stop that certain resettlement is an adverse security assessment.

I therefore ask the question: is the $10,000-plus that is paid to people smugglers a good investment for those who achieve a permanent visa? If they get intercepted or dock at Christmas Island then any observer would have to agree that it is. If your dark past is not detected, you are in and there is no doubt that you will get one of those places in our humanitarian program—much easier and certainly much quicker than applying at the Australia embassy in your homeland or dropping into the UNHCR station in your homeland or at any point along the way. Perhaps it is more expensive, but why be diverted to another less desirable country when you can ensure success with around $10,000?

I would also ask the question about how this sort of money was generated in the first place. We know that these origin countries are of far poorer economic standing than our own. My question would be: how is the money generated? If it is generated legally then it would seem that they are not the desperate people that their advocates suggest they are. If the money is generated illegally, we should question their legitimacy and investigate that matter closely—perhaps that is a matter for ASIO.

Since my election to this parliament I have always wondered why there is no accountability for those who pay the people smugglers to come here. Why is it not an offence to pay a people smuggler? Beyond those who can pay, the refugee camp occupants on the Burma-Thailand border—the Karen, the Chin and the persecuted Burmese people—have to wait in line. They do not have the money. They have to wait while those with money take what may prove to be 4,000 places out of the humanitarian program. It is little wonder that people in this and other countries are unhappy with this situation.

Australia is a fair and tolerant country. This issue is not about racism. It is not about the colour of a person’s skin or their religion. It is about a fair go and whether we are still in control of who comes here. It is clear to me that what this nation needs is a return to the days when there were no guarantees about where you would end up if you tried to jump the queue. We need to get back to offshore processing, resettlement options beyond our shore, visas that are not permanent and a humanitarian program where we decide where the refugees will come from.

That brings me to the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. I say at the outset that we will be supporting this bill. It does not, however, address the core problem and we will see if it helps the current situation in any way. The bill seeks to deter the people smugglers, whilst expanding ASIO’s charter and modifying interception powers. Specifically, the amendments will create a new offence of providing material support or resources toward a people-smuggling venture. It will establish in the Migration Act an aggravated offence of people smuggling which involves exploitation or danger of death or serious harm. There is also an amendment to apply mandatory minimum penalties to the new aggravated offences, and to multiple offences, of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and a maximum penalty of 20 years and/or a $220,000 fine.

I note that there is a specific element of this legislation that suggests that a payment to a people smuggler for one’s own travel, or for that of a relative, is not included as providing material support. In other words, this legislation attacks some of the income for people smugglers but allows other income. I again struggle to understand why there is such an inconsistency. Although the bill does not address this inconsistency—or, rather, promotes this inconsistency—fortunately it does seem to leave the door open for ASIO to make an adverse security finding upon those who seek to circumvent our immigration system. Therefore, I encourage ASIO to examine the intent to bypass legitimate processes and also the intent in concealing one’s identity by getting rid of identity papers. These should be considered strongly as reasons to make an adverse security finding.

It is not my intention to speak to the intricate details of the sections of this bill. I see no point in restating the amendments line by line as I said that we would be supporting this bill, but I do say that the core of the issue remains a problem. Upon arrival at Christmas Island, they are as good as here, and that is wrong. The Rudd government changed the rules. The Rudd government ensures that they will come to Australia and that they will take up places on our humanitarian program. The Rudd government does not question their legitimacy or their intent to bypass legitimate application processes in order to come here, and the Rudd government, through their softness on this matter, ensures that those without the money for airfares or people smugglers will languish in refugee camps even longer.

I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments today. I look forward to seeing how these amendments will assist the current situation. However, I do not hold out great hope because I do not see that they provide any form of accountability for those who bypass our immigration system. Until those who refuse to apply for entry at our embassies or through UNHCR missions are forced to do so, they will continue to see their actions as worth the effort—which means they are jumping the queue. There has been a tendency to see this whole problem as caused by the people smugglers. Of course, we object to and abhor their reckless risk taking with the lives of others but, if there were no market for their product, they would not exist.

As I said before, I am not going to go through line items on this bill. The trouble with this bill is that it does not address the core problems of why people are paying to come here. It does not reverse the government’s changes from two years ago and it does not take away the surety of success that the government gave these illegal arrivals. Because it does not do these things it will not work and the government will find that their failure remains clearly evident into the future. I can see the future clearly: this problem will only be solved when the coalition again forms a government and direct action can be undertaken on this problem.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 and to support it. Until relatively recently, Australia had a bipartisan approach, in effect, to the treatment of refugees both onshore and offshore. As of 2001, in particular, those opposite, who were then in government, have used this for overtly political reasons, realising that the whole issue of immigration, particularly what is deemed to be unlawful immigration, has always been a psychological lever in Australia’s culture. Strangely enough, it is a culture that, apart from our Indigenous population, is a totally migratory population from our origins. So there has always been this psychological factor of the outsider in Australia if you do not come via the welcome mat that we set out—finely attuned and attested to by the former Prime Minister in 2001.

What that has led to—and it is clearly indicated by many on the other side—is a divisive debate in this country. What is often forgotten, apart from the sheer misery, pain and persecution of those who seek asylum in this country, is that we are signatories to international conventions which obligate us to treat people fairly and humanely when they arrive at our shores or within our jurisdiction and under our sovereignty. But, if you listen to some members on the other side saying, ‘Turn the boats back,’ you hear language that not only defies practicality but defies our obligations as a civilised nation. The simple fact is that, yes, you can point out times in our recent history when the numbers of people seeking asylum, particularly boat people—most come by air, which is hardly ever mentioned in this place—go up and down. The simple fact is that they go up and down according to what we euphemistically call push factors. It essentially means that there are areas of trouble in our neighbourhood that force people, through persecution, to seek asylum elsewhere. Anyone with the means and the will will seek asylum in those places that are most safe. Anyone who is a parent or a guardian would understand that. You would do anything to find safety for your family and your children. It is natural, it is human, and yet many condemn people who would seek to do that.

We hear people say, ‘They’re jumping the queue.’ What queue? Where are these queues—nicely ordered and lined up? There are something like 42 million people in camps throughout our region and throughout the world who are displaced and seeking asylum. What queue? Where are these magical queues? Of course there are people who will make formal application, and this country is comparatively generous in taking on humanitarian refugees, but this talk of queues and people jumping them is absolute, utter nonsense. In times of intense conflict—more recently in our region in Sri Lanka, in particular, and in Afghanistan—we know people are suffering and are displaced and that they will seek asylum and do whatever they can to get to safe places such as Australia. When they enter our jurisdiction and our seas, we are obligated as a humane nation and as part of the international community to take these people and to process them humanely.

It is said by those opposite citing all the figures that, under the Howard regime—that tough old regime with the Pacific solution, Christmas Island and excising—the boats stopped coming. Okay, boats may have diminished in number but that does not mean it is cause and effect. When I was a history student there was a way of looking at history which was called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy—that because one thing happens and then something else happens it must have been caused by the first. That is nonsense, but that is what they are perpetrating on the other side. The reason the numbers declined is that the points of conflict were diminished, but now the points of conflict are rising, and have risen more recently, and the numbers are increasing. It is a natural historical fact. Those on the other side would have us believe that it is not the push factors, it is not the conflict and it is not the persecution that surrounds us. Jack Hill the blind miner needs only to turn beyond the commercial channels to a bit of international news to see the misery and torment that goes on around us and to put himself in the position of saying, ‘What would I do about that?’ Well, people are doing something about it now, but you would have the mob on the other side saying that it is not those factors that are causing it, that what is causing it are the pull factors and that we have softened our stance on refugees. They say that the people smugglers and those people they are servicing are looking through our newspapers daily, running their fingers down the columns and looking at the changes in legislation and saying: ‘Ah, there’s a loophole. The pull factors have softened so we will increase our trade over there.’ That is absolute nonsense and anyone who really thinks about this for more than a couple of minutes can work that out.

What I find very interesting, and it is not mentioned by those on the other side, is that when our legislation came into place to modify the system—not weaken it but modify it to make it more humane—those on the other side accepted it and voted for it. Their members as part of committees did reports on this and all of them supported it. But now they do not; now it is the problem. Basic logic says that is a nonsense. This government has gone about creating a comprehensive program to make our response humane but at the same time make it firm. We cannot do anything unless we have the assistance of our neighbours. The turnstile is not here; it is elsewhere. We have been working progressively since 2008 to create a whole-of-government national and international framework to make this work better. Many resources are being put into it.

Those on the other side say they accept this legislation but claim it will do nothing to solve the real problem. What we ought to do to solve the real problem is to stop war and stop misery. We also need to do more in our region to support our neighbours. And we had better stop the effects of climate change, because if you think persecution has been the cause of a great proportion of those seeking asylum today, when we see the effects of environmental refugees throughout the world, we will really know something. This business of blaming us for an increase in the number of people seeking asylum here is a nonsense. We need to stop war, we need to stop persecution and we need to stop climate change and the negative consequences of that.

This legislation seeks to tackle people smuggling more comprehensively. Some people argue that people smugglers might be involved in a terrible trade, but at least they are helping people to do something to offset their persecution. I do not support that, but the trade of people smuggling exists because there is a need. We have to do something about these people smugglers and particularly those who prey on the vulnerability of those who are persecuted. That is what this legislation seeks to do.

I find it interesting that the 2004 United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, to which Australia is a party, defines smuggling of migrants in article 3(a) as:

… the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident …

I understand that there have been 88 arrests and 25 convictions since September 2008 in Australia—that is, convicted people smugglers, crew members on vessels, who have received between five and six years imprisonment. We have been acting on this and we are seeking to strengthen our activities. How are we going about this? The legislation before us seeks to establish a new offence of providing material support and resources towards a people-smuggling venture in the Migration Act and the Criminal Code. It is worth noting what that means. According to the explanatory memorandum, the offence will apply to a person:

… if that person provides material support or resources to another person or organisation and the provision of the support or resources aids the commission of the offence of people smuggling.

The second reading speech says:

The offence applies if a person is reckless as to whether the money or resources they provide will be used in, or to assist, a people-smuggling venture.

So it attacks so-called ignorance in behaviour. It continues:

It will not apply to a person who pays smugglers to facilitate their own passage to Australia or who pays for a family member on the same venture.

According to the explanatory memorandum:

The maximum penalty for this offence will be imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty units ($110,000), or both.

Prescribing a maximum penalty still allows judicial discretion to take account of the circumstances of the case. The second thing it seeks to do is important and it is something that former legislation, particularly by those opposite, did not do. I do not want to go tit for tat on that stuff. All frameworks evolve, no matter who is in government, and that is what this legislation seeks to do. That is why those opposite are willing to support this legislation. The legislation seeks to harmonise people-smuggling offences between the Migration Act and the Criminal Code to strengthen the criminal framework and for greater consistency. It may or may not be surprising to learn that harmonisation of legislation, particularly acts, in our system is an ongoing process because in some senses they contradict each other. This seeks to harmonise acts so they will working with the same intent and for the same purposes and not working at cross-purposes.

A third element of the legislation is to extend the mandatory minimum penalties in the Migration Act. This, of course, is to strengthen this to make it harsher in terms of and in relation to the penalties that are permitted and to improve the capacity for law enforcement and national security agencies to tackle their jobs not just in this but particularly in relation to people smuggling.

People smuggling is a serious and organised crime. We know it involves criminal syndicates and they rely on a network of people associated with them. Targeting the organisers and finances of people-smuggling operations is an important element of a strong anti-people-smuggling framework and that is what this legislation seeks to do on a whole-of-government basis.

Before I finish, I would like to return, if I may, to this issue of context and balance. You have those on the other side, and some of the conservative press, without a doubt, day after day putting the story out that we are being inundated by a peril. Some of the reporting is absolutely disgraceful and atrocious, happily taken up by many on the other side. I notice the member for Berowra—the so-called ‘father of the House’—is in a very sedentary mode at the moment. But he gets highly excited—in fact he bounces in his seat—as soon as you mention the question of boat people and refugees. He starts frothing at the mouth, recalling his enormous record of making the lives of those seeking asylum more miserable. I find it a strange thing to see, and a little disheartening for someone who has been in this House for so long.

Let me just remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of some of the contextual facts that we should take into account when we consider this. I will quote from a new book, which was delivered to all of us just recently—Future Justice edited by Helen Sykes—from a section on refugees and human rights by Julian Burnside. You can imagine some on the other side would groan when they hear the name ‘Burnside’, but imagine having that record of humanitarian concern in your career and your lifetime. It is fantastic:

Looking at global refugee flows misses the point that very few of them come here.

Very few refugees come here:

If numbers are a concern, here are some to consider:

Australia’s population is 22 million. The number of visitors arriving in Australia each year (for tourism, business etc) is 4.5 million. The number of permanent new immigrants each year is 185,000. The refugee/humanitarian quota per year is 13,500. The number of asylum seekers who come here by air each year—

air!—

… is 5000.

In 2009, for example, the number of asylum seekers who came to Australia by boat was approximately 2,800, or the equivalent of five days migration intake. Yet, if you believe the conservative press, if you believe those opposite and if you take any notice of the frothing of the member for Berowra, you would swear we were being inundated and that this country is at risk. It is an absolute nonsense.

This government is working cooperatively with its neighbours, it has a whole-of-government approach and it has put considerable resources into creating a framework where we are fair, humane and carrying out our international obligations. I am very proud to support this legislation.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a privilege to follow the remarks of the member for Braddon, who is generally one of the more thoughtful members on that side of the House. I do rise to speak in support of the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. As the Liberal Party has said through its spokesman, the member for Cook—or the member for the Shire!—we do support the measures in this bill.

However, it is of course a bill that is necessary because of Labor’s failures on this issue. While generally I enjoy the contributions of the member for Braddon, I thought that was one of his weaker ones in defending a very difficult policy issue for the Labor Party to defend. They always defend it on the basis that we on this side of the House are running some sort of fear or dirty under-the-radar campaign rather than actually arguing the real reasons why their policy has failed, which, of course, were the changes to the border protection laws in August 2008. Since that time, we have seen nearly 100 boats arrive in the northern part of Australia. The Christmas Island detention facility is so packed now that it is looking as if those seeking refugee status will need to be transferred to the mainland, a policy failure unlike any other from those on the other side, and probably up there with the insulation program.

Yesterday, the campaign that is run by those on the other side about the motives of members on this side of the House saw one of its worst episodes, with the contribution by the member for Parramatta—as so rightfully pointed out by the member for Higgins who followed her—as recorded in the Hansard:

There are people in my community—and I despair at these people—who, when the opposition starts to spread this fear, come out with lines like, ‘We should just push the boats back and let them drown.’ We should not accept that. We should not accept those statements and we should not be stirring up that kind of attitude in our community. Yet every time we have this sort of fear campaign on the other side, this demonising of these desperate people, I get that kind of response from some members of my community. I get other members of my community saying, ‘Send them back to where they came from.’ When I say, ‘When they arrive, they might get shot,’ I get the reply: ‘Not my problem.’ I do not think we should be accepting that attitude either and I do not think we should be stirring that up in our community.

The very clear suggestion in that contribution from the member for Parramatta was that members on this side of the House are saying in a direct statement, ‘We should just push the boats back and let them drown.’ The member for Parramatta came into the House, after the member for Higgins quite rightly pointed out this absolute disgrace, and made a personal explanation in which she said:

The member for Higgins said at the beginning of her speech that I had put words in the opposition’s mouth and said that they had suggested that people should drown. I did not.

The Hansard quite clearly outlines exactly what the member for Parramatta said. It is a disgraceful campaign run by members of the government who are desperately trying to avoid answering the very real charge that we make on this issue, which is that their policy has meant that the people smugglers are back in business. The trade that people smugglers enter into is vile. No-one supports that type of activity. We certainly do not. We took action in government to ensure that the people smugglers were put out of business. The policy decisions made by this government have meant that they are back in business.

No-one wants to see desperate people in these situations, and for the member for Parramatta to get that low into the gutter and play this sort of politics is a disgrace. She should be brought in by the Prime Minister and thoroughly rebuked and she should apologise to the House for what are disturbing remarks. I notice the member for Braddon was far less outrageous in his claims. He made the suggestion that there was a fear campaign going on and he is right to do that—in a political debate he is able to make those points—but to suggest that people on this side of the House want to see other human beings drown and die is an absolute disgrace. The member for Parramatta should be rebuked and she should be rebuked today. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment at the table, who is a decent person, will ensure that that actually occurs.

This bill is a sensitive bill and we have very well-known splits on our side of parliament about this issue. It is a very difficult issue. People are very emotional about boat arrivals and illegal immigration. It is a sensitive issue in the community and it should be dealt with in a way and in a fashion which is above, hopefully, the low-rent stuff which from time to time does actually occur. However, we do make the charge and we make it very clearly—I think the shadow minister has articulated it very well in recent times—that the decisions of the Rudd government in August 2008 have meant that we are seeing an influx of boats in the northern waters. The Labor Party argue that is because of these additional push factors and the member for Braddon just argued then that war in our region has been the reason that there have been increased push factors. I presume the member for Braddon is talking about the recent conflict in Sri Lanka coming to an end and, certainly, that has added to the pressure. There is no doubt about that. However, to suggest that the Afghanistan conflict ended in 2002 and began again last year is simply wrong. The Afghanistan conflict—as the shadow minister for defence science and personnel at the table knows very well—has been going on since late 2001 and there have been push factors from Afghanistan since that time, as there have been from the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was very quiet over the last five years.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Melbourne Ports, I do not think it actually was. There was quite a deal of ongoing fighting in Afghanistan during that time. It was not as though our forces experienced reduced action in that time. There have clearly been push factors over the whole period. We accept that there are push factors, but what the government fails to accept is that there are pull factors.

There has been a big pull factor, which was the change by the government in its border protection regime in 2008. The government refuse to recognise this. They know that they have made an error; however, they are not addressing the genuine mistake that they have made. That has led to an additional nearly 100 boats arriving since that time. This year we have seen a record number of arrivals. This week alone I think we have seen two boats—it is hard to keep up with how many are actually arriving on our northern shores through the wet season, which is highly unusual.

Until the government can bring themselves to recognise that they have made a fundamental error in this policy issue, we will continue to see the massive number of arrivals occurring in the northern waters of Australia. That is putting additional pressure on our Customs service and defence services and it is a big problem for our border protection regime. I note in this bill the government are seeking to address some of the concerns in relation to security and they are right to do so. We need to protect our borders. We need to have a well-looked after system and ensure that there is a solid system of entry into our country.

We are very generous in the number of people that we take into Australia and we should be. I support that. I do not support a reduction in the humanitarian intake; I think we have a very proud record as a country. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, being a son of migrants, we have a very proud record in Australia of taking in people from other parts of the world whether for economic opportunities or because they are fleeing situations which have become very difficult for them in their home countries. But we need to ensure that it is done in a well-managed fashion, and the problem with softening the border protection laws in 2008 has been that it is putting pressure on the management of this system.

When the member for Braddon said that there are these accusations about there being no queue—‘Where’s the queue?’ I think he said, and then he said there are something like 43 million people in refugee camps around the world—that is exactly right; there is a queue. There is an application process. The department of immigration goes through a very detailed assessment of people to ensure that we are keeping ourselves secure, which of course is a major responsibility of people in this place, at the same time as taking in very high numbers of refugees—I think it is the second largest humanitarian intake of any country in the world, just behind Canada. We do do our bit. There is an argument about whether we could do more, but we certainly do do our bit.

However, what we say on this side of the House is that you cannot undermine your migration intake by softening your border protection laws, because in the Australian community’s eyes it will question the value of the whole process of taking humanitarian refugees. That is a genuine problem that we have. As illegal arrivals increase, the community becomes increasingly concerned about the way that we are managing this system. I think they are right to be concerned, because the government has made a big mistake and it is high time they recognised that mistake. I think it is quite clear that we have a very proud record on this side. There was a problem in 2001 and the former government addressed that problem; the boats stopped coming. There was no problem in 2008, but the Prime Minister created a problem and the boats started coming again. That is the story of the border protection regime in Australia over the last 10 years. The coalition addressed the problem; the Labor Party created a problem. Unfortunately, until the Prime Minister is able to stop talking and start taking some action, we will continue to see the large number of boats arriving in our northern waters.

It is unfortunate that this debate descends into personal attacks and gutter politics. Unfortunately, we have seen far too much of that in this debate so far. In addition to the softening of the border protection laws in 2008, the other mistake the Labor Party have made in government was to cut some of the Customs vessel inspections. They cut $58.1 million from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service air and sea cargo inspection services in the 2009-2010 budget even though they promised in the election that they would not do so—in fact, they said they would increase it. The breakdown of the cuts is $17.1 million over four years cut from the risk based air cargo inspections, $8.6 million over four years cut from the risk based approach to first port boarding inspection program and $32.4 million cut from the risk based sea cargo inspections. The effect of the cuts is that, of Australia’s 70 major ports, 1,300 local port workers and millions of shipping containers, only five to 10 per cent are checked. The decision to cut vital funds in areas of customs will put strain on the staff. They have already been stretched, and this will inevitably lead to more illicit drugs, weapons and biosecurity threats slipping through our borders. Our front-line agency has had major cuts to its budget just at a time when it has increasing pressure put on it through measures introduced by this government’s softening of the border protection laws.

I find it interesting that the Prime Minister just a few weeks ago was talking very loudly about ensuring that our passport system was protected and secure when there were stories about the illegal use of Australian passports. We should be making sure that our passports are used appropriately, but he equally seems to be quite comfortable with a huge increase in illegal arrivals in the northern parts of our country. This is an emotive debate. It is at times a difficult debate for the parliament. However, we need to handle it in a mature fashion. We need to be able to put our different perspectives. We on this side of the House put the perspective that the Labor Party in government has softened what were very effective laws. Those on the other side argue that it was not their decision and was not because of their changes; it has been purely push factors. I think there is clearly an uncomfortable position for those on the other side who can see this increase in the number of people coming. They see the correlation with the decision, but their Prime Minister refuses to take any action on it. It is high time he reconsiders this position. It is high time some of those opposite who are engaging in the gutter politics we saw from the member for Parramatta yesterday stop doing so and have a sensible and well-thought-through debate in this parliament.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, I am pleased to continue to speak for a consistent and coherent policy that this government has established since it has been in office. As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration I have been closely involved with these issues, including those addressed by this bill, over the last two years. It is pleasing to hear remarks like those of the member for Mayo, who just spoke: relatively conciliatory and supportive of the humanitarian program that Australia has. Moreover, I listened carefully to the speech of the honourable member for Cook, who is now the shadow minister for immigration, and I am also pleased that he indicated the opposition will be supporting this bill. He expressed support for some of the measures the government has taken to combat people smuggling both by strengthening the criminal law and by further developing the framework of cooperation with our neighbours, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia. But the member for Cook spoiled his good start by repeating the opposition mantra that the reason we are seeing an increased rate of unauthorised boat arrivals along our northern coast is policy changes made by the Rudd government.

Of course, he did not say what changes he was referring to. He did not explain how these changes caused the increase in unauthorised arrivals and he did not commit the opposition to reversing any of these changes if they win the election due later this year. Neither did he tell us what alternative policies the opposition was developing especially to deal with this problem. The opposition rhetoric is very puzzling for people like me, who go along to the immigration committee and listen to members of the opposition, who at various stages of this parliament have advocated that we abolish mandatory detention on Christmas Island. We had an enormous fight at the migration committee with the member for Kooyong and some of his supporters, who thought that the consistent policies of this government were too hard line. They are darlings of the press for their liberal views. They make one argument in the committee and then come into this parliament and make a different argument. I wish the members of the opposition would put the work into the inquiries that we have made into immigration at the very same time that they take to come into this parliament to bash the federal government’s consistent policies on immigration.

I would have thought that the opposition wanted to hold the government responsible for the increased rate of unauthorised boat arrivals. Its responsible shadow minister should have been able to specify exactly what the government did to cause that increase. I would have thought the shadow minister would have been able to explain how those changes produced that outcome. I would have thought, most of all, that the shadow minister would have been keen to commit the opposition to bringing back the policies of the previous government which opposition members claimed were so successful in preventing unauthorised boat arrivals.

We heard the member for Cowan, a member of parliament whom I think quite highly of, talking in his contribution about how some of these unauthorised arrivals get to use the gym, have unmonitored use of the internet and go duty-free shopping on their way here. He asked: where does the money come from for their arrival in Australia? These kinds of comments are very regrettable if you study the situation and they betray a lack of imagination about why people come to Australia in these kinds of circumstances and give effect to the kind of pub talk that leads to hysteria about unauthorised arrivals. I will return to some of those issues in a minute.

Let me help out the honourable member for Cook and his colleagues. Let me tell them about some of the changes that the Labor government has made. Immediately after the 2007 election, we carried out our election commitment to end the Pacific solution, and by February 2008 the camps at Nauru and Manus were closed. In May 2008 we abolished TPVs. These were the policies we took to the election, the policies that were voted for by the Australian people. We carried out those commitments and we were right to do so. However, as I mentioned, despite a large lobby in the Joint Standing Committee on Migration by members of the Liberal Party urging that we abolish mandatory detention, the committee made no such recommendations to government.

We did not suggest that the government open the floodgates, lay out the red carpet or any of the other colourful phrases the opposition likes to bandy about. We continued to argue for preventing the arrival of unauthorised arrivals reaching the Australian mainland by boat. I believe that in the more than two years of this current Australian government only one boat penetrated Australia’s migration zone—a much better record than the Howard government could boast. We continued to detain unauthorised people at Christmas Island where they are processed. We continued to send unauthorised arrivals home if they could not make a case to be considered genuine refugees. We saw that the other night on Lateline where the federal Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was criticised by one of the small ‘l’ liberal lawyers in Melbourne for sending a Sri Lankan unauthorised arrival in Australia home. He had no valid reason for being in Australia. His elderly mother had achieved permanent citizenship as she had other relatives who are here in Australia and, unfortunately, the recommendation of the minister was that, since this person had no authorised reason for being in Australia, he must go home.

Let us look at some of the figures from Europe as to why people might be leaving. Let me just remind this House that, in 2006, Europe as a total had 227,000 people making refugee claims. In 2007, that figure was 256,000; in 2008, it was 289,000. Australia during that period had 3,800, 4,200 and 5,000. In 2007 alone, over 51,000 persons arrived by boat on the coasts of Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta. In 2008, 44,000 undocumented migrants were detained when crossing the Turkish border into Greece. The official number of foreigners living in Greece is 800,000, but this number does not include an estimated 200,000 undocumented migrants, often escaping conflict and instability in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia.

The increase in unauthorised boat arrivals that began in 2006 had nothing to do with the Howard government’s policies. What it did have to do with was changes in the international situation, most noticeable being the deterioration in the situation in Afghanistan, the security situation in Iraq and the culmination of the civil war in Sri Lanka. The fact is that the opposition does not like to comment on or acknowledge the whole history of unauthorised boat arrivals over the past 15 years that has been, in my view, largely driven by international factors. The horror of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan caused an outpouring of about three million refugees, hundreds of thousands of whom tried to find asylum in Western countries. The liberation of Afghanistan in 2001 allowed millions of these refugees to go home and the flood of asylum seekers turned to a trickle.

The member for Mayo who just spoke did not focus on the fact that it was during a period of relative peace in Afghanistan that the number of asylum seekers to Australia, particularly Afghan Hazaras, went down. There was another surge, though not nearly as large, following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As conditions in Iraq improved after 2005, this surge also slowed. Then we had the final, extremely bloody phase of the civil war in Sri Lanka which displaced half a million Tamils from their homes and caused 150,000 Tamils to look for refuge or asylum in other countries.

Figures from other countries bear this out. If we took a graph of the number of Afghanis seeking asylum in  the United Kingdom, for example, we would see the same patterns as we have seen in Australia—a peak of arrivals in 2002, a sharp decline in the middle of the decade and rising levels of arrivals from Afghanistan in 2007. The number of Afghanis seeking asylum in the UK peaked at 90,000 in 2002, fell to 25,000 in 2006 and now has risen again to 35,000. I ask the opposition: did the UK have a Pacific solution? Did it have TPVs? Has it changed its asylum policies in a way which would explain these fluctuations? The answer is no. The pattern in the UK is the same as we see in Australia because the cause is the same—the changing number of people seeking to escape from Afghanistan and find refuge elsewhere.

It is very disturbing to hear proposals from particularly the British government—which has understandable reasons for wanting to continue to receive intelligence information from the Pakistani government—that there should be arrangements made with the Taliban for peace between the international forces, the Karzai government and the Taliban. If I were a Hazara living in Afghanistan, those proposals would terrify me. The possibility that the fanatics from the Taliban regime may take over Afghanistan again, so eloquently explained to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade by Professor William Maley a couple of nights ago, would understandably lead to a huge exodus of Hazaras seeking to flee for their lives in case those fanatics from the Taliban regime took over their country, given what we all know happened to the Hazara minority there when the Taliban were in control.

Members opposite do not have to take my word on this comparison with other countries; figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees support the point I am making. UNHCR figures for 2009 show a rapid rise in the number of Sri Lankan asylum seekers in countries around the world: this year, an increase of 30 per cent in France, 14 per cent in Germany and more than double in Japan, admittedly from a very low base. Japan is a notoriously unwelcoming country for foreign arrivals, so the fact that Tamils are trying to beat down Japan’s door shows how desperate they are. Even New Zealand, which is a very long boat trip from anywhere, had an increase in asylum seekers last year. We see the same story with asylum seekers from Afghanistan. This is relevant because nearly all of the current wave of arrivals on Australia’s maritime borders are either Sri Lankans or Afghanis. This is a worldwide problem and not one that is much influenced in either direction by immigration policies in the countries to which these unfortunate people are trying to gain entry.

Let us look at this issue from another perspective, and I am grateful to the blogger known as Possum Comitatus for posting these figures on his website recently. In 2008 Australia saw 161 unauthorised boat arrivals. In the same year the UK, France and Italy saw a combined 96,000 arrivals. The 51 industrialised countries participating in the UNHCR’s statistics program received 382,000 applications for asylum. Globally an estimated 827,000 people were seeking asylum, a small part of the estimated 15 million recognised refugees in the world that year. In other words, the 161 arrivals which the opposition tried to present as such a terrible threat to Australia’s security and prosperity were just a tiny part of a great global problem, the problem of millions of displaced people fleeing from civil war, terrorism, natural disasters et cetera.

Australia’s problem with unauthorised arrivals is small compared to the problems being experienced in France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and the US. Of the 150,000 Sri Lankans looking for asylum I mentioned, the great majority are trying to enter European countries. Only a small number risk the 4,000-kilometre trip across the Indian Ocean to get to Australia. It is so obvious to any reasonable person, such as the member for Braddon, who spoke before me, that the solution to Australia’s border security problems lies in doing several things. The most important is to work at the source of the problem in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Sri Lanka. We do that in cooperation with other countries and through the UN, our military presence in Afghanistan, our civil and military training assistance in Iraq and our international development program.

It is in the Australian national interest that the scourge of terrorism in Afghanistan, as a base for al-Qaeda, is defeated. It is also in our national interest that waves of potential unauthorised arrivals be prevented leaving the country through peace being established there and through civil authority being established over as much of Afghanistan as possible. Therefore, I am greatly alarmed by proposals by the British foreign secretary, Mr Miliband, who insists on talks with the Taliban. For the British, getting information from their friends in the Pakistani intelligence service to prevent terrorism in London may serve the British national interest. But scaring the wits out of the people of Afghanistan that somehow the Taliban are going to be put back in office via their old mates in the British Colonial Office—sorry, the foreign office—does not serve the international interest or Australia’s interest.

On another level, it was very disappointing to see Senator Joyce, presumably speaking on behalf of the opposition, calling only last month for Australia to cut its foreign aid program. No wonder Andrew Hewett, the Executive Director of Oxfam Australia, said that Senator Joyce’s comments were worrying and disappointing. He understands what an important contribution our development aid makes in stabilising the situation in the very countries which are the source of the asylum seeker problems that the opposition claims are such a terrible threat to Australia.

The second leg of an effective policy is to work with our regional neighbours who must tackle the issue of the flow of asylum seekers to our borders. The opposition likes to make jokes about the ‘Indonesian solution’, but the fact is that the Indonesian archipelago lies across our northern maritime approaches and virtually all boats passing our northern coastline have come from or passed through Indonesia. The recent visit by President Yudhoyono showed relations between Australia and Indonesia are at an all-time high. Cooperation on asylum seeker issues, as with most issues, has never been better. I am going to Jakarta soon on what will be my fifth or sixth trip there. I regard it as a duty of any Australian parliamentarian interested in international affairs to have a primary interest in Indonesia, our closest and most important neighbour. Australia’s policy is clearly far more effective now than it was under the previous government, although I acknowledge we have a much more constructive negotiating partner now than in the days of President Megawati.

The third leg of our policy must be to maintain an orderly and fair refugee program. At present we take about 13,000 refugees a year. With our very large immigration program I personally think that figure should be higher, but relative to our population it is a high figure when compared to refugee intakes in other wealthy countries. I have to again remind the House that when unauthorised arrivals come to Australia they become part of the humanitarian program. The impression of a huge surge of boat people is created by some people who want to exacerbate tensions for political benefit. The member for Cowan suggested the asylum seekers get free internet access and go duty-free shopping before they come to Australia. This is a program that is funded and part of our immigration program. There is a marginal extra cost to Australia in processing these people, who after all are judged by the relevant authorities in the department of immigration as to whether or not they fulfil the requirements to come to Australia. They are all evaluated very seriously with health and security checks, as they should be. But none of them just floats into Australia, as the impression being conveyed suggests.

In order to make sure that our refugee program is both fair and orderly and that political support for our migration program as a whole is maintained, we need to take a firm stand against people smuggling. People smuggling puts people’s lives at risk, it undermines support for our refugee program and it encourages lawlessness and corruption in the countries where the people smugglers operate. The Australian government has taken a strong stand against people smugglers, and the measures in this bill are a reflection of that stand. They widen the legal scope of the offences for which people can be prosecuted in relation to people smuggling and they increase the penalties for those convicted.

These are necessary measures, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought law enforcement alone was sufficient to prevent unauthorised arrivals. The US spends $3.5 billion a year patrolling its borders. It does not stop 500,000 people crossing illegally from Mexico into the US, nor does it stop 6.5 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States. This is not because the United States has rolled out the red carpet to illegal immigrants; it is because, given the economic disparity between the US and Mexico, it is simply impossible to prevent the influx of people across a border that is more than 3,000 kilometres long. Likewise, our maritime border is long and porous, and no amount of law enforcement will ever entirely stop unauthorised boat arrivals—although, as I said earlier, our problem is insignificant when compared to problems faced by other countries.

So long as there are countries like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, whose political problems are driving people to seek asylum, we will have this problem. Measures like the ones in this bill can reduce it but I am afraid they will not eliminate it. That is why it is so silly for the opposition to boast that their Pacific solution and their TPVs succeeded in stopping the boats during the years of the Howard government. Those policies inflicted unnecessary cruelties on hundreds of hapless people, as even Liberal members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration acknowledged when they signed up to our report on immigration detention. All of the members of that committee, including the then shadow minister for immigration, signed off on a proposal that did not soften our attitude to unauthorised arrivals but regularise it. The Australian of the Year, Professor McGorrie, explained why the changes to indefinite detention were necessary. He said that these people were being unfairly mentally tortured. (Time expired)

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

I am pleased to speak on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. The purpose of this bill is to amend Australia’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework. In particular, the bill proposes to harmonise the existing offences between acts, create new people-smuggling offences, enhance investigative tools and extend the application of mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated people-smuggling offences. The amendments are as follows. The bill amends the Criminal Code and the Migration Act to increase the sanctions applicable to people smuggling, the ASIO Act to include the protection of Australia’s territorial and border integrity from serious threats within ASIO’s statutory charter, and the T(IA) Act and Surveillance Devices Act to include people smuggling within the definition of a serious offence and thus permit the use of these tools to investigate allegations of people smuggling and to align the definition of ‘foreign intelligence’ in the T(IA) Act with the definition in the Intelligence Services Act 2001.

The reasons that this is being done are all good, because both sides of the House want to see the end of people smuggling. We know the absolutely severe outcomes that you get when you have people smugglers taking to the waters with their precious cargo and we know what has happened in this country. We remember SIEV4, which disappeared with its total cargo of over 400 people. Today the Northern Territory coroner has reported on SIEV36, and he has stated that a crime did occur and that he is referring it on to the Northern Territory DPP. At least five members of the crew and cargo—human cargo—perished because, in his words, they deliberately sabotaged the boat by putting salt in the engine, spreading unleaded petrol around and putting a match to it. That was what they did to try and make sure that they were picked up at sea.

That is the cruel trade of people smuggling, and both sides of the House want to see that this practice is stopped. However, we depart on a few other matters. I will make the point today that the reason why we are talking about this again and having to toughen these measures is that, since taking office more than two years ago, the Labor Party has sent out a very strong signal to those who would come here unlawfully that we are open for business. You do not need to look any further than the words of those seeking to come here themselves. We know now that the mentality is: if you can get to Australia, you are going to get a visa. So the attraction is to get to the Australian mainland. If you get to the Australian mainland, the history is that most of the people who get here by boat get a visa—it is about 80 per cent. And why do they want to come by boat? Because close to 80 per cent of those people who come by boat get a visa, whereas for the overstayers who come by air—and other means, but generally air—who flush their documents down the toilet before they arrive in Australia and then claim asylum it is only about 20 per cent. So why wouldn’t you try and come by boat? These people are paying $20,000 to people smugglers to do this and they are willing to take the risk because they know at the end is the golden orb of a visa to stay in Australia.

We know, as I said, that people have lost their lives on the way here and I have referred to SIEVX. We now know even more from organisations like the International Organisation for Migration. An article in the Herald Sun on Friday, 16 October 2009 stated that the organisation’s Indonesian chief last year confirmed the fact:

People smugglers have clearly noted that there has been a change in policy—

this is in Australia—

over the last year there’s been a considerable kick-up.

For an organisation like that, an honest broker in this area, to observe that really sheets it home to the Australian Labor Party that they have changed the rules and now we know that it is a more attractive destination because, if you can get here, you get to stay here.

Whereas the Howard government realised that—and it came to a head, as most people would know, with the Tampa incident of 2001—and we said, ‘This has got to stop.’ We had hundreds and thousands of people making their way here unlawfully. At the end of the day we said, ‘Well, you’re not going to get to stay here if you get here. You might actually end up in Nauru or Papua New Guinea or elsewhere. Even if you get a visa, you mightn’t get to stay in Australia. You might be sent to somewhere else in the world.’ As a result, it stopped.

I would like to point out these figures. In 2002-03, there was one boat arrival after the Pacific solution. In 2003-04, there were three boat arrivals. In 2004-05, there were no boat arrivals. In 2006-07, there were four boat arrivals. In 2007-08, there were only three boats—even after the Rudd government came to power—because, up to that point, the coalition policies remained intact. So, for the last six years of the Howard government, there were only 18 boats in total, an average of three boats over the six years, every year, because of the border protection policies that were put in place.

People have asked me, ‘What’s the story with these temporary protection visas? How do they work?’ Well, we know that the temporary protection visas allowed them to stay on the Australian mainland and they allowed us to, during that time, assess their suitability and genuineness as refugees. It did not allow them to have a whole lot of the entitlements that have now come with the change in Australian policy, which I will refer to shortly. It did give them protection until their status was found. At the end of the day, they were either deemed to be genuine refugees or they were sent back to their country of origin. So the fact is that, by changing the rules, the Labor Party has now shown Australia as an attractive destination.

In April last year, Iraqis who had spent years in Indonesia told the ABC they would be sailing to Australia now that Rudd has softened our laws. One Iraqi told the ABC:

Kevin Rudd—he’s changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different, different, …

The Australian reported that the Rudd government’s changes prompted some to leave their homes in Iran and Pakistan and catch a boat to Australia. One refugee said:

I know Kevin Rudd is the new PM, … He has tried to get more immigrants. I have heard if someone arrives it is easy. …

Let us see what effect this has had. Mr Rudd decided he would try and do a deal with Indonesian President Yudhoyono. I was very pleased to see him here last week saying that he would try to toughen up. Unfortunately, my belief is not as strong as others’ that Mr Yudhoyono will follow through in any timely way, because he first of all has to get it through his parliament and he has some issues with that.

The fact is that Mr Rudd said there was a boatload of asylum seekers at sea. Interestingly, it is not exactly clear whether they were in international waters or Indonesian territory. They got on the phone and they claimed to be in trouble. Where did they ring? Not the nearest landfall, which was Indonesia; they rang the authorities in Australia and said, ‘Please rescue us.’ So Prime Minister Rudd rang his mate Mr Yudhoyono and said, ‘Look, can you do us a favour? Can you grab these people, rescue them and take them to your nearest port? We have a detention centre that you can put them in.’ But it has backfired, because these same people are now holed up in Merak and they have been holed up in Merak for 157 days in squalid conditions. The Indonesians are saying, ‘It’s not our problem. It’s your problem. You asked us to rescue them but we didn’t say what we were going to do about it.’ So here we have a policy failure, where these people are holed up in Merak and unable to move.

Interestingly, there were 255 people on that boat but there are only 254 now, because their spokesman, ‘Alex’, who has a Canadian accent, has disappeared into the ether. They could not find him. He has left the boat. They do not know where he has gone. We know Alex has a bit of form, because when he was in Canada he was in prison for fraud. This was a person who was endeavouring to come to Australia. I suspect he would not have passed the good character test. But, dare I say—and I note that the Attorney-General Mr McClelland is at the table—that we have a person in Australia at the moment, the Iranian Sheik Leghaei, who has been deemed not a suitable person because he has had adverse security assessments made against him. I note that in reports in the media today he has been given another month to stay here. Writing a reference for this particular person who has had adverse security assessments made against him is not terribly clever. It reminds me of the reference that was written for Mr Mokbel. Be that as it may—

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Canning, return to the bill.

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

I will return to the bill. We are talking about character tests for people who come to Australia. At the end of the day, the character test that would have confronted Alex should have made sure that he was not the sort of person who could remain here.

Let us put this into context. We hear the Prime Minister, the ministers and all of the Labor Party say, ‘Yeah, but look, we haven’t got a problem anything like what they have in Europe.’ And they mention Italy all the time. I am a bit of an expert on the Italian situation. I have been there to have a look at it firsthand. Recently I visited the detention centre in Sicily called Caltanissetta. I not only spoke with the deputies from the city of Caltanissetta, but once I got to the detention centre I spoke to the people involved in the administration of the detention centre, and it was all very revealing. They process them there very quickly and then they either determine that they are refugees and or they return them.

What has been missed by most people in this debate is that in 2008 Italy initiated a formal agreement between the Italian and Libyan authorities to intercept and return unauthorised boats. It was concluded and ratified by the Italian parliament in February 2009. This has been called the push-back policy in Italy. You can think what you like about Mr Berlusconi, and his behaviour as Italian Prime Minister is well documented, but he was elected clearly and still has a clear majority in the Italian polls, from what I understand, and one of the reasons is that he has done something about the illegal arrivals into Italy. Italy, like many European countries, does have very porous borders. At one stage they used to give up and say, ‘Look, we will take you into our reception centres and we will feed you and organise for you to keep going north.’ They were sending them off to Germany because Germany had a very lax system. There was a good pull factor—once they arrived there they got welfare payments, they got housing and they got health care. What does that remind you of? The current situation in Australia.

According to press reports in Italy, in 2008 there were 19,000 arrivals. Because of this push-back policy, in 2009 there were only 1,900—in other words, one-tenth of the arrivals because Mr Berlusconi was able to do a deal with Libya to intercept the boats making the journey across the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean has been the pathway to Europe, which has been a desired destination for political asylum. Here is something that might interest those who continue to use the Italian situation, saying we are nothing like Italy, which has these tens of thousands of arrivals. In proportion, we are. As I have said, so far this year, since Mr Rudd said in budget estimates last year there would be only 200 people, we know there have been over 3,100 people. So in Italy there have been 1,900 and we have had 3,100. We have had 68 boats in that period. So there is something going on that is attracting these people to Australia. There is a pull factor, and I will elaborate on that shortly.

Believe it or not, there is an island off Libya which is much like our Ashmore Reef. Once they get there, they are deemed to be on Italian territory. That is like Ashmore Reef because even today it is being said that those wanting to come to Australia actually plot Ashmore Reef into their GPS and they go looking for our boats so that they can be intercepted and transferred straight to Christmas Island. As we know, the Labor Party keep saying to us, ‘Oh yes, but it is not full.’ You will recall that before the election they said that they were not going to use Christmas Island as they would not need it—it was a redundant facility; a waste of money as it only held 800 people. What have they done now? They have filled it up with tents and dongas. It can now potentially hold up to 2,000 people, and even now it is filling up. There are reports now that there are moves to bring people onto the Australian mainland before they are fully assessed. Why would you do that? The danger is that, once they reach the Australian mainland, they potentially get access to greater legal support and the industry that flows from that.

So, as I say, the situation between Australia and Italy is very similar, but the Italians have dealt with it. As a result, they have now reduced the flow to a trickle. This was made very clear to me when I was in the Italian detention centre in Sicily. It certainly is a pull factor when if you can get here you can stay here and get a visa. That is why we have seen even more robust pushes of people from these countries who are trying to get to the mainland. We saw the group of Sri Lankans that got off the boat in Shark Bay, hundreds of metres from the shore. They swam ashore and then asked how to get to Sydney. That is how determined they are to get to the mainland.

The other point that people continue to make is that the war in Afghanistan is one of the push factors. As was pointed out by the member for Cook yesterday, the Europeans have done an investigation of all those arriving in Europe and the increase in that period of time has been only one half of one per cent, and yet Australia in the same period of time has had an increase of 31 per cent. So what does that tell you?

I was the chair and am now the deputy chair of the Sri Lankan Friendship Group in this place. The reports about Sri Lankans, the Tamils in particular, having to flee Sri Lanka because of the civil war are totally overblown. When you talk to their ministers and you talk to their government and you talk to their high commissioner in Australia, you see that this is absolute rubbish. They are resettling the Tamils into the conflict zone, and this is being monitored by international agencies. There are reports now that something like 80,000 Sri Lankans have appeared after the cyclone season to come to Australia. The Sri Lankans now know that you just get to Australia and you get your visa, so they are preparing on the shores around Trincomalee and places like that to get a fishing boat to come to Australia.

This is a grave area of policy failure by the Australian Labor Party. As a result, we have seen unfortunate deaths and we have seen a situation where the males generally come on their own and when they get here they can apply for all the other entitlements such as spouse visas, et cetera. Finally, we know that this is costing Australia enormously. While pensioners are doing it tough, Centrelink benefits paid to refugees have increased 40 per cent in the last two years—one wonders why this has happened over the past two years—to an estimated $628 million. In the last financial year, 52,469 refugee visa holders received Centrelink benefits, including the age pension, the disability support pension, Austudy, Newstart and youth allowance, and more than $20 million was paid to these people in baby bonuses. No wonder Australia is a desired destination. These are entitlements that you would never get anywhere else. (Time expired)

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

in reply—I thank members for their contributions to the debate. The government welcome the opposition’s support for measures contained in the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 and we look forward to their assistance in ensuring its passage through the parliament.

People smuggling is a pernicious trade which jeopardises the safety, wellbeing and security of those being smuggled. The government takes a hardline approach to dealing with people smugglers, their supporters and their financiers. The government is determined to maintain its strong message to people smugglers that they will face the full force of the law. Domestic efforts to combat people smuggling have yielded strong results. Since September 2008, there have been 117 arrests and 28 convictions of people smugglers in Australia. There are currently 87 people being prosecuted in Australian courts for people smuggling, four of whom are organisers. The government’s strengthened offshore approach is also working. In the same period, Australian government cooperation with regional countries has resulted in more than 130 disruptions involving more than 3,500 people otherwise bound for Australia. Our regional partnership has resulted in the arrest of more than 100 people smugglers overseas.

The bill will amend the ASIO Act to enable ASIO to respond to serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity, including people smuggling. This will support the government’s intelligence-led approach to combating people smuggling and is consistent with the all-hazards approach to national security. Can I make it clear: ASIO’s top priority will remain counterterrorism and counterespionage, and the bill will not change that. Further, the government remains committed to ensuring that national security agencies are appropriately resourced to fulfil their essential functions. For instance, in the 2009-10 budget, the government increased resources to our border protection and national security agencies by some $1.3 billion over six years. This included $685 million specifically for law enforcement and counterterrorism measures and $654 million to implement a comprehensive, whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling and enhance border protection. Within my portfolio alone, some $3.4 billion this financial year has been committed to funding our national security and border protection agencies. This is an increase of $186 million in this year alone.

ASIO has received increased resources to fulfil its important national security role. ASIO currently has around 1,720 staff—1,639 equivalent full-time positions—and this is projected to increase to 1,860 staff by mid-2011. Indeed, ASIO launched a campaign for that staff recruitment program last Friday. ASIO’s operational funding from government increased from $359 million in the 2008-09 financial year to $409 million in the current year, 2009-10, and is projected to increase to $412.9 million in 2010-11. ASIO has undergone very significant expansion in recent years. It has proven itself to be a highly professional and competent organisation that is capable of rapidly adapting and responding to a changing national security environment. The government is confident that ASIO will continue to respond effectively to both longstanding and emerging national security issues.

The government will continue to carefully monitor the resources of all Australian national security and intelligence agencies to ensure they are well equipped to protect our national security. The precise extent of ASIO’s people-smuggling role and the appropriate allocation of resources to support this role are, of course, matters for the Director-General of Security to determine, and we will rely on his expert advice.

This bill complements the government’s plan to combat people smuggling by strengthening Australia’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework. Measures in the bill will address the often serious consequences of people-smuggling activities, including the potential for injury and loss of life on maritime ventures to Australia. They will target enablers and financiers of people-smuggling activities, they will act as a greater deterrent for people smugglers, and they will enable law enforcement and national security agencies to play a greater role in support of whole-of-government efforts to combat people smuggling.

The ability for law enforcement agencies to obtain evidence through telecommunications interception technologies and surveillance devices is also vital to combating people smuggling. The bill will make telecommunications interception available for the investigation of offences relating to people smuggling. The bill will also ensure that law enforcement agencies can make emergency authorisations for the use of surveillance devices for the new aggravated people-smuggling offence. These amendments will ensure that law enforcement agencies are equipped with the necessary tools to effectively combat people smuggling.

The government maintains a hard line on people smugglers and a responsible approach to genuine asylum seekers, consistent with our international obligations. The bill is consistent with this approach. Whilst imposing new offences and strict penalties for people smugglers, the new offence of supporting people smuggling will not target persons who pay for their own passage or for the passage of family members on that same venture.

It is important to recall that conflicts and turmoil around the world are driving a global surge of asylum seekers, just as they did in the period between 1999 and 2003. The bill is an important part of the government’s response to this surge, bolstering the government’s ability to investigate, prosecute and punish people smugglers. I thank the shadow minister for immigration, who has been in attendance during the course of the concluding stage of the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.