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

Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The rising cost of the Government’s failed immigration and border protection policies.

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

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

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today’s editorial in the Sydney Daily Telegraph highlights the matter of public importance before the House today. It says:

The constant arrival of claimed asylum seekers off Australia’s northern coastline comes with a dreadful toll. More than 150 men, women and children, lured by the promises of people-smugglers and a belief that Australia offers easy sanctuary, have drowned at sea since 2008.

This is a cost rarely mentioned in considering the ongoing issue of asylum seekers. And then there is the financial cost which, while of lesser concern, is now becoming outrageous.

It goes on to say:

… the Rudd Government seems unable or unwilling to take serious action to stop it.

Inaction is driving the various costs involved in this higher by the day.

There is nothing humane about policies that encourage people to risk their lives in the hands of people smugglers. People die on boats. This is the inconvenient truth of the asylum seekers debate and the reality for at least hundreds who have perished at sea.

People smugglers are not the modern-day equivalent of Oscar Schindler, as some in the public debate romantically suggest. Today’s people smugglers are criminal syndicates. They put others’ lives at risk for their own profit. If the Prime Minister spent as much time and energy in this House trying to destroy the profits of people smugglers as he does trying to tax the profits of our minerals sector, then perhaps things would be different. But they are not different today. Today we have boats arriving at a rate on average of three per week. This compares to an average of just three per year over the last six years of the Howard government. More people have arrived this month than arrived in total during the last six years of the Howard government once our full suite of measures was in place.

In fact, we have had more people arrive illegally by boat in the first five months of this year than in the 13 years following the end of the Vietnam War. Contrary to popular myth, large numbers of people and boats did not arrive on our shores following the Vietnam War. The boats and their passengers were diverted to offshore processing centres, in places like Galang in Indonesia, as part of a plan supported by the Fraser government. During this genuine regional crisis, Indochinese asylum seekers were processed offshore and resettled in the same way as they were processed at Nauru and Manus Island and resettled under the policies of the Howard government. In this context, Malcolm Fraser was indeed a pioneer of offshore processing.

Whatever our critics might argue, the Australian public know that John Howard and his government stopped the flow of boats. They have now returned, under this government’s failed policies, at an unprecedented rate of arrival. Under the Howard government’s policies, people were no longer risking their lives on boats, as they had previously. People smugglers were no longer earning the superprofits they are today. In fact, they were not earning superprofits or profits at all at that time. Our courts were no longer jammed with endless appeals from those seeking to have the rejection of their asylum claims overturned and to have their stay extended. Our detention population had fallen by the time we left office to just 449 people, of whom only four had arrived by boat, and just 21 children were being detained.

Detention centres such as Curtin and Baxter were closed. New state-of-the-art facilities were built on Christmas Island to cope with the modest arrivals anticipated under the coalition government’s policies—not the policy failures of this government. The coalition introduced reforms to remove children from formal detention and to process health, identity and security checks in parallel with refugee status determination. Those reforms made detention more humane and significantly improved processing efficiency to reduce the time people spent in detention. Those reforms remain coalition policy. The Howard government was confronted with a problem and it delivered a solution. This was done in the face of global asylum applications which at that time were more than 50 per cent higher than they are today.

Sadly, the number of refugees and people seeking asylum around the world remains high today. Of the 10½ million people around the world who are refugees—or the 10.4 million, I should say, having just seen the latest report for 2009, which is slightly less—less than one per cent will receive a resettlement in a third country such as Australia. This is a genuinely unique and very precious opportunity that is on offer to a very small number of people.

Throughout the coalition’s time in government, we maintained a strong resettlement program and we remain committed to this program today. We are still the most generous country per capita in terms of resettling refugees around the world and we boast, as we have for many years, of one of the best resettlement programs anywhere in the world. But, in contrast to the coalition’s policy, the Prime Minister’s policy serves to provide these places to those who seek to gain places by an illegal mode of entry, displacing those who have come by legal means and who have sought their asylum from offshore places in refugee camps. Those who have come by an illegal method have effectively taken the place of those who would have come by another method and who would have been given the support which is so precious and which is so given by a generous Australian community.

But what about those who come to this country by plane, as is often said? Those who arrive by air typically have a valid visa for entry and only a small minority arrive illegally without documentation. I am yet to learn of an asylum seeker who has perished on a 747 heading for Australia. That said, the coalition’s temporary protection visa policy will apply equally to those arriving illegally by air or those who have overstayed their visas and have sought asylum as it will to those who arrive illegally by boat.

The natural consequence of the Rudd government’s failed border protection policies is that our detention centres today are full again and the costs are spiralling out of control. There are now more than 3,600 people in detention. Since the abolition of temporary protection visas, the number of children being detained has grown to 452. There were, as I said earlier, 21 children being detained when the coalition left office. Under this government’s policies, there are now 452 children being detained. So do not be deluded: when boats are arriving at the rate under this government, there are always going to be children coming on boats, but if no boats are coming then there will be no children coming on boats. Under this government, people are being detained in tents, in overcrowded facilities and in remote areas, including the Curtin detention centre closed by the Howard government and reopened by the Rudd government.

This year’s budget outlines a budget blow-out of more than $1 billion on offshore asylum processing costs. Yet these estimates mask an even bigger blow-out. The Rudd government is predicting just 2,000 arrivals in 2010-11 and in the following year 1,260. In this year’s budget they assume 4,500 people will be coming to Australia—having forecast in the budget a year ago that only 200 people would come. So far this year 5,352 people have come and the year is not out yet.  This means that the government is forecasting a drop in illegal boat arrivals of more than 60 per cent in 2010-11. According to the budget presented in the House by this government a month ago, in just a few weeks time we are going to have a 60 per cent decline in the number of people coming illegally by boat to this country. It is no wonder that in estimates Senator Evans, the minister responsible, said, ‘I am not very confident that we can with any surety say that the 2,000 figure that is used for the accounting purpose in that budget paper can be supported.’ He does not believe it. He does not believe his own budget papers.

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has lost control of our borders and of his own budget. The government’s immigration budget is a work of fiction. It assumes boats will just stop coming in two weeks time, without it taking any of the hard decisions needed to deliver that outcome. Perhaps the Prime Minister believes that he can just spin these boats away like he does with all the other problems he has generated for himself. He thinks he can just spin them away out there in the 24-hour news cycle. Perhaps he thinks he is Obi-Wan Kenobi and that he can perform the Jedi mind trick on the boats. He can say, ‘This is not the country you were looking for,’ and somehow they will just go away. Maybe that is the policy, because when Senator Evans was asked in estimates about whether there was any change of policy to back up a 60 per cent fall in illegal boat arrivals, his answer was: ‘No. There’s no change of policy. We just think it’s going to happen.’ There is no need to make hard decisions, no need to do anything of a policy nature and no need to have any resolve. You put it in the budget and then the boats just go away. If only it were that easy. This side of the House knows from when we were in government how difficult these things are to achieve and what is necessary to achieve them. Not even Minister Evans believes his own budget. If boats continue to arrive at their current rate of three per week, carrying more than 600 people per month, Labor’s projected surplus will vanish, along with whatever is left of their budget credibility.

Included in these cost blow-outs is the cost of the charters. That was revealed today in the Daily Telegraph and other News Limited papers, reporting on Senate estimates. In the 10 months to January the department chartered 62 flights to and from Christmas island, at an average cost of $134,000 per flight—an increase of more than 240 per cent on the previous year. They expect to expend a further $8.1 million next year. This means ‘Air Kevin’ from Christmas Island will be going more than twice weekly under the Rudd government’s failed border protection policies. That will be an increase in their business. This brings a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘Kevin 747’. Of those two groups transferred to Villawood in late March and early April, the Prime Minister said in his big statement:

Our view as a Government is that when it comes to asylum seekers, if they do not pass the test of being legitimate asylum seekers, then they are sent home. That is what has happened with the decision made about this group of 90 or 100 asylum seekers, and that is why they are currently being processed for return back home.

That was reported in the Australian on 29 March. They are still there. They are seeking appeals and those who have finished their appeals are now joining a High Court action. So it is back to the bad old days of asylum seekers lining up in our courts to extend their stays. The coalition policy of offshore processing in a third country ended those types of claims.

Under this Prime Minister, the government can refuse to assess a person’s asylum claim purely on the basis of their nationality. Those on the other side of the House might want to run and hide on this issue and pretend this is not a big deal. But they know that that decision on 9 April was absolutely and utterly discriminatory, and they should be ashamed of it. What they have said is: ‘If you’re an Afghan or you’re a Sri Lankan and you want to claim asylum in Australia then we’re not even going to assess your claim, not because of your circumstances; it is because you are an Afghan or a Sri Lankan.’ The members opposite know that the convention is very clear on the point that you cannot discriminate on the basis of someone’s nationality. They should be ashamed of that policy. Since they announced that policy, at least 30 boats, carrying over 1,000 asylum seekers, have come to Australia. The policy has proved to be as discriminatory as it is ineffective.

Is it any wonder that those running these boats to Australia are in no doubt about the resolve of this Prime Minister? He simply has no resolve. No-one knows where the Prime Minister stands on this issue. One day he is freezing asylum claims and the next day he is pretending to be Mother Teresa on these issues. You cannot work out where this guy stands on the issue of asylum seekers. On this issue, he has walked both sides of the street—and taken a good stroll on the nature strips as well. Whether it is his abandonment of the policies that worked or his abandonment of his resolve when he rolled over on the Oceanic Viking, the people-smugglers have his measure. No wonder Sajjad Hussain Noor, a people-smuggler in Indonesia, told SBS:

… the door is open, if a door is open anyone can come in … people think its easier in Australia … you can become an Australian citizen straight away.

I do not doubt that the one-third of Australians who do not support the coalition’s strong border protection policies are motivated by a genuine sense of compassion. What I am disappointed about is that those opposite and others in this debate cannot acknowledge that pursuing policies that stop boats saves lives, stops putting people at risk and opens up opportunities for people in camps all around the world to have their chance of resettlement in this country. This government is denying them that chance because they simply cannot work out who they are and cannot pursue a coordinated or consistent policy on this matter. The coalition has the support of the Australian people on this issue because they know where we stand. By contrast, the Rudd government’s policies have failed and they know it. (Time expired)

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

The shadow minister’s thesis was based on a desire to save lives, and I take him at face value—I know him and I know he is genuine in saying that—but I point out that the central theme of the opposition’s policy is the reintroduction of temporary protection visas and the Pacific solution. In respect of the temporary protection visas, I ask members to reflect back to October 2001. On 18 October 2001, a vessel left a port in Indonesia carrying a bit over 400 people. The following day, that vessel sunk on the high seas in international waters. Upon that vessel there were women, children and some men. The women had one thing in common, aside from losing their lives. The women were coming to Australia to make contact, to resume their relationships, with male partners in Australia on temporary protection visas. The children were on that vessel because they were seeking to be reunited with their fathers in Australia on temporary protection visas.

On the night of 19 October 2001, 146 children lost their lives, 142 women lost their lives and 62 men lost their wives. The number of women and children on that vessel was significantly greater because of the then government’s temporary protection visa policy. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and I think that has been recognised by a number of members on the other side. Those events, more than anything, should cause the opposition to review their policies.

From analysing the issues, I can say that dealing with those seeking asylum internationally is a complex global challenge. From 2009 figures, in the order of 36 million people are of concern to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and in the order of 983,000 people are seeking asylum. It is a massive and complex international problem that is confronting the rest of the world. The United States takes by far the greatest number of asylum seekers—in the order of 50,000—and Canada takes 30,000. The European Union countries take 250,000 and eight of those countries received in excess of 10,000 asylum seekers in 2009—France, 40,000; the United Kingdom 30,000; Germany, 30,000. Australia received 6,000 people seeking asylum in 2009. That puts the issue in context. This issue requires perspective, balance and a proportionate response, not a response based on emotion, fear and rhetoric and, in particular, not a response that involves adopting policies that are draconian in their application and not based on the evidence.

The Australian government have some of the toughest border protection policies of any country in the world. We have excision of the offshore islands; we have offshore processing; we have mandatory detention for the purpose of conducting health, identity and security assessments; and, we have compulsory return of persons found to be not genuinely in need of asylum in our country. Indeed, in recent months there has been a rejection rate in the order of 50 per cent of those seeking asylum on the basis of information from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and in-country information. As a result of that updated information and the need to obtain additional information, the government made a decision in April of this year to suspend processing claims for asylum for people from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Both the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Prime Minister indicated that, on resumption of processing and being in receipt of that updated information from the UNHCR and in-country information, it is likely that the rate of rejection will increase.

I note the text of the MPI criticises the government’s actions. This government has, more than any other peacetime government, devoted more to border protection in terms of interdiction capability, intelligence gathering capabilities and capacity building, working in cooperation with regional countries, introducing laws into Australia to introduce serious penalties for providing material support to a people-smuggling operation and giving the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation the ability to assist law enforcement agencies in fighting people smuggling.

These are very significant steps that the government has taken and with quite some results. Domestically there have been 149 arrests, 45 convictions and 102 prosecutions. I note the shadow minister indicated the importance of working with and having good relations with our neighbours. As a result of significant international cooperation with our neighbours, Indonesia has undertaken 158 disruptions involving 3,810 people and has made 92 arrests; Malaysia has undertaken 28 disruptions involving 873 people and has made 12 arrests; Sri Lanka has had 16 disruptions with 275 people involved and 55 arrests. You have to ask yourself—and I do ask—what would be the consequence and the attitude of those countries if we effectively thumbed our noses at them in terms of working for a regional approach to this issue?

In that context I note the one issue the honourable member did not mention in his presentation was the policy of turning boats back. I again ask the question: what would have been the consequence of turning back SIEVX or suspect illegal vessel 10, which was the vessel on which the women and children perished on 19 October 2001? What would be the consequence of asking our servicemen and servicewomen to turn a boat such as that around? In reality the argument is a sham. Out of 242 boats involving 14,000 people, there were only ever seven boats turned around by the opposition. Again, I suggest it is all talk.

What the honourable member did not refer to in his speech is the evidence base that is required before draconian actions against people are introduced as a policy commitment. What are the facts? I note in his op-ed today the shadow minister referred to around 2001 when he put forward that, as a result of the then coalition’s policies, there was a dramatic decline in people seeking asylum in Australia. I think he acknowledged that between 1999 and 2001 there were some 12,000 people seeking asylum in Australia. That happened incidentally after the temporary protection visas were introduced in 1999. But what he does not advise the Australian people is that internationally there was a dramatic decline in the number of people seeking asylum between 2001 and 2003. In terms of Iraqis, there was a 50 per cent reduction from 50,400 to 25,300; Afghans, a 73 per cent drop from 52,900 to 14,216; and, Sri Lankans went from 14,500 to 5,600, a 61 per cent drop. In fact, 2001 and 2002 saw the largest scale returns in the 59-year history of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Those figures have not been disclosed by the opposition but they coincide with the reduction that the opposition is claiming to have occurred after 2001.

If I can bring that forward to the current situation to indicate that desperation is the motivator of people seeking asylum in Australia, between 2005 and 2008 the number of Afghans seeking asylum internationally went up 139 per cent from 7,700 to 18,400, the number of Sri Lankans went up 72 per cent from 5,600 to 9,600, and indeed the figures in respect of Afghans last year went up a further 34 per cent from 18,452 to 24,657. These numbers indicate the subsidence in those seeking asylum in 2001 and the re-emergence of those seeking asylum after those years to which I referred. They are the facts. Temporary protection visas did not work. They were introduced in 1999 and we saw the biggest influx under the former government during that period.

I question whether Australians want to go back to the Pacific solution. If you look at the facts—and they are considered by the Australian people—I do not think they will. There were 1,637 people on Nauru and Manus Island. Seventy per cent of those people were resettled and 95 per cent of them were resettled in Australia. Ninety-five per cent were recognised as refugees. The so-called Pacific solution—that is, using these third countries—cost $314 million, whereas the amount spent by the government on surveillance during that period was only $264 million. So more was spent by the government in that offshore solution, in the words of Paul Kelly, ‘cajoling’ governments to accept these people.

In addition, if we think of the former government’s motives, their whole policy framework was based on treating people in the harsh and draconian manner that I have referred to for the purpose of creating a disincentive. That was the approach they previously adopted and I would remind the Australian people, and indeed members of the House, how children were treated under the period of the former government. In 1999-2000, there were 976 children in detention. In 2000-01, there were 1,923 children in detention. In 2001-02, there were 1,696 children detained behind razor wire. The concerning thing is not only the numbers but the length of time that children were detained. The average time was one year eight months and 11 days in 2003 and, as at 1 October 2003, more than 50 per cent of children had spent greater than two years in detention.

This is a serious issue. It is an issue of concern to the Australian people. The government is taking serious and very strident measures—indeed, some of the toughest policies in the world. But Australians do not want to see women and children drowning on the high seas trying to make contact with their partners who are here because family reunions have been precluded under temporary protection visas. They do not want to see 50 per cent of children being detained for in excess of two years on Nauru, Manus Island or some other third country. Australians are fair. They are decent people. They are prepared to make reasonable, proportionate decisions based on the facts. The opposition in their policy development have ignored those facts and I call on them to revise their views. (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to respond to what the Attorney-General was just saying because I think this is very important. He said that the policy of temporary protection visas, which was successful in putting people smugglers out of business and which we intend to be successful again when we get back into government, has been responsible for people undertaking the dangerous journey to Australia illegally. I would say to him that the situation is exactly the opposite of that. It is the government’s weakness and lack of resolve on this issue that is encouraging people to undertake this dangerous journey. That is why we are now hearing anecdotal and media reports of boats that have left Indonesia and never been seen or heard from again. Presumably the people who were on those boats were lost, as he indicated at the start of his speech. We all know the Attorney-General is an honourable man; no-one on this side of the House would dispute that. But what he was saying is the exact opposite of what is actually occurring. What is occurring is that, because of the government’s lack of resolve and because of the government’s weakness, people smugglers have been encouraged to go back into that evil trade and subsequently people are again being lost while making the dangerous and hazardous journey to Australia.

In the 2½ years of the Rudd government there have been an astonishing number of failures—pink batts, the bloated school hall program, outrageous wasted spending and latterly this new mining tax that is going to drive a stake through the heart of Australia’s prosperity—but their failure to protect Australia’s borders is perhaps the worst. When Labor came to office, they inherited a situation where this problem had been solved. All they needed to do was just leave well enough alone. If they had come to office and done what they said they were going to do prior to the last election—that is, continue with the tough border protection policies of the Howard government—Australia would not have had this problem re-emerge where we find a tsunami of illegal arrivals coming down to Australia, the greatest rate of illegal arrivals that we have seen in our history.

The empirical evidence on this just does not lie. It is so easy to understand what is happening here. The problem of illegal arrivals has occurred for a long period of time. In the 1990s it started to significantly deteriorate. By the mid-1990s we were experiencing up to 21 illegal boat arrivals a year. That started to increase towards the end of the 1990s. In the financial year 1989-90, we had 42 illegal boat arrivals carrying almost a thousand people. In the year 1999-2000, we had 54 illegal boat arrivals.

By the year 2000 the Howard government understood that if they were not going to do anything, if they were just going to sit back and allow this problem to snowball, it would get worse and worse because, of course, the more people who arrive here successfully, the more often that occurs, the more encouragement that gives to people to undertake this journey. The Howard government decided that we were not going accept this, so we instituted a series of measures that sent the message to the people smugglers that we were no longer going to be a soft touch for them to smuggle people into Australia illegally. Those measures are well documented, so I do not need to go through them all now, and they had an instantaneous effect of making sure that people smugglers could no longer go out and sell their product of gaining people entry illegally into Australia. Once we took those tough measures, this problem essentially evaporated. In the six years from the end of 2002 we had 18 illegal boat arrivals. So, on average, we had three illegal boat arrivals a year. That is just a weekend of illegal arrivals under this government.

As I said, this problem had essentially evaporated because the people smugglers could not go out and sell a product when the message had gone out loud and clear to the international community that Australia was no longer a soft touch on our borders. Then Kevin Rudd came to office. Just prior to the last election he said that he would happily turn the boats around. Like so many of the promises that he made, this one proved to be hollow. In August 2008 he decided that to make himself a hero to the left wing of his own party he was going to weaken the robust system of border protection that was put in place by the previous government. He did that by abolishing temporary protection visas and replacing them with permanent protection, by closing the offshore processing that had been successful in Nauru and Manus Island, by reneging on the promise to turn boats back when the circumstances allowed and, most shamefully, by making a special deal to process 78 passengers on board the Oceanic Vikingcertainly one of the low points in Australia’s immigration history.

When Kevin Rudd came to office he inherited a situation where there were eight people in detention on Christmas Island—there are now about 2½ thousand, and every week there are charter flights taking people from Christmas Island to the mainland—but he could not just leave it alone. As a result of the weakening of Australia’s border protection system, the people smugglers were encouraged back into business. Again you can look at it empirically, it is just so clear: within months of Kevin Rudd making the announcement that he was going soft on our borders, the people smugglers went back into business. In 2008-09 we had 24 illegal arrivals. In this last financial year we have now had 112 illegal boat arrivals in Australian waters. It is the worst year on record, and those boats have brought over 4½ thousand people illegally to Australia.

Just so everyone understands, I will explain the way this evil trade works, because I think that is very important. I have had the opportunity to go out with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and with the Navy and also to visit Christmas Island within recent months. What is happening is that people smugglers are incredibly sophisticated organised criminal networks and there is a lot of money involved. People can pay up to US$15,000 a head to be smuggled illegally into Australia. If you think about that, an illegal boat arrival of 60 people could mean up to three-quarters of a million Australian dollars for the criminal networks that have facilitated it. So this is big business and significant organised crime, yet these are the people who are now in control of part of Australia’s humanitarian immigration program.

What happens is that you get to Indonesia or Malaysia and you contact a people smuggler. Those networks are very well established. You make arrangements for them to smuggle you into Australia. You embark usually at one of two points within Indonesia—one in Java and one in West Timor. If you are leaving from West Timor you head directly south to the Ashmore islands; if you are leaving from Java you head directly south to Christmas Island. Contrary to popular opinion you are not trying to avoid the Australian authorities. The whole trade is actually about running into the Australian authorities. The most sophisticated networks will equip these boats with positioning systems and satellite phones so you can identify that you are in Australian waters. You will then contact the Australian government—sometimes the Western Australian police, sometimes the Australian Maritime Safety Authority—and there have been reports of contacting people overseas who have then contacted Australian authorities. The Australian authorities will come and collect you and transfer you to Christmas Island. When you are on Christmas Island you will be processed within, on average, 104 days and then your chance of coming to Australia permanently is in the high 90s.

What a great product for people smugglers to sell! You pay them up to US$15,000, they will get you into Australian waters, the Australian authorities will come and collect you and transfer you to Christmas Island and, within a couple of months of being on Christmas Island, your chances of coming to Australia permanently are incredibly high. Whilst that continues to be the situation, people smugglers will be able to sell that product, as they are doing, in increasing numbers. That is why this problem continues to snowball, why the rate of illegal arrivals continues to increase over time. The consequences are that Labor has broken its promise not to process people on the mainland Australia and that the Australian taxpayer has had to shell out another $1 billion because of the budget blow-out. That is an astonishing figure. It comprises $770 million to increase the offshore asylum seeker management program and $236 million to be spent on capital items, including the upgrade of the facility on Christmas Island, the reopening of the Curtin detention facility and the upgrades to other centres around Australia. And just today we have heard more information about the expensive charter flights which have now blown out to cost the Australian taxpayer $8.2 million.

All this because Kevin Rudd just could not leave the policy alone when he came to government. Only the coalition have the resolve to actually do something to address this issue. The Prime Minister has effectively said that Labor will not do anything more. They just accept that this is now the situation, that people smugglers will control part of Australia’s immigration system. The coalition have a plan to put those people smugglers out of business. We will commence discussions to find a place to process people offshore, a policy that has been successful in the past. We will reintroduce temporary protection visas, a vital part of the program to discourage people smugglers from their trade. We will also turn the boats back when circumstances allow. (Time expired)

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

The Liberal Party is long on fear but very short on solutions and very, very short on facts. The two speeches that we have just heard on this matter of public importance, from the member for Cook and member for Stirling, are yet a further representation of just how long on fear and short on facts the opposition actually is: ‘Never let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign.’ There is nothing but fear from the Liberal Party—fear and a refusal to consider the context in which people come from all over the world to Australia as unauthorised boat arrivals.

This is a fear campaign which, first, is based on ignoring the very small numbers of unauthorised arrivals by boat in Australia and, indeed, the very small numbers of refugee claims. We have had it again from the member for Stirling, who referred ridiculously to the ‘tsunami’ of arrivals. That kind of language is completely unhelpful in considering the real issues that are involved. It is a very small number of unauthorised arrivals and a small number of refugees and refugee claims. The number of displaced persons is small by comparison to the total number of displaced persons worldwide. The number of unauthorised arrivals is small by comparison to the total number of unauthorised arrivals in other countries. The number of asylum claims is small in relation to asylum claims in other countries.

Let us take the experience in Europe, for example. Compared to the very small numbers in Australia, in Europe there were 286,700 asylum claims in 2009, 283,700 in 2008 and 249,600 in 2007. The United States, with the largest number of claims of any of the industrialised countries, had nearly 50,000 claims in 2009, closely followed by France with 42,000 and Canada with 33,000 claims for asylum. A relatively small number—6,500 claims in total—were lodged in Australia and New Zealand combined in 2009. That is to give proper context, to look at the smallness of the actual numbers involved, which is where this debate should be positioned. The numbers are small in relation to the total immigration to Australia, small in comparison to the number of unauthorised arrivals or visa overstayers who come by air, and small compared to Australia’s population of around 22.3 million and growing.

This is a disgraceful fear campaign which demonises people in need and diminishes the humanity of every Australian. It is a fear campaign which ignores the long history of resettlement of refugees in this country, a history of which all Australians can be very proud. Since the Second World War over 700,000 refugees and displaced persons have settled in Australia. Australia played a large part in the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and article 14 of that universal declaration declares the rights of everyone anywhere in the world to seek asylum. The 1951 refugee convention, which Australia is a party to and played a large part in the creation of, prohibits states from imposing penalties on those who arrive without authorisation coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened. People seeking asylum are not illegal, and the member for Cook and the member for Stirling should stop misleading this House by suggesting that they are. It is very important that it is understood clearly just what the status is of unauthorised arrivals by boat.

Part of the fear campaign is carried out by misrepresentation of the firm approach that the Rudd government has taken to unauthorised arrivals. We have more assets patrolling our borders than any Australian government in the past. We have spent more on international cooperation to counter people smuggling than any other government. One hundred and thirty-nine arrests and 45 convictions of people smugglers have taken place in Australia since September 2008. There are currently 92 people being prosecuted in Australian courts for people smuggling. The government recently introduced further measures into the parliament to strengthen Australia’s anti-people-smuggling laws, and of course we work cooperatively with our regional partners to combat people smuggling. We take a responsible approach to genuine asylum seekers and protecting our national security, including offshore processing, mandatory detention and stringent health, identity and ASIO security checks. We act consistently with our international obligations, which is a very different position from that presently being adopted by those opposite, who are simply playing politics.

Their fear campaign rests on the false assertion that global factors are irrelevant. In that regard, it is worth remembering what the former immigration minister of the former government, the member for Berowra, said in 1999 at the time of large increases in unauthorised arrivals. He said:

It is timely to remember that the use of people smugglers to get around a country’s rules about who can come and who can stay is a world-wide problem. Australia is not alone. We are also seeing large numbers of people seeking asylum in developed countries—people from the same groups as we are seeing in Australia. For example, Iraqi asylum-seekers are registered in 77 countries and last year there were over 34,000 applications for asylum lodged by Iraqis in 19 European countries.

Exactly the same position as obtained in 1999 is still the case today. Australia is not alone in seeing increases in claims from people from Afghanistan. In 2008 and 2009 there were increases in unauthorised arrivals from Afghanistan experienced in several other countries around the world, including the US, Canada, Germany, France and Norway. We saw in this country in 2008 and 2009—reflecting dreadful circumstances in Sri Lanka—an increase in asylum claims from Sri Lanka, and there has been a corresponding increase in asylum claims from people from Sri Lanka in France, in Switzerland, in New Zealand, in Japan and in Germany. We have even seen asylum seekers from Sri Lanka arriving on the west coast of Canada. This is a phenomenon that is worldwide. It was properly recognised by the former immigration minister, the member for Berowra, and those opposite should recognise it now rather than conducting the kind of fear campaign that they are conducting. They would rather continue with their pretence that the barbarous and inhumane methods which they wish to return to—including the appalling suggestion that there should be a turning back of boats—are effective. These sorts of methods diminish us all, and it is a pretence to suggest that they are effective.

Part of the fear campaign—and that is the supposed topic of the matter of public importance today—is the use of language like ‘budget blow-out’ which, again, is seeking to entirely ignore the context in which this problem arises. It pretends that the Howard government did not equally spend vast amounts of money on its regrettably partially failed solution, and those vast amounts of money included some $1.5 billion spent on processing unauthorised maritime arrivals, coping with just the three-year surge that was experienced from 1999 to 2001. During the time of the Howard government there were some 244 boats carrying 13,659 asylum seekers and, unsurprisingly, there was an increase in Commonwealth expenditure to deal with that surge in unauthorised arrivals. During that surge in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when over 12,000 people arrived, the Liberals under former Prime Minister John Howard did exactly what the government is now doing—they increased our country’s detention capacity and increased the resources that were directed to it. It was of course the Howard government that built the Christmas Island detention centre, at a cost of almost $400 million. It was announced originally in the 2002 budget at a cost of $153.7 million for construction costs and $34.4 million in commissioning, but it blew out to almost $400 million.

It is about time that those opposite tried to return debate on this subject to something approaching a humane basis, to something approaching a rational basis, and not persist with their fear campaign. (Time expired)

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

I rise this afternoon to speak on this very important matter of public importance to do with this government’s failed immigration and border protection policies. I do so in the context of what happened in my own electorate last Friday. Last Friday I learned from a leak from the media that the department of immigration was looking at placing illegal arrivals in an unused mining camp—although there are still 30 people in it—at Dalby. This is because of the overflow from Christmas Island. There was no consultation with me or the community. There had been some very scant contact with the mayor, who I understand this afternoon is meeting with the department of immigration here in Canberra. I think he has been told that at this stage they do not have plans prepared to put people into Dalby. I emphasise ‘at this stage’. I suggest the minister will have the final say.

While the Dalby community was reacting to this news late last week, two more illegal boats arrived in our waters, which takes the total to 136 boats. The Rudd government’s policy on border protection has been a clear failure. Since this government changed the legislation in 2008 and softened Australia’s border protection, some 6,389 people have risked their lives to travel here in 136 dodgy boats. This year alone, 2010, some 3,354 people have arrived in some 68 leaky boats. Late last year, tragically, a boat disappeared with at least 100 people reportedly having died. And this is just one of the incidents that gets reported—what happens to the others who have taken this treacherous trip but have not made it? They have been utilising people-smuggling rackets in an effort to come to our shores because of the soft approach that this government has taken to protecting Australia’s borders. Quite clearly, when the Rudd government softened its policies it sent a message to the people smugglers of the world, and they are making money out of human misery. That is the problem with this policy.

Under the Howard government, the illegal, insidious trade of people smuggling was brought to a grinding halt. In November 2007, there were just two detainees on Christmas Island. The population now is at least 2,500. Look at the Howard government’s record. According to the World Refugee Survey conducted by the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, the Rudd government resettled 25 per cent fewer refugees in 2009, some 8,742, than under the Howard government in 2007, which settled 12,133. So we clearly had a policy of showing compassion and playing our part, taking a humanitarian approach, in dealing with people who are in refugee camps around the world. I have been to some of these refugee camps, and your heart goes out to those people who are trying to find a country they can go to to get a better chance in life. I have seen them firsthand.

People on the weekend were making comments that Dalby is a racist and xenophobic community. I reject that absolutely. Many 457 visa workers have come to my electorate. I want to read into the record in the limited time available some information from Diesel Electrics, a small business in Dalby. They have two 457 employees, and until two weeks ago one man had not seen his wife and seven-year-old son for nearly two years. They have come to this country legally. They are educated and hardworking, and have also come from very desperate circumstances. They get no support and have to pay over $400 a month in private health insurance just to be here and to have access to medical facilities such as the Dalby hospital. The 457 visa approach has been working, and the current situation just does not seem fair to this person or to many other people in my community of Dalby. (Time expired)

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. Let’s call a spade a spade. The low-grade politics pursued by the opposition dates back to their loss in the 1993 election. After that loss, bipartisanship on immigration was destroyed in their pursuit to win the 1996 election. You can also date the breaking up of bipartisanship on Indigenous issues to the loss of the 1993 election. The member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, who is in the chamber, understands what I am saying. What we have here is dog whistling going out to the prejudiced and ignorant in the community who are frightened when it comes to immigration and who are frightened when it comes to Aboriginal affairs, when senior figures go out and spread fear and misrepresent the situation.

I am not going to have it said that our policy is an inhumane policy or that the policies of the Howard government on detention were more humane, because that is a rewriting of history by the member for Cook. As a result of the Palmer and Comrie reports that were tabled in 2005, there was a change in the detention regimes. There have been two changes to detention providers since that time. Members of the then backbench—the member for Kooyong, Mr Georgiou; the member for McMillan, Mr Broadbent; the member for Pearce, Judi Moylan; the former member for Cook, Bruce Baird; and the member for Hughes, Danna Vale—all railed against the inhumane detention policy. There was no time limit on the detention of women and children. There was no time limit on the processing of applications. We, as part of our policy prior to the last election, said we would get rid of TPVs. We also put time lines on the processing of applications.

At the moment, we have suspended for three months and six months two classes of visa. That does not breach the Racial Discrimination Act or the convention. It is merely to have a look at the current situation in those countries to see whether the situation has changed and whether people still have a well-founded fear of persecution. Reasonable lawyers will tell you that. We have a humane policy. We are not pariahs in the international community.

The Howard government, in response to Tampa, ambushed the then opposition with less than an hour’s notice on legislation—not because it was humane, not because it was good policy but because they were languishing in the polls and it was a political solution. It was a successful political solution. But where are the Tampa asylum seekers now? Most of them were successfully processed as refugees and relocated. In our current policy, we have wound back the harsher elements of the Howard regime and we do not apologise. We conform to our international obligations and have put more resources towards that.

The worst part of all this is the signal that is going out to the community. The two areas where there should be bipartisan support and where both sides should sit down and talk to one another are Aboriginal issues and immigration. This country was founded on migration. We have taken in refugees and we should be proud of it. These people are now being demonised. They are called illegal when they are not. The term is ‘asylum seekers’. If they are not genuine refugees, they are sent back home.

An alternative government continuing to do this is a disgrace. It is done for one reason only—not because they are more humane or compassionate or because their policy will work; it is a sleazy grab for votes from those sections of the community that respond to this button when it is pushed. We should be trying to educate the community.

When I look at the figures going back 20 years or so there is not much variation. I was a member of the Keating government when we introduced mandatory detention. I stood up and said it was the right policy at the time because you should not release people into the community unless they have had health and security checks and unless they have passed the threshold test of whether they are genuine asylum seekers, genuine refugees.

This debate by the opposition is a disgrace. They have taken the low road and it is all about votes.

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

Order! The discussion is now concluded.