Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to take note of answers given by Senator Vanstone today in question time. What emerged today in question time, from the questions that were asked by my colleagues, was that the Prime Minister and Minister Vanstone seem to have quite different views about the cause of this legislation that is before us, namely the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. Yesterday Mr Howard was asked in question time by my colleague Mr Burke why it is that he will not listen to Australian parliamentarians as much as he listened to Indonesian parliamentarians when he initiated this bill. Mr Howard’s response was:

These policies have nothing to do with listening to Indonesian politicians.

It seems that Senator Vanstone has a different view on this. She was asked last night by Kerry O’Brien on The 7.30 Report:

... it’s also absolutely true and irrefutable that this bill has only been written as a result of Indonesia’s outcry at Australia’s acceptance of 42 Papuan refugees. Is that not the fact?

To that the minister, Senator Vanstone, replied:

Well, I think, as you say, it is indisputable we’ve taken into account the concerns of Indonesia.

So there seems to be a difference of opinion going on here between the Prime Minister and Minister Vanstone as to the influence of the Indonesian government in proposing that the law that we have before us be introduced into this parliament. I think it is becoming more and more evident that it was in fact only as a consequence of the Indonesian protests that this law was introduced into the parliament. During an interview yesterday, in which he talked about what kind of signal this sends out into the international community, my colleague Mr Burke said:

The only signal it will send to the region is kick up a big enough fuss and you’ll be able to get Australia to change its laws and that simply results in new claims, new levels of ambit. What we’ve sent as a message to Indonesia is, if you object to our laws, we won’t treat you the way you treat us. We won’t simply explain our laws and say, well, we have our own legal system. Instead, if you complain enough, withdraw your ambassador, complain, we’ll actually offer to change our domestic legislation to try to win your favour back. Now, the message that that sends to the region is a really disturbing one and I don’t know of any other country around that’s willing to change its domestic law to try to fix what essentially is a foreign policy issue.

I think that really captures exactly what has happened here. What kind of signal are we sending out to the international community? It is: if you do not like the way our law is operating on your nationals, all you need to do is come to us and speak to the Prime Minister, the minister for immigration or the Attorney-General and we will do whatever it is that you would like us to do to change our laws in order to accommodate your position and that of your nationals.

What this approach completely seems to ignore is that, when you are sending that kind of signal, it is not just about sending a signal to Indonesia to let them know that we are their friends and are prepared to be friendly neighbours to them. This law is not just about a signal; it is going to actually affect real people and real lives. People are going to be hurt by this law. It might not be a huge number of people but that, nevertheless, will be no consolation to those individuals. People are going to have their lives wrecked by this law. They are going to pay the price with their sanity. We have seen on many occasions just how poor mental health provisions can be within detention centres, particularly when associated with long-term detention and particularly when it involves children. Of course it is important that we have good relations with Indonesia, but diplomatic solutions should not be forged by changing Australian law, particularly when it results in a contravention of our international refugee obligations as this law does and will.