Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I will not indulge myself by giving a soliloquy on my last visit to a refugee camp. I will just thank Senator Nettle for pointing out that people do spend up to 20 years in these stinking, terrible places. That is one of the reasons the government has a very strong commitment to border security: because we do not believe that people should be able to self-select who comes and takes our refugee and humanitarian places. We will take advice from the UNHCR. We have certain disagreements with them, and they are sometimes quite substantial, but they are the appropriate body to make those decisions. That is why we have strong border control—because we say: ‘No, you’re not going to take our places. These places are for those most in need and they are in these camps.’

Senator Nettle referred to decisions vis-a-vis people on Nauru and the point was made that an initial decision or a review decision might not be correct. I simply make two points in relation to that. What the senator is talking about is a case load on Nauru that was notoriously difficult. The difference between people from Afghanistan and Pakistan, when they might be in neighbouring villages, is just a line on a map; it is nothing more than that. Those people who arrive with their papers and who can give a cogent story assist themselves in being identified. Those people who do not arrive with any ID—particularly if they feel that they cannot keep their ID, albeit they managed, for example, to fly to Indonesia and have some form of identity documents, even if they were false documents, required for the purpose of escaping—can usually, when they arrive, give a cogent story as to where they lived. If they cannot do that it necessarily brings it into question.

What has happened is that after the expiration of time people’s circumstances might have changed in a country. That does not mean there was a wrong decision in the first place. It means they were not in need of protection then but their circumstances have changed and they are now in need of protection. A change of heart there, I think, is a good thing. It is a good thing that a department recognises when there are changed circumstances and is prepared to say, ‘We didn’t think you were a refugee then but we do now.’ Furthermore, it is a good thing that, if someone is able to produce material that, for example, identifies someone as being from Afghanistan and not Pakistan, a government is prepared to accept that. That is not a case for saying, ‘We’ll just stay here forever,’ and to run the line that Senator Nettle was trying to run, that the immigration department’s decisions are incompetent and that therefore it should never be trusted and people should be able to stay here at taxpayers’ expense for as long as they like until finally somebody gives in.

The UNHCR came out with the same assessments that we did on Nauru. This was not a function of the nasty, mean Australian government. The same assessments were made by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. And in both case loads there were subsequent changes.