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

Mr President, the good senator rightly asked me a question about the role of temporary protection visas in Australia’s border protection policies. Border protection is one of the primary responsibilities of any government. When temporary protection visas were introduced, they had a very salutary effect on people smugglers. Between November 2001 and June 2003 there were in fact no boats. It took some time to get to the point where there were no boats, but between November 2001 and June 2003 there were none, and since then we have had a trickle.

People who were using people smugglers have largely stopped using them and have stopped coming through other countries of first asylum to come to Australia. A temporary protection visa is consistent with our international obligations. It is consistent, because people who work with refugees understand that the best possible outcome is that refugees can go home. Some interim protection to reassess the situation and ‘Can you go home?’ is a very sensible thing to do. When return is not possible, permanent protection is offered.

That is what Australia has done for more than 8,000 temporary protection visa holders: permanent protection has been offered. As I said, the result of this policy is that the boats slowed, then they stopped and now we have very few. Now we can take our refugee and humanitarian entrants from refugee camps all around the world, where people have been living, sometimes for 20 years, in places with no running water and no electricity. Now we really can give our places to the people most in need.

The Labor Party used to support this policy. They voted for it. They went to the last election with a temporary protection visa policy. They in fact said that a temporary protection visa policy was a part of orderly migration. Mark Latham said it. Robert McClelland said it. Stephen Smith said it. Plenty more of them said it. Now we are looking at a very dangerous backflip. Tony Burke wants to overturn this policy, and he has made that very clear. What Tony Burke wants to have is a ‘Come on down’ policy: ‘Don’t worry about orderly migration. Just hop in those leaky, stinking, unsafe boats and come on down.’ But it is worse. Tony Burke chose the anniversary of the sinking of the SIEVX to assert that our policy had cost 146 children their lives. This policy has in fact saved lives. It has stopped people getting on these stinking, filthy boats and putting their lives at risk. But Mr Burke chose to say:

The boat we remember being sunk five years ago this week was filled with 146 children for one simple reason. The reason there were so many children was overwhelmingly they had dads in Australia who were not allowed to sponsor their infant children to join them.

I had a look at the committee report, and I will have plenty more to say on this. The committee report does say some interesting things, Senator Johnston. The committee report confirms—and Senator Faulkner will know this because he was on this committee—that there were 70 children on the boat.