Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to provide a contribution to this debate on the motion that has been moved by Senator Bartlett. I understand that Senator Ludwig, who is our spokesperson on immigration matters in this chamber, very clearly said that the Labor Party have sought a briefing this afternoon on this from the government. While Senator Nash suggests that we have demanded answers to questions and postulates that we want to know now, I heard Senator Ludwig less than half an hour ago very clearly put on the record that the Labor Party have been cautious about this and have waited for an opportunity to get a briefing—which is probably occurring as this debate is happening. We have not in fact rushed to press the government into any statements. In fact, I had Mr Tony Burke in Darwin over the weekend and he was quite careful to not make public statements about this. He wanted to be quite assured that the information we were getting was accurate. He did not push to make public statements that were uninformed or ill informed. I think to portray the Labor Party’s position in any other way is disingenuous here this afternoon.

In talking about the issue of refugees and asylum seekers in this country under the Howard government, we would portray it as being under a cloud of deception and misinformation. That is one thing that has been proven—and is in the history books of this country—no more so than by the events of 2001. We all remember the infamous ‘children overboard’ affair when the defence minister at that time produced photographs in the middle of a federal election campaign and, backed by the Prime Minister, wildly claimed that children had been thrown overboard. It being a couple of days before the election, there was not a lot of time to get to the truth of the matter. But from a Senate inquiry, an honest, open inquiry which kept the government accountable—which we can no longer do anymore, but this was back in those days when the Senate was actually able to have inquiries that called this government to account—we did actually find that it was a campaign meant to deceive the Australian public. At the end of the day that inquiry proved that children were not thrown overboard—that in fact that boat was sinking and people were getting into the water to save lives: those of adults and kids.

We know that this government has a reputation for providing the general public with misinformation about what happens in the Immigration portfolio. In recent months we have seen the previous minister for immigration demoted because of the handling of a whole range of cases, such as that of Vivian Alvarez Solon. For myself, I chaired a Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee inquiry into the operation of the Migration Act which uncovered many irregularities. We had the Ombudsman’s report that showed us that things were not up to scratch in the immigration department and that the general public of this country ought to be asking some questions about how we treat not only people who are genuinely seeking to migrate but also refugees in particular.

Senator Nash and other previous speakers have talked about the thousands of people who have travelled here by boat. I also want to place on record that we now know, many years later, that quite a large percentage of them have been found to be genuine refugees, so their claim for refugee status was genuine and honest. In the last couple of days we have seen another group of people arrive by boat, some of whom claim to have come from Sri Lanka and a couple of whom claim to have come from Indonesia. This latest incident raises very important questions. What is this government doing to actually stop the people smugglers who make money out of moving these people from one place to another to the extent that we have seen in the last 24 hours? How effective is any agreement that this government has got with Indonesia? How effective is any operation that is in place to ensure that this does not happen when in fact it is still happening? You would have to assume that it is not as effective as this government would like it to be.

Our position is that the people who make money in this way—out of moving, from one country to another, refugees or people who claim to be refugees—ought to be prosecuted and feel the full extent of the law. They are trading in human suffering, something we do not think is acceptable. Not only that but we do not believe they should be allowed to do it a second time around. If what I read in the papers today is correct—that these people actually flew from Sri Lanka to Indonesia and were there for many months before getting aboard a boat—what are we doing with the Indonesian government to assure ourselves that that boat never leaves the land of Indonesia again and never again travels across the sea to get here? You have to ask yourself: if this is happening again, how successful has the policy been in the past and how effective are our strategies to supposedly ensure that this does not happen and, also, how effective is our cooperation in the international sphere?

Another thing that I think we need to be mindful of is this—and, while we make no comment in this chamber about whether or not people are genuine refugees, we do know this: before that assessment has been made and even after it has been made we need to satisfy ourselves as a country that we do not return people to a place where they believe they will face persecution. We are a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. I might add that Indonesia is not, so that poses a severe, real problem for us as to the way in which we should approach refugees and handle refugees on the international scene, as opposed to the way that Indonesia does. We have signed on the dotted line a document that says we respect the rights of people who are genuine refugees, that we will take them into this country and that, for those who have not been proven to be, we will ensure that we will have a return-to-country assessment.

Our analysis of the Migration Act showed very clearly that this is an area in which the department of immigration needs to improve and that this is an area in which there need to be much more comprehensive checks and balances. We do not want to see refugees returned to a country where they may face damage to their lives. When you hear reports of people having been returned to countries and having been killed, imprisoned or persecuted, you understand that the stakes are extremely high. We have signed a United Nations convention that says that we will take that situation very seriously and that we will do our utmost to ensure that any outcomes for refugees are not frightening, that people are in fact safe, that if are they returned to a country they will not be persecuted. If we get it wrong, people are at risk of losing their lives.

I think the message in this debate is the following until we have further information about this group of people, these 85 men, that we are listening to and dealing with: the smugglers need to be dealt with; they need to face the full force of the law; and we need to ensure that any agreement we have with Indonesia is working, as it would seem that somehow there are boats still slipping through the net. We need to ensure that refugees are not returned to a country in which they feel they will be persecuted, for whatever reason. We need to make sure that our assessment of that is thorough and comprehensive. At the end of the day, we are responsible for people’s lives. We have signed up to an international convention that says we will be mindful of that and we will do all that we can to ensure these people remain safe and remain alive. So we need to ensure that refugees are not returned to a country where they face persecution, where their lives are put at risk. If these people turn out not to be genuine refugees then we need to ensure that we are not sending them back to a place where they may well be harmed or imprisoned or where their lives will be put at risk. (Time expired)