Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to make my contribution to the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, I feel compelled to respond to some of the allegations that Senator Bilyk has made. Her speech was like another book of Alice in Wonderland, I have to tell you, or perhaps Senator Bilyk in Ruddland, because it was full of contradictions, nothing in it was as it seemed and everything in it did not mean what she said. Senator Bilyk spent 15 minutes defending the actions of illegal entrants to this country—people who have come to this country prepared to break the law. They come to this country and overstay their visas or they pay people smugglers—who were rightly condemned by Senator Bilyk—thousands of dollars to hop into boats to jump the queue to get here. And Senator Bilyk wants to defend that.

What Senator Bilyk neglected to mention was that those who are found to be genuine refugees inevitably upon application have their bills waived. Senator Bilyk went on to say that it does not act as a deterrent because it does not make any difference for those who are removed from the country. Then she contradicted herself by giving an example of a man who will not be allowed re-entry into Australia because he has a debt. So what is it? Is it working or not? Senator Bilyk does not seem to know; no-one on the government side seems to know. They are living in a fantasy land. By watering down the laws and regulations that had absolutely stopped the traffic in illegal immigrants, they are encouraging people to come to this country illegally.

I know that this is a very sensitive issue. When we speak strongly about it, we risk being called callous or mean spirited. But the simple fact is that there are tens of thousands of people who are seeking to do the right thing by coming to this country through the proper processes and the proper channels. This government seems to ignore their plight and is more interested in rewarding those who are prepared to break the law to come here in the first place. They say that those people are going to be great citizens, because they are prepared to break the law to jump the queue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The coalition cannot allow the government to continue to weaken the integrity of Australia’s migration, borders and programs. It would simply be immoral for us to do so. Australia’s immigration program is fair, just and humane. We look after those who try and do the right thing. Indeed, we look after those who enter this country illegally and are found to be refugees—we do. But this government wants to make it easier. It is as though the government wants to waive the double jeopardy rule so that those people can continue to try to come in. ‘Your debts will be waived.’ They say that they are tough on illegal fishers and tough on people smugglers, but they have not caught too many people smugglers. And they just send the illegal fishers home. They have not been very successful.

The Rudd government continues to peel back the integrity measures that were aimed at keeping our borders secure. The Rudd government is sending a very clear message to people smugglers that business is open in Australia. They can get as many people as they like, put them on a boat and send them out here and they will be treated humanely and respectfully and there face no downside. Currently, the safeguards in the legislation are there to ensure that those who are seeking asylum in Australia who do not have the means to pay are given manageable repayment schedules or they have their detention debts waived or indeed written off.

Rather unkindly, the government seeks to characterise the coalition as wanting to punish refugees by forcing them to pay debt. This is not true. As I have already stated, and as I will restate for the record, those who are found to be genuine refugees can apply to the minister to have their debts waived. Every minister that I am aware of has waived these debts in cases of genuine need or where the person is found to be a genuine refugee. Perhaps the Labor government does not have the same confidence in their minister. Frankly, this is a ministerial discretion that should remain, because there are no clear-cut or absolute cases. There has to be an appropriate deterrent, but there has to be appropriate consideration of the circumstances of each individual.

Speaking of deterrents, abolishing or watering down any of our current migration laws simply says, ‘We’re not that interested in deterring people from breaking the law to get into this country; we’re not interested in closing down the people smugglers who are making hay at the ALP’s soft approach.’ There are so many reports of people smugglers opening for business and sending boats out here in record numbers. Since this government came into power, they have come out here in record numbers. And this government maintains, in their Ruddland fantasy, that nothing they have done is encouraging it. Gee, it must just be coincidence that boatloads of people have been prepared to breach Australia’s borders since this government came to power!

The coalition will stand firm in this. We will not support a watering down of our migration programs. That will only serve to embolden people smugglers, leading them to put at risk even more lives as they continue encouraging and abetting others to break Australia’s law while profiting from it. The coalition will continue to oppose any changes by the Rudd Labor government that will encourage people smugglers and that will make our borders less secure.

A few months ago, I was privy to a report by a journalist. It quoted a number of department figures on how some of the illegal asylum seekers who have entered our country are treated in various circumstances. This was in April. In reading that report, I found out some of the benefits that accrue to asylum seekers. This report said that a family of four—a mother, a father and two children—who were detained on Christmas Island would receive $1,066 in cash or in a card to spend at the local store per fortnight for food, more than many Australian resident families would receive from the government when faced with extreme economic hardship.