Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, in opening his contribution to this discussion on border security, asked the rhetorical question, ‘What is a policy failure?’ and proceeded to try and answer his own question as part of the debate. The correct answer, in part, is to rely on a maxim that would be familiar to the many lawyers in this place, particularly the many lawyers on the opposition benches—that is, if you want to go to a court of equity for redress, for comfort, come with clean hands or, as was said in another famous document, those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. So in this discussion why don’t we start properly at the beginning, avoiding rhetorical questions, and ask: who has clean hands in this debate and who has hands that are soiled, dirty and unbecoming? To answer that question, why don’t we review what has occurred in the area of illegal immigrants or asylum seekers over the last six, seven or eight years in this country. Let us examine the actual record of the previous Howard government and let us compare and contrast that record, based in fact, with the current practices of the Rudd Labor government. Let us review the practices of the previous government.

It is fair to comment at the outset that their solution to the then problem of asylum seekers was a barbaric solution. It resulted in deaths at sea, wholesale lying to the Australian public, excision of offshore islands of this nation, remote processing facilities and, what is worse, the locking up of children and women, often for periods of one or more years, simply on the basis that these people did not have the immediate capacity to defend their interests. What was the result of that practice, implemented wilfully, deliberately and over a long period of time by the Howard government? When the dust had settled, what did we find as those then asylum seekers and refugees sought recourse to the tribunals in this country? We found that over 94 per cent of those persons were admitted lawfully to this country, issued with visas, permitted to settle and get about their lawful and proper domestic business. The policy that was created, implemented and which the previous government stood by for a long period of time resulted in total failure in practice and the opposite of what it sought to achieve—that is, the total, lawful admission to this country of an overwhelming majority of those persons who were then described as asylum seekers. The position of the then Howard government in practice and over time was one of total failure.

What have they learnt from that experience going back four and five years? What have they been able to put into practice? What wisdom have they been able to bring and what capacity have they added to this debate, as this country faces difficult choices about people who are lost at sea? After almost two years in opposition, their position is simply a search for a policy on immigration. The coalition know they cannot go back to the Howard era policies and the two contributions to date have expressly refused to address the issue of a sound policy on illegal immigrants into this country. When Labor abolished the failed and wasteful Pacific solution, who opposed it? Not the opposition. When Labor abolished the failed and inhumane temporary protection visa regime, who moved to disallow the regulations and give effect to their beliefs? Not the opposition. The opposition, subsequent to both of those moves by the current Labor government, have made no commitment at all to reintroducing either of those demonstrably failed policies. In addition to not giving a commitment to previous policies, they have outlined no policy that the Australian people can give consideration to.

In contrast, Labor has maintained excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing of irregular maritime arrivals on Christmas Island. Even in some of the more divisive elements of the previous government’s policy, which the Labor government committed to prior to the last election and has maintained since, the opposition coalition cannot differentiate themselves then or now in policy. They cannot participate in a public debate like this because they do not have a policy. We know they do not have a policy because the two representatives of the coalition who chose to participate in this debate in the last half an hour, Senator Brandis and Senator Joyce, could not outline one phrase or one clause which might be characterised as a policy on illegal immigrants and which they might be able to put in this debate or take to the Australian people in due course. There is no policy; simply a vacuum.

Why is that? Because for the last six months all they have done is concentrate on themselves and their own wasted failures. They are so hopelessly divided, confused, devoid of purpose and have no capacity to get themselves out of the policy development mire they have put themselves in, particularly in the last six weeks. In that context it is unfair to say that some members of the coalition have not addressed themselves to this issue. Indeed, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration unanimously endorsed the Rudd government’s new directions in detention policy. That was best described by members of that committee as ‘a continuation of the reforms begun under the Howard government in 2005’. Yet when the legislation giving effect to those reforms was introduced into the parliament the coalition opposed it. Coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration endorsed its call for the abolition of detention debt, yet when the legislation was introduced into the parliament we had a huge, continuing and histrionic debate about the utility of abolishing debts accumulated by people who had been locked up in detention centres for many years. What did the coalition do then? They opposed the bill that was introduced by the Rudd Labor government.

While on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, the shadow minister expressed concern about people without work rights and access to Medicare. The government listened to the recommendations of that committee, in a unanimous sense, and moved to address those issues. It wanted to reform work rights for asylum seekers, but what was the coalition’s response? They moved to disallow the regulations. Principled coalition members and senators, to their credit, spoke in favour of the government’s changes on each occasion. In their search for a policy—because they have no policy, because their two principal spokesmen in this chamber today could not put words towards a policy, because they have not worked it out in either party room or brought it together in their joint party room—I suggest that the coalition follow the worthwhile advice of Senator Troeth when she spoke recently on an immigration issue. She said:

Let us grasp a new opportunity to understand the difference between sending the wrong message to those who truly wish us harm and sending the right message to those who need our help. Australia does not have to choose between strong, secure borders and compassion for those seeking liberty and freedom. We can have both.

Of course we can have both. As if it is beyond the wisdom of humankind to work out a solution to this problem. The words of Senator Troeth, both in terms of emotion and in terms of sound policy advice, are worth following.

We heard some discussion earlier, by both Senator Feeney and Senator Joyce, about the international factors that drive the increase in illegal immigration or asylum seekers from time to time. As some of the other speakers today have said, we know that the number of those who are displaced, seeking a permanent home or seeking comfort have now risen to many millions. Somewhere in excess of 40 million people are displaced around the world, living in camps and border camps and seeking comfort in another country so they can go about their lives.

In recent years, global factors have been a significant contributory factor to the number of asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and refugees who come down into this part of the world. As was also identified by previous speakers, the principal cause of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants coming down here in the last five to seven years is the displacement of people arising out of the consequences of wars in their homelands. When the Iraq war was at its peak, large numbers of people were leaving Iraq, going to their borders, getting caught up in the system and heading south seeking a home, trying to seek safety and the like.

Similarly now, as the war in Afghanistan has intensified, as a civil war particularly in the southern areas and the areas bordering Pakistan has become more and more violent and as more and more destruction has occurred, more and more people are either displaced or are seeking to remove themselves from the war zone. Large numbers of people have been heading south, by land and by sea, and they have been arriving in the waters around this country and around Indonesia, Malaysia and the like. Similarly, as the civil war that has been a feature of Sri Lanka for the last 20 years has resolved itself and one side has been able to claim unconditional victory in that war, those who are on the losing side have sought to flee their country. Again, the large numbers of people seeking support, comfort or a homeland away from Sri Lanka arise out of the failure of that country to regulate itself and out of the consequences of a civil war. We have seen tens of thousands of people displaced—arguably hundreds of thousands or millions—and seeking comfort all around Europe, through South Asia and up into the Middle East. One does not have to be any type of clairvoyant to know that if the war in Pakistan continues, with the government of Pakistan fighting the Taliban forces in particular areas and seeking to eliminate them, large numbers of Pakistani citizens will cross the border and flee, and some of them—perhaps a small number—will find their way down here.

It is totally unreasonable to suggest that because of the changed policies of the current government—which, as I identified, are a logical continuum of the policies of the previous government, with some changes on the margins—there is now a pull factor, a demand factor, whereby tens of thousands of people are immediately saying, ‘Let’s race down to Australia. Let’s get into that country, because the welcome mat is out.’ What a load of rubbish. All we heard from Senator Brandis, but more particularly from Senator Joyce, was the repeated assertion of that proposition. It was not supported by one argument, by one set of facts, or by one set of numbers. It was simply an assertion that changes of policy on the margins, on the periphery, have resulted in this dramatic influx of people into the waters immediately surrounding our country and Indonesia, going up as far as Singapore and Malaysia. Of course that is a nonsense. If you do look at the numbers of people who are displaced from civil wars in their own countries, you can see the clear reason as to why so many people are now, over the last few weeks, seeking comfort in this country.

In that context, what are the Rudd government border security initiatives? We have all seen the news on the TV: ‘tough but humane.’ But what does this mean? It means a tough approach towards those who seek to improperly profit and manipulate those who are without support or comfort, and it means a humane and fair means of access for those who seek comfort. In that context, what has the Rudd government done? It has maintained excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing of irregular maritime arrivals on Christmas Island. It has established a dedicated Border Protection Committee of Cabinet to drive whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling. (Time expired)