David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This afternoon I rise to take note of the same answers to questions as the previous speaker. As has been pointed out time and time again, this is a debate that the Liberal Party returns to in the Senate because there are so many other important debates where it is completely unable to make a contribution. When one looks at issues like the NBN, the economy, the stimulus package, the global financial crisis and action on climate change, we can see that the Liberal Party has completely vacated the field. So, notwithstanding the fact that these are the debates that are dominating public life and our newspapers and televisions, they remain debates that the Liberal Party shies away from in the Senate—and for good reason: it has no policy and its viewpoint has no traction with the Australian people.

The interesting thing about the debate on border protection is that, while the Liberal Party finds itself agreeing on using the language of hysteria and on signalling to the Australian public messages of xenophobia and a fear of immigrants, it nonetheless remains consistent: the Liberal Party has no policy to offer in this sphere either. No-one on that side of politics has yet suggested that TPVs should be restored and no-one on that side of politics can deny that the changes made by this government to our immigration regime were supported and voted for by them; but the latest fear-mongering goes to this proposition about special deals, and in particular the proposition that we have been ransomed. To use the emotive language, the vessel was held to ransom, the government engaged in bribery to get these people off the vessel and these people are queuejumpers. This is the language of emotion and fear but it does not cut the mustard when one looks for facts.

The fact of the matter is that there is no special deal. The fact of the matter is that Australia has done the proper thing and responded to a request from an ally—a friend, a neighbour and an ally—to rescue a vessel in distress, which was in international waters and in the Indonesian zone for rescue. After accomplishing that deed—which no-one on the other side says we should not have done—those people were taken back to an Indonesian port. The government, when we found the occupants of this vessel making demands upon us, were patient. We did not give in. We did not relent in the face of those demands. We were patient, and we reached an accommodation—not with the occupants of that vessel but with the Indonesian government.

When it comes to special deals with the Indonesian government the opposition are experts. They have a long and proud history of it. I would like to quote Alexander Downer, who appeared on an ABC’s Radio National program on the 13th of this month. He said, in his relaxed, calm, post-retirement timbre of voice:

The other thing we did, which we did more sotto voce, was to tow the boats. I must say this is not something that has generated much publicity recently in Australia. We used to get the Navy not to guide the boats into the Australian shoreline. What we did was we got the Navy to tow the boats back to the Indonesian territorial waters, left the boats with enough fuel, food and so on to get to a port in Indonesia, guided them where to go, and then left them. Obviously monitored them to make sure the boat was safe but disappeared over the horizon. And this worked very effectively. But we did this without any publicity. We didn’t run around boasting that we were doing this because we knew the Indonesians accepted these people back through gritted teeth.

Those opposite have a long and ignoble tradition in dealing with immigration in this country. But the critical points remain. We have not reached a secret or special deal with these people; rather, we have reached an agreement with the Indonesians about how they are to be processed—in a manner that is consistent with Australian custom and practice and consistent with our treaty obligations. These people are going to receive post-settlement terms which are completely mundane and completely typical of the services that other refugees receive. Notwithstanding the hysterical language of those opposite, they did vote for these changes. (Time expired)