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

It has really been a remarkable feature of this opposition for the last two years that they have failed to develop and release any effective policies relating to topical discussions that have gone on for months and months and months in this place. You only have to look at the series of debates we have been having since November 2007 in the area of telecommunications and broadband, welfare and pension reform, defence funding and reform, electoral reform, industry policy changes and the CPRS—the list is virtually endless. In each of those major issues of debate from time to time, the government had a well-considered, well-thought-out, well-expressed policy arguing for change and reform, and in each of those issues the opposition, through its spokesperson at the time, had no position other than to nitpick, carp, oppose and eventually have no resolution.

As we have had two years of government, the government has got on with the implementation of its platform relating to significant pension reform, maintenance of employment at record levels, huge new capacities in schools, a fair go in the workplace and major progress in implementation of broadband reform—all done, it must be said, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. So let us address this MPI debate—this matter of public importance—in the context that I have just outlined.

In my contribution I want to discuss a number of key features that now are right to the front in this area of asylum seekers, border protection and border control: firstly, as is always important, the historical context; secondly, the factors driving the irregular movement of people down into the sea areas bordering the continent of Australia; thirdly, the key features of the Australian border protection plan which has been put into place over the last two years by Senator Evans on behalf of the current government; and, fourthly and fifthly, the health, security and identity checking for irregular maritime arrivals and the settlement services for holders of refugee and humanitarian visas.

Each of those topics was mentioned in passing but without any serious discussion by Senator Fierravanti-Wells. As her contribution to the discussion came to a conclusion, she said, ‘What is this debate about?’ She said it was about order and process. I would suggest that the debate about asylum seekers and people seeking to come to this country is really about four things, not just about order, process and whether the form has been filled out correctly. It is about an effective border control system, it is about a sound immigration system, it is about fairness to asylum seekers and it is about unrelenting opposition to people smugglers who cause all of these horrible circumstances to occur.

In terms of historical context, if one looks back over the last 30 years, there have been four or five major shifts in illegal immigration, in whatever form, down into this country. From 1976 to 1981 there were about 2,059 illegal boat arrivals under the then Fraser government. What was the cause of that surge? It was simply a result of the Indochinese refugee crisis, a massive outflow of refugees arising from the fall of the South Vietnamese government. From 1989 to 1993, when we were in government, there were 735 boat arrivals. What was the source then? The source then was mainly Cambodians fleeing conflict between the government of Cambodia at that stage and the insurgent forces under the Khmer Rouge.

During the period 1984 to 1998—including the last days of the Keating government and the first couple of years of the Howard government—there were almost 2,400 illegal boat arrivals. What was the cause of that? The people involved were mainly Sino-Vietnamese and Chinese seeking relief from economic hardship in the border areas of their own countries. The major increase in numbers occurred during the middle years of the Howard government, from 1999 to 2001, when there were 12,000 boat arrivals, including over 5,000 in 2000 alone. What was the reason for that temporary upsurge in boat arrivals of illegal immigrants coming into this country? Again, it was for a particular reason: mainly Afghans and Iraqis fleeing the brutal regimes in their homeland—the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. More recently the fifth major shift of boat people coming to this country has been as a result of the current stage of the Afghan civil war and the final stage and aftermath of the Sri Lankan conflict. Each of the periods of increases in the number of boat people seeking comfort in this country can be characterised into one-, two- or three-year periods arising from the breakdown of civil law and order in the homeland of a particular group of individuals. The factors that drove those people are clear: civil war, breakdown and economic dislocation, forcing them to flee and seek refuge in this country.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells tried to manufacture an argument that there were pull factors, not push factors, involved in people coming to this country. One has to make the obvious point that in the last two years, since the current government came to power, there has been a huge increase in recurrent funding for all of the organs of the state involved in border protection. In the order of $700 million in additional funding has been provided to police the sea lanes to the north and west of this continent. We have maintained the Christmas Island facility, we have regularly increased the number and timing of sea and air patrols, and, most importantly—as is never acknowledged but is understood by all who participate in this debate—we have maintained mandatory detention facilities around this country. Finally, via negotiations at an international level, we have tried to get agreement with nearby countries that they will not be used as a conduit to pass people from South Asia down through Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia into Australia. In terms of international factors, the pull factors that Senator Fierravanti-Wells referred to have to be understood in the context that 95 per cent of the policies of the previous government, in particular mandatory detention facilities, have been maintained.

If pull factors—the change in legislation, the change in government, having a new minister with responsibility for implementation of border protection measures in this country—are not responsible and cannot be responsible for the temporary increase in the number of people in boats coming to this country, one asks the question: ‘What is driving the increase that has occurred?’ We know what it is. It is the breakdown in law and order. It is the breakdown in civil responsibility arising out of the civil war in Afghanistan and the aftermath of the civil war in Sri Lanka, forcing people to come east and to come south. But what are the other push factors that have been involved?

As I said earlier, from 1991 to 2001, under the Howard government, Australia saw over 12,000 unauthorised boat arrivals. The government at the time did not claim that it was pull factors that were causing that movement, and indeed it was not. What was driving people in 1999 through to 2001 was a breakdown in civil administration in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, that has been well noted by all those who have participated in the debate. So what happened to the number of boat arrivals to Australia after 2000? They declined dramatically. The UN Secretary-General noted in a recent report to the Security Council that 2008 ended as the most violent year in Afghanistan since 2001. The increase in arrivals in more recent times, 2008-09, is due—unsurprisingly, it must be said—to the irregular movement of Afghan asylum seekers as a result of the ongoing warfare in that country. In 2008 there was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghani asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries around the world. Australia is not immune from this global trend and is also seeing an increase in asylum seekers from Afghanistan.

The other country which is topical at the moment, Sri Lanka, is emerging from the aftermath of a long-running civil war—in the order of over 30 years—which has been brought to a conclusion in the last four or five months. Again, violence increased significantly in that country in 2008 and climaxed in the final stages of the war earlier this year. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that the number of people displaced in the final stages of the fighting exceeded 100,000. Indeed, it was said in answer to questions today in question time that the immediate demand for replacement of destroyed homes in the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka is in the order of 100,000 new units needing to be developed. So the increase in people seeking comfort in this country arises not from the pull factors identified by Senator Fierravanti-Wells in her contribution but from the breakdown in law and order, and the breakdown in civil administration due to the ongoing civil war in Afghanistan and the aftermath of the civil war in Sri Lanka.

In that context, it has to be said that the changes brought to bear by the current government in the last two years has resulted in Australia having one of the toughest and most sophisticated border security regimes in the world. We have a system of extensive air and sea patrols. We have excision and offshore processing. We have mandatory detention of unauthorised boat arrivals and unlawful non-citizens who pose a risk to the Australian community. The Rudd government has reinvigorated Australia’s engagement with regional neighbours to detect and prevent what can only be described as the insidious trade of people-smuggling. As I said earlier, we have committed $654 million to substantially increase aerial and maritime surveillance and detection operations in this region. That ongoing commitment to sustained border protection means that we have an immigration detention system that protects the Australian community and treats people humanely.

On that platform we were committed to reform and we were elected to implement a more humane detention policy. In the middle of last year the government announced seven key immigration detention values which have been the key principles given effect in the discussion that has occurred in this place over the last three or four months. The first of those seven detention values is that mandatory detention is an essential component of strong border control. The second is that to support the integrity of Australia’s immigration program, three groups will be and are subject to mandatory detention: firstly, all unauthorised arrivals for management of health, identity and security risks to the community; secondly, unlawful non-citizens who present unacceptable risks to the community; and finally, unlawful non-citizens who have repeatedly refused to comply with their particular visa conditions. The third of the detention values is that children, including juvenile foreign fishers and where possible their families will not be detained in an immigration detention centre—and that is a thing this government has set about and it is a key factor that this government is very proud of. (Time expired)