David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, I want to start by acknowledging that on budget day the 123rd arrival of a suspected illegal entry vessel occurred—that is, 123 vessels since 2008. Here we are in May and there have been 55 vessels this year. They are arriving at a rate of three per week. Anybody experienced in this area—and I was the minister in charge of border protection in 2007—knows the season has only just begun. We have had 55 boats this year and the season has only just begun. These boats are arriving at such a rate that I checked various websites to make sure one had not arrived this morning. At any given moment, I suspect Northern Command is aware of several boats on their way, spotted by Coastwatch, showing up on radar or according to advice we receive from passing merchant and commercial vessels.

This bill is one of the most shameful answers to a collapse of public policy that this parliament, in its long history, has ever seen. The mismanagement not just by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship but also by the border protection minister and by the Prime Minister is absolutely unsurpassed in Australian parliamentary history. Having deployed troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East generally and in the full knowledge of what has gone on in Sri Lanka, to now say that we will delay the processing of refugees from those places because they are now more stable is an insult not just to senators’ intelligence but also to the intelligence of every right-thinking Australian.

It was five minutes ago, metaphorically, that the government was saying this was all about push factors. This piece of legislation is the most crass political stunt that this parliament has seen in its long history. We are now saying it is not due to push factors, as those push factors have abated such that there can be a delay and treatment of these people in a different way. So the defence of this guilty party in power at the moment has changed mid-trial. That is how strong the defence was when it started out—it was weak, it was a house of cards and it has begun to collapse. The confusion, indecision and misunderstanding in responding to this problem—this public policy issue that is at the forefront of many minds in Australia, particularly in my home state of Western Australia—and the public policy catastrophe that these ministers, including the Prime Minister, have presided over are simply outrageous.

The people smugglers are now so brazen that when suspected illegal entrants arrive in our waters they have the telephone numbers of defence personnel in their mobile phones. David Cody on the ABC highlighted the fact that one of the witnesses to the SIEV 36 coronial inquest told the coroner that mobile phones are taken because some asylum seekers have found the phone numbers of ADF personnel. How does this happen? The government is utterly asleep at the wheel on these matters if suspected illegal entrants have the personal mobile phone numbers of Australian Defence Force personnel before they get here. We know they will pull up next to Christmas Island, ring 000 and say: ‘Come and get us.’ This is an organised, corrupt trade that this government has inaugurated. When we were in power, they never had the mobile phone numbers of our personnel and they never knew about ringing 000. This is an organised, planned operation from within Australia that this government has presided over and, two years down the track, it is now belatedly taking some action. What an absolute scandal!

I now go to the SIEV 36 coronial inquest. On 16 April, an explosion occurred on board the SIEV 36 in which five men perished. The coronial inquest was conducted by Mr Greg Cavanagh, a jurist in the Northern Territory—a stipendiary magistrate. I pause to give him great credit for the work that he has done on this difficult subject matter. Pursuant to the legislation, he was to make recommendations and to proceed to find out what happened. He found out that there was an organised, planned modus operandi to ignite the boat. Of course, the government refused to disclose any of this information to the public, but there was an organised conspiracy by these people on board this boat to blow it up. At the time of the detonation, there were nine Australian Defence Force personnel on board the boat. This is what the government has led us to—our own soldiers, sailors and airmen who were on board that boat were exposed to the risk of being blown up by this government’s total failure in public policy.

The coroner found that all the adult passengers on this boat had conspired to tell other than the truth to the coroner. I want to take the Senate to those matters. At paragraph 12, he said:

... a group of passengers ... believed they were to be returned to Indonesia ... Notwithstanding that all passengers now deny knowledge of most of what occurred, I conclude that at least passengers Brahimi, Ghulam Mohammadi and Salman were involved in a plan to set fire to the vessel.

Further, he said:

As to whether lives could have been saved—

and five people died in that explosion—

I have concluded that action taken by navy personnel was appropriate and more passengers might have died but for the action they took. Indeed, later in these findings, I refer specifically to the bravery of three members of the ADF.

He went on to say that many of the ADF members who were blown into the water by this explosion, and were injured, recovered and then assisted in the timely rescue and treatment of passengers, and probably went on to save many lives. This is a very fine day in the history of the Australian Defence Force. This group of people were intercepting a suspected illegal entry vessel and were exposed, as we now know with the benefit of hindsight, to enormous risk, and they responded magnificently. I want to commend them and I want to commend the Chief of the Australian Defence Force for what has been a remarkable response in very, very difficult circumstances.

In paragraph 18, the coroner said:

At the time of their deaths, the deceased were passengers on SIEV 36. A group of 47 asylum seekers and two Indonesian crew departed Indonesia in the middle of the night on either 10th or 11th of April 2009. Their destination was Australia. On the morning of 15th of April 2009, SIEV 36 arrived in the vicinity of Ashmore Island. At that time, the passengers were somewhat dehydrated, exhausted and seasick but none were suffering from any serious illnesses. One of the crew, Beny, had an infected tooth. A passenger, Talash, had previously had an appendectomy.

And there were a number of children on board this vessel. This is what we have: 47 desperate people on the high seas, some in various states of ill health. What happens? After being intercepted and after the Navy had gone on board and cleaned up the vessel, we then had a whole host of issues involved in towing them for the next 12 to 13 hours. As a result of some of them mistakenly believing they were to be towed back to Indonesia, a deliberate act was carried out—as the coroner has set out. That act was recorded on a video from the vessel HMAS Childers. The coroner stated:

The camera was on HMAS Childers and had been activated within minutes of—

the naval officer on the spot—

calling high threat. That video shows that about 12 minutes before the explosion, namely about 7:33am, the passenger Brahimi was squatting at the bow of the boat immediately in front of the hatch where the unleaded petrol was stored. There was still one container of petrol in that hatch. The other had been taken by one of the crew members to the cabin and it remained somewhere in the cabin or in the engine compartment thereafter. That container was recovered and Beny said a photo of it attached to his statutory declaration was the container, when he gave his oral evidence.

Naval officer Faunt saw Brahimi at the bow and two naval personnel moved to the front. A person called Salman was standing in front of the cabin and had a cigarette lighter. It was Brahimi with the lighter and it was sought to be taken from him. A very short time after that the vessel detonated. We are so lucky that no Australian personnel died in this incident. Five people who were near the explosion perished. Nine Australian Defence Force personnel suffered ear damage, extensive burns and many of them were thrown into the water.

In dealing with some of the evidence, at paragraph 68 the coroner said that one of the naval seamen on board said:

Salman was gesturing towards him and he denied that the other passenger spoke to him. He denied seeing the activities of G. Mohammadi. He denies any knowledge of how the fire started.

69. Having regard to the video evidence, and what he had said previously in his written statements, I must conclude that his denials are not to be believed. He has lied.

This is about one of the asylum seekers. The coroner goes on to say:

When asked if Brahimi was resisting—

one of the naval officers—

told me ‘Absolutely’. Bendeich who took the lighter from Brahimi said he had to prise the lighter from his hand. Brahimi not only resisted but can be seen—

on the video—

trying to throw the lighter to other passengers.

71. Brahimi also denied that the floorboards over the hatch where the petrol was stored were open at that time—

the naval officer concerned—

however said they were open. He replaced them after he had taken the lighter. The video shows them to be open. Again Brahimi has not told me the truth.

The coroner goes on to set out all of the events and at paragraph 72, he said:

I cannot be certain as to what Brahimi was attempting to do with the lighter. He did not smoke. The question is why did he have the lighter in his hand? Why was he flicking the lighter? It might have been a threat or it may have been that he intended to light a fire at the forward hatch area. He was in a very good position to gain access to the unleaded petrol, spill the petrol and then start a fire. In all events if he had intended to do so, he was stopped by the intervention of Dawe and Bendeich—

both naval personnel—

73. Other passengers were asked about this ‘lighter’ incident. Most if not all of those who were a on the front deck would have been in a position to see this incident. However, all the witnesses called denied knowledge of it. In so far as those depicted on the video were in a position to see and were in fact looking in the direction of the incident, I do not accept their denials of knowledge. They are lying.

He goes on to find many of the witnesses lied in their evidence. At paragraph 75, he said:

I can only conclude that they have not told the truth.

And so it goes on. The coroner sets out that there has been a conspiracy to deny an intent to destroy this vessel, which contained 47 personnel plus two crew and nine Australian Defence Force personnel.

What do you think the government’s response to these people has been—these people who have lied at a coronial inquest and who apparently in the full knowledge that something terrible would happen, according to the coroner, deliberately blew up this vessel? What do you think happened to them, Madam Acting Deputy President? This government granted them visas. This government has granted these people, who were prepared to conduct the most violent act of criminality not just to themselves but to our personnel who were rescuing them, visas. It is an absolute disgrace.

We then come to this legislation, which seeks to toughen up the whole scenario. The event on SIEV 36 was caused by this government mismanaging—bungling—the whole policy of border protection. The government stands to be condemned. Five people died that day, we were very lucky that other sailors and Australian Defence Force personnel were not killed, and the government has given these people visas in the face of this damning report by the coroner.

Of course, we have had other boats—quite apart from the fact that these people have mobile phones. We know that just the other day we had to send out a P3 Orion to a boat. People were put in the water to assist a boat of some 59 Sri Lankans. Five asylum seekers perished just prior to 11 May because the boat they were in had been at sea for some 20 days and had no food, water or fuel on it. That is what this government, in its stupidity, has delivered to this public policy issue: people in leaky boats coming across a treacherous piece of water and perishing. Five people from that boat perished. Goodness only knows how many boats have set off from Sri Lanka to make the trip and have never been heard of again. This is the scandal of these people with their crazy compassion and their ‘we won’t have children behind razor wire’. There are probably dozens and dozens of men, women and children who have perished in those waters because of the stupidity of the minister for immigration and a bungling, hopeless Prime Minister who does not understand the parameters of this matter, particularly in Sri Lanka.

The government’s real attitude was on display in an article by Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun of 13 May in which he talks about former MP Peter Katsambanis, who was a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal. Mr Katsambanis told Andrew Bolt that his former colleagues on the tribunal are under pressure to accept dodgy refugee claims. The article said:

The management of the Refugee Review Tribunal has hinted very strongly that members should start approving more refugee claims … after the change of government in 2007.

There is the cat out of the bag.

It was made very clear by management that long term career prospects would not be enhanced by continuing to make decisions that were lawful and correct (ie rejections or affirmed cases where that was the correct decision to make)—

that is, to refuse entry.

One of the people deciding the next round of appointments on the RRT is John Gibson, a Melbourne lawyer who heads up the Refugee Council of Australia. He also appears in many … cases in the Federal Court appealing against decisions made by RRT members. The fact that this man is on a panel selecting or recommending RRT members offends every principle of independence of administrative decision making …

So here we have the system rigged, and it demonstrates the government’s quite misguided and stupid policy. What has the government delivered to this nation on this policy? Men, women and children travelling across a perilous piece of water, many of whom perish; Australian Defence Force personnel thrust into ever-greater risk in managing their arrivals; and a huge budget black hole of expense on Christmas Island and in motels in Queensland. Those things are what the stupid, misguided, so-called compassionate policy of these people has delivered. And we have to deal with this. We have to pick up the pieces. We have to fly the aircraft, sail the boats, man the surface assets and go out and rescue people at a massive rate.

People are losing their lives because of this crazy, crazy policy. When will this government wake up and stop playing politics like this crazy piece of legislation and delaying processing? What on earth does that say? It says, ‘We’ve lost the plot, we don’t know what we’re doing, but we’re going to look politically tough.’ I think Australians are waking up at last.