Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

In following Senator Johnston’s comments, can I say that as I move around the country I find people are waking up. In this country where one out of three people has been born overseas, people support, and this country has always subscribed to, an Australian immigration policy that is built and depends on order and process. That has been the success of our immigration policy. It depends very much on our sovereign right to determine who comes into this country, and we decide in an orderly manner and according to a process that follows rules and regulations.

Millions of people have come to this country and made an absolutely fantastic contribution. They do not remember the queue that they stood in. They perhaps do not remember the time they waited, but they do know that they came in through the front door. That is the message out there to the millions of Australians. That is why millions of Australians are very concerned about the breakdown of our border protection and, more broadly, the breakdown of process and order in our immigration policy. They came here, they respected order and process, they integrated into Australian society and they expect that their government respects those same principles that they were asked to abide by in coming to this country.

My colleagues have talked about the processes and humanitarian programs. Australia has been a very generous subscriber to humanitarian programs and accepting refugees—indeed, we take about 13,500 per annum. In my time, I have had the benefit of speaking to a number of people who have come to Australia after waiting overseas. They came to Australia and they have benefited from that humanitarian program. Many of them waited for years and years in camps overseas. They went through the proper processes, through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Many women—including mothers and their children—who have been abused as a consequence of war and other circumstances overseas waited in camps. As far as I am concerned—and this is the expectation in our country—they are the ones who should be given first preference. We do not know the security status of people who want to jump the queue. We do not know where they come from. We do not know who they are.

As a consequence of this government’s changes, it is not just the person who comes in—either offshore or onshore—through the back door; it is also a multiplier effect that their families also come out to this country. It is very clear that the government’s changes in July 2008 started the process. The process started when Minister Evans announced the changes. You cannot change aspects of our immigration system—and, indeed, as a consequence of answers given at estimates by Minister Evans, there have been changes to about 26 programs in the department. Some have been small. Some have been major, like abolishing temporary protection visas. But the reality is that the compound effect of these changes has said something to people overseas. These people watch what happens in Australia. This is an industry; this is not just somebody who decides they are going to dodge the system.

Before I became a senator, I worked at the office of the Australian Government Solicitor for 20 years, where I saw this industry in operation firsthand at the grassroots. Senator Johnston talked about dodgy claims. I have seen my fair share of dodgy claims through the courts. That is the reality. That is the end effect of dismantling of a proper and orderly immigration process. So it is little wonder that we are seeing a budget blow-out. It is an extra $1 billion over four years, according to figures released in this budget.

This does not only affect the offshore arrivals; it also affects onshore arrivals. Yes, this debate has been primarily about boat arrivals; but this is also about people who claim asylum onshore. What sort of message has this sent to people who arrive here with a valid visa who then suddenly decide that they are going to claim asylum status? Every one of those people who is successful in claiming asylum takes another place from those 13,500 places that have been set aside for people who have been assessed by UNHCR to be genuine refugees. This is what this debate is about. It is about order and process.

In the end, I look at what this government has done and I look at its history. Yes, under the Howard government we did have a tough but successful policy, but this has a long history. The Howard policies had their antecedents in Labor’s policies. Let us not forget that it was Labor that introduced mandatory detention in this country. Let us not forget that it was Gerry Hand who introduced temporary protection permits. And they worked. They worked in that era, they worked under the Howard era and they will continue to work in the future.

So, when I look at the practical angles and effects of this, it is critical to the sovereignty and security of this country that we know who comes in, that security is not compromised at the expense of proper processes and that the necessary checks and balances are undertaken. I conclude by saying that this whole sad and sorry episode of the dismantling of proper order and process has, regrettably, had consequences and will continue to do so unless this government changes its tack.