Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Farrell for setting the scene in this debate of yet another failed Labor policy. As I move around the country—as I do and as I have done recently throughout Western Australia, including the goldfields areas and the wheat belt areas—there are just so many people shaking their heads and saying to me, 'How many more policy areas can this Labor government fail in before it falls over?' This, of course, is yet another.

The worst of it is twofold. First, there are the devastating consequences. Senator Farrell is right: an absolute tragedy seems to be unfolding in Java, and we just do not know how many other instances of this there are likely to be as we move into the monsoon season. As we move through November to December and January it is very, very unsafe. It is unsafe to go to sea in boats of that type anyhow, but, whilst the people smugglers are being encouraged to the degree that they are being encouraged, we are inevitably going to see this happen.

The second unfortunate sequel of all of this is that, if only this Prime Minister swallowed her pride and accepted the offer by the coalition, this problem would be solved by the end of this electoral week. That solution, naturally enough, is to accept the offer by the coalition to expand the current proposal of the government to the 148 countries that are signatories to the UNHCR convention, including, of course, Papua New Guinea, and including, but not exclusively, Nauru—as Senator Farrell seemed to concentrate on.

I can make the point strongly to you, Madam Deputy President, having worked in Malaysia in much of the last decade, having had an office there and having been there when then President Mahathir Mohamad actually put the cane to illegal immigrants and literally drove them out of Malaysia in a very public way. I can only support the words that have been said in this place in recent times about the capacity of the Malaysians. There is no way in the world that the Malaysians are likely to be a valid recipient. I simply invite the Prime Minister to ask the Prime Minister of Malaysia why they do not sign up to the UNHCR convention.

We already know the Malaysia solution is not going to work. How do we know? Because the original Malaysia solution, when announced with fanfare, was for 800 people in exchange for 4,000. I for one have no difficulty with 4,000 genuine refugees coming into the country. That is not the part that is at fault. Why is it a failure and why was it always going to be a failure? Because, of the 800, since it was announced, 1,270—yes, another 50 per cent—have already arrived. So, even if the Malaysia solution were put forward and passed, we know that it already would have failed. The people smugglers laughed at it.

Let me give you a little bit of history. It was the then Fraser Liberal led coalition government in the 1970s, under the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Michael MacKellar, who announced this country's first refugee policy, to be based on four principles: the first recognising Australia's humanitarian commitment; the second, the fact that all decisions to accept refugees must be and remain with the Australian government; the third, that special assistance would be required for the movement of refugees; and the fourth—most interestingly—the fact that most refugees do not want to settle in this country but their interests lie better in their remaining close to their own country of origin—to which subject I wish to return.

We know, of course, that Australia is a very generous country when it comes to accepting refugees. I think on a per capita basis we are second only to Canada. In the year 2009-10, 13,750 were accepted under the Australian Humanitarian Program, of whom 6,000 were refugees and the balance under the special program. As we know, as these asylum seekers—people who are not yet accepted as refugees—get positions, they take away from others who are already on the list, in the queue, and those who might be accepted on the basis of family association et cetera. They are the ones who are disadvantaged. I want to briefly comment on the activities going on, as have been reported to me, in some of the refugee camps in Thailand, Africa and other places. It is a shocking thing but with the corruption that occurs with those who are managing these refugee camps we are finding many who are there for years simply because people with funds jump the queue. Take one instance that was put to me recently. When a family complained to the management of the refugee camp they were simply told, 'Oh no, you actually left the camp two years ago.' They had not left the camp two years ago. Their identities were assumed, having been paid for, and they were left there to rot.

There is, however, some good news for this Labor government. I go back to the Howard government and the then minister for immigration, Mr Philip Ruddock, and a speech he gave in the other place on 3 December 2002. He reflected on these facts in the speech entitled 'Managing Migration'. He said that from 1999 to the end of 2002 3,830 people had attempted to come to this country and, of them, 910 had been recognised through the UNHCR process and 400 had been resettled from Indonesia, with, interestingly, 89.4 per cent having been repatriated to countries other than Australia. But this is the interesting point, and it is so poignant for today. How prophetic it was. I quote from his December 2002 speech:

By any measure, this comprehensive strategy—

that the government had put into place—

has been successful.

He said:

There are many countries around the world that would like to be in the position we are in, having achieved that outcome. However—and in my view, most importantly—it has stopped people risking their lives in dangerous journeys organised by people smugglers. I lament very much that many people have lost their lives tragically, putting themselves—

in positions of danger. If time permitted, we could go on to the question of unaccompanied minors and how that will only spread under this government's policy. There is only one action for the Prime Minister to take: pick up the phone to the Leader of the Opposition and accept our recommendations. (Time expired)