Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There was no point of order on that. I know they do not like to hear the realities of having any sorts of policies on that side. Six weeks ago there was absolutely no doubt that the coalition had no intention of, or in fact was capable of, any compromise. The government does not want people to continue to drown at sea. These deaths are completely unacceptable. The government has been and is prepared to compromise to get a solution in place to stop the unnecessary drowning of desperate people.

However, before I explore the intricate plan of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, let us look at what the coalition are proposing. According to the UNHCR:

If we compare the flow of asylum seekers to the OECD countries and to Australia in the years 2000 to 2009 it is quite clear that the flows of asylum seekers in Australia followed very closely those to other OECD countries.

It is clear that the major reason for the fall of asylum seeker numbers in the early period of the Howard government was not its policies but a decline in the number of asylum seekers in the world. When world refugee numbers rose again after the mid-2000s, so did the numbers coming to Australia. The Howard government's policies had only a marginal impact on the total number of asylum seekers coming to Australia.

All but 45 of the 1,637 asylum seekers incarcerated in Nauru who were found to be refugees then gained residence in Australia or New Zealand. TPVs were introduced in 1999, but had no effect during the next few years. Not until the international decline in asylum seeker numbers began to occur was there a reduction in boat arrivals in Australia. Let us put the facts on the table. The link between boat arrivals and TPVs is a figment of the imagination of the coalition. When was Tampa? Certainly not in 1999.

However, one consequence of temporary protection visas was that the number of women and children arriving on boats after the introduction of TPVs increased from 25 per cent to 40 per cent. Just because two things appear to occur at a similar time does not mean they are linked. The conditions necessary for effective, lawful and safe turn back of irregular vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia are not currently in place. In fairness, those conditions might change but that would require Indonesian agreement. Has that been addressed by the coalition? I do not think so.

The report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers was asked to help present a solution after the intransigence of the coalition. The government and the Australian community do not want people to continue to drown at sea. These deaths are completely unacceptable. The committee's integrated plan has made 22 recommendations. The plan states quite clearly that achieving a regional cooperation framework on protection and asylum issues is 'fundamentally important', a central focus of this report. This requires domestic policies that enjoy broad-based support and that are sustainable over time. That is, regional engagement that is not limited to countries party to the refugee conventions; with no advantage gained by people who circumvent regular migration pathways; enhanced asylum and protection opportunities; involvement of international organisations, NGOs and civil society. It already sounds like the Pacific solution.

The plan continues that Australia's humanitarian program be increased immediately to 20,000 places per annum with a minimum of 12,000 places in the refugee component of the program and that consideration be given to increasing the program to around 27,000 within five years. Furthermore, the program should be more focused on asylum-seeker flow moving from source countries into South-East Asia and 4,000 additional places should be provided to the family stream per annum to alleviate pressures caused by more applications, and specifically allocated to family of humanitarian visa holders. The government should expand relevant regional capacity-building initiatives by doubling the current allocation from $70 million to $140 million. The Malaysia arrangements should be built on rather than be discarded or neglected and this be should achieved through high level bilateral engagement focused on strengthening protections and accountability as a positive basis for the Australian parliament's recommendations for new necessary legislation.

Indonesia is key to any program. The plan recommends that bilateral cooperation on asylum seeker issues with Indonesia be advanced as a matter of urgency. These include: allocation of an increased number of humanitarian program resettlement places for Indonesia; enhanced cooperation on joint surveillance and response patrols, law enforcement and search and rescue coordination, and changes to Australian law in relation to Indonesian minors and others crewing unlawful boat voyages from Indonesia to Australia. Cooperation and collaboration are also critical parts of the plan.

This is an integrated plan that aims to be inclusive of our region. While Australia may be a desired settlement country, this is an issue for our region and the globe. However, the obsessive desire for an election is the likely explanation for the loss of bipartisanship. Maybe we have some insight into the impasse that has existed for months and years.

On 10 December 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that:

A 'key Liberal Party strategist' told a US diplomat in Canberra in November last year, that the issue of asylum seekers was 'fantastic' for the Coalition and 'the more boats that come the better'.

That 'key Liberal Party strategist' could not have been more explicit about the political game that is being played.

Rather than asking for an apology from the Prime Minister, who has bent over backwards to arrange a compromise, the coalition should be apologising for its intransigence which has lead to the current situation. But, as we know on so many policy areas, the opposition have one policy and that is all. This is to say 'no' to good government legislation and 'no' to good policy. All they are really interested in is trying to get to an election. The reality is that, when you are in opposition, you have a responsibility to this country. The responsibility in cases like this is to have cooperation and to put the welfare of the nation and refugees before the opposition's own political gain. When the government's legislation comes from the other place, we will see that the Labor government's position and the position of the coalition are like 'chalk and cheese.'