Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Vanstone) to questions without notice asked today relating to skills shortages and to detention practices.

Today we heard a lot more about the migration bill. I want to address the article by Greg Sheridan in the Australian today, which is titled ‘PM bungles response to Papuan asylum-seekers’. I most certainly agree with that headline but do not agree with too much else that follows. He correctly points out that the Labor Party instituted mandatory detention in remote camps for all asylum seekers, and the Labor Party, indeed, continues to support mandatory detention.

Mr Sheridan then goes on to support the Pacific solution by the Howard government and said that the Pacific solution did stop the flow of boats. What he does do, quite erroneously, is equate the Pacific solution with mandatory detention, when in fact sending the asylum seekers offshore was an expensive, difficult and, ultimately, unsuccessful way to deal with asylum seekers. What was successful—and the minister referred to it today in relation to Mr Beazley’s comments—was talking to governments in the region, such as the Indonesian government, and cooperating to get illegal immigration and people-smuggling stopped. That is what stopped the boats coming to Australia. That is what was responsible for stopping those boats and for stopping illegal immigration.

Mr Sheridan does not distinguish the fact that those initial asylum seekers had stopped in a first country and were then coming to Australia as a second country of asylum. He goes on to talk about the West Papuans as though Australia is not the first country of asylum. He talks about setting up a path of easy illegal immigration for those Papuans and refuses to recognise that, if they were illegal, they would have been returned. In fact, Australia found that 42 of them were genuine refugees. They remained in Australia because they came to Australia as their first country of refuge. If there is persecution in any country and people make it to Australia, why would we not consider taking them, instead of sending them offshore to an island and insisting they be sent to a third country?

Here again Mr Sheridan’s comments are not accurate. He is saying that if they are found to be refugees they will be taken into Australia or anywhere else. But the minister has made it quite clear that she will be seeking a third country, and the likelihood is that those genuine refugees will be held on Nauru indefinitely while there is a vain search for a third country. Why indeed, seeing Australia as the wealthy nation that it is, seeking immigrants, would any third country take West Papuan refugees instead of letting Australia take refugees? For Mr Sheridan to go on and talk about the Labor Party being xenophobic on this issue is quite wrong. As the minister rightly pointed out, Mr Beazley talked about cooperating with the Indonesian government to deal with illegal asylum seekers. Now he is saying that in this case we should not dance to the tune of the Indonesian government. I do not see why that is a xenophobic response. It is a recognition of the true difference between the original asylum seekers and refugees who are coming in from West Papua.

The government is trying, as Mr Sheridan suggests, to say that this is part of its normal border protection policy. It is not an extension of the border protection policy; it is excising our whole country in order to keep out possibly genuine refugees who have managed to make it to Australia. Mr Sheridan talks about walking over the border to Papua New Guinea; that is just a nonsense, and he should know that. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the answers provided by Minister Vanstone. Firstly I would like to clarify a couple of points for the honourable senator on the other side of the chamber. People arriving by sea in Australia under this proposed legislation will still be eligible to make visa applications, but they will be processed offshore. The intention of this legislation is very clear. People found to be refugees will remain offshore while their resettlement is arranged. Under the existing provisions, the minister has a non-compellable power to allow a person to make a valid visa application in Australia. Senator Hurley has talked extensively about an article by Mr Greg Sheridan; I am not aware that he is a member of this government, but he is certainly welcome to put forward his beliefs about this law. We will continue to meet our international obligations under the refugee policy, and any claims to refugee status will be properly assessed at an offshore location, as I have mentioned, in accordance with the refugees convention.

The minister touched on the hypotheticals, and a number of them were raised in the question. If third party countries are needed to be contacted we will deal with that when the situation arises. I think this is an extension of the most successful border protection policy that has ever been introduced in Australia. The Australian government has taken several opportunities to brief the United Nations Human Rights Commission on the operation of the proposed new arrangements and will continue to do this as the proposals are further articulated.

The minister talked extensively about our relationship to the international community, and as Australians we have a right to determine on our terms who is an eligible refugee in this country and who is authorised to stay here. The appropriate solution clarifies the situation so that people do not take unnecessary risks attempting to reach the mainland of Australia with a view to getting treatment that is perceived to be more favourable. This is a simple, consistent exercise that the government is proposing in the interests of a fair and balanced process, ensuring that all refugee applications and asylum seekers are treated equally, irrespective of where they land. It is consistent with what is good for our nation and our region, and it fosters international goodwill amongst our very near neighbours. In concluding, I would like to say that the people who arrive here in Australia and seek asylum will be processed in accordance with our international commitments. Those people who are found to be genuine asylum seekers will be processed according to our laws.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to take note of answers given by Senator Vanstone today in question time. What emerged today in question time, from the questions that were asked by my colleagues, was that the Prime Minister and Minister Vanstone seem to have quite different views about the cause of this legislation that is before us, namely the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. Yesterday Mr Howard was asked in question time by my colleague Mr Burke why it is that he will not listen to Australian parliamentarians as much as he listened to Indonesian parliamentarians when he initiated this bill. Mr Howard’s response was:

These policies have nothing to do with listening to Indonesian politicians.

It seems that Senator Vanstone has a different view on this. She was asked last night by Kerry O’Brien on The 7.30 Report:

... it’s also absolutely true and irrefutable that this bill has only been written as a result of Indonesia’s outcry at Australia’s acceptance of 42 Papuan refugees. Is that not the fact?

To that the minister, Senator Vanstone, replied:

Well, I think, as you say, it is indisputable we’ve taken into account the concerns of Indonesia.

So there seems to be a difference of opinion going on here between the Prime Minister and Minister Vanstone as to the influence of the Indonesian government in proposing that the law that we have before us be introduced into this parliament. I think it is becoming more and more evident that it was in fact only as a consequence of the Indonesian protests that this law was introduced into the parliament. During an interview yesterday, in which he talked about what kind of signal this sends out into the international community, my colleague Mr Burke said:

The only signal it will send to the region is kick up a big enough fuss and you’ll be able to get Australia to change its laws and that simply results in new claims, new levels of ambit. What we’ve sent as a message to Indonesia is, if you object to our laws, we won’t treat you the way you treat us. We won’t simply explain our laws and say, well, we have our own legal system. Instead, if you complain enough, withdraw your ambassador, complain, we’ll actually offer to change our domestic legislation to try to win your favour back. Now, the message that that sends to the region is a really disturbing one and I don’t know of any other country around that’s willing to change its domestic law to try to fix what essentially is a foreign policy issue.

I think that really captures exactly what has happened here. What kind of signal are we sending out to the international community? It is: if you do not like the way our law is operating on your nationals, all you need to do is come to us and speak to the Prime Minister, the minister for immigration or the Attorney-General and we will do whatever it is that you would like us to do to change our laws in order to accommodate your position and that of your nationals.

What this approach completely seems to ignore is that, when you are sending that kind of signal, it is not just about sending a signal to Indonesia to let them know that we are their friends and are prepared to be friendly neighbours to them. This law is not just about a signal; it is going to actually affect real people and real lives. People are going to be hurt by this law. It might not be a huge number of people but that, nevertheless, will be no consolation to those individuals. People are going to have their lives wrecked by this law. They are going to pay the price with their sanity. We have seen on many occasions just how poor mental health provisions can be within detention centres, particularly when associated with long-term detention and particularly when it involves children. Of course it is important that we have good relations with Indonesia, but diplomatic solutions should not be forged by changing Australian law, particularly when it results in a contravention of our international refugee obligations as this law does and will.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given to questions asked of Senator Vanstone today. I note that those opposite seem very concerned about the offshore processing strategy carried out at Nauru. I think that I might be able to enlighten them on what is really happening.

Why is it important that we have the offshore processing strategy? I will describe what happens. The two offshore processing centre sites on Nauru have been critical to the success of our offshore processing. They have served Australia well. To ensure efficient and cost-effective operation of offshore processing, the offshore processing centres will be consolidated on Nauru through closing one site and maintaining the other in a state of high readiness. This reflects recent changes to processing arrangements for unauthorised boat arrivals.

Maintaining the Nauru offshore processing centre is an important part of the government’s approach to the management of unauthorised boat arrivals. The people who will benefit from this are the people of Australia, as it represents a significant saving in revenue. The initiative and the savings measure under this government will return to government some $33.8 million over four years. In what we have done in the past, Australia has maintained two offshore processing centre sites on Nauru and another on Manus Island. Manus will be retained as a contingency facility in case it is needed. The savings are ongoing and will be reviewed in the 2007-08 budget.

On the number of people that can be handled at Nauru, the capacity of the new facility will be reduced from the previous 1,500 to around 500, which will make it far more comfortable for people who happen to be there. Nauru will have a capacity of up to 100 people immediately, with a further 400 places to be available very soon. Unauthorised arrivals to Nauru are accommodated under Nauruan visa arrangements. Those visa arrangements have allowed open-centre arrangements. Informal advice from the government of Nauru is that similar conditions would apply to women, children and family units in any future case load transferred to Nauru for processing but that single males would be subject to closed-centre arrangements. Women and children will be able to move freely at any time during the day.

The reason that Nauru is preferable to Christmas Island is that the facility on Christmas Island has not been completed and is not expected to be commissioned until mid-2007 at the earliest. The government will consider how it uses offshore processing centres, including Christmas Island, in light of circumstances that exist at that time. It is important to remember that Australia received nearly 9,000 unauthorised sea arrivals in the two-year period to June 2001, so it is important to maintain contingency capacity. The reason that Nauru is preferable to Manus is that the memorandum of understanding provides for a total of 2,500 places in Manus or Nauru until June 2007. The government has not ruled out sending unauthorised arrivals to either Manus or Nauru. Manus has been mothballed since 2003. Nauru was more recently in operation, and its continued operation is welcomed by the Nauruan government.

I think it is very important that I mention to those opposite the mental health team which is going to visit Nauru. Senator Amanda Vanstone announced on 13 June that an independent group of mental health experts would visit Nauru to assess the two remaining residents of the offshore processing centre. She said that she is very concerned about the mental health of the two Iraqi men on Nauru following a recent clinical assessment done by International Organisation for Migration medical staff. She has asked the department to organise a mental health assessment team from Australia to go to Nauru to interview and assess these men and provide a report on the options to manage their mental health while they remain there. As they are subject to adverse security assessments, the Australian government will not be bringing them to Australia. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Vanstone during question time today in relation to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report on provisions of the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, tabled on Monday, and statements made by the minister.

The government does not want to proceed with the recommendations of this report. It wants the bill to go through this parliament without adopting the recommendations. That is clear. We have a government-dominated Senate inquiry which considered the government’s proposal to process all unauthorised boat arrivals at offshore detention centres. The government-dominated committee received 136 submissions and held a public hearing before preparing its report. The recommendations contained in the report received unanimous support from the committee members. But now the government does not want to adopt the committee’s No. 1 recommendation, which is:

In light of the limited information available to the committee, the committee recommends that the Bill should not proceed.

This is the simple and clear recommendation of the committee: that the bill should not proceed. Why does the government not want to adopt the recommendation? One cannot help but wonder about the discussion that may have taken place last night, or perhaps even this morning, between Prime Minister Howard and his Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. Was it a discussion about why, according to the government, this bill must proceed, how much significance should be given to appeasing Indonesia and how much the people of Australia should be told about its elected government appeasing the Indonesian government?

It seems that the Prime Minister and his immigration minister have different points of view, because yesterday in the House of Representatives Prime Minister Howard was asked a question by Labor’s immigration spokesperson, Tony Burke, about the government’s intention not to adopt the committee’s recommendation. The question read, in part:

... why won’t the Prime Minister listen to Australian parliamentarians as much as he has listened to Indonesian parliamentarians?

The Prime Minister’s response was:

These policies have nothing to do with listening to Indonesian politicians.

That is not the view of everyone in the government, and some of them are even prepared to go on the record. Last night, only hours after the Prime Minister’s statement to parliament during question time, his Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone, appeared on the ABC’s The 7.30 Report, saying:

Well, I think, as you say, it is indisputable we’ve taken into account the concerns of Indonesia.

Here is a further quote from Minister Vanstone:

Yes, we are taking into account what the Indonesians want because they’re very helpful to us on border protection.

Well, that is a revelation. The government is changing our laws because Indonesia wants it to. The immigration minister has admitted that Indonesia has influenced this legislation. This morning in an interview on AM, this question was put to the minister:

... Australia is listening to Indonesia, but does the release of Abu Bakar Bashir indicate that Indonesia wouldn’t listen to Australia in this way?

The minister’s response was that we have to follow our law, they have to follow their law. That is the point, Minister. The Howard government, through this bill, is making changes to our law. You even reiterated this in the interview when you said it is a change to our policy. There was no demand for these changes from Australia. But on 15 May, one month before the tabling of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s report, the Indonesian foreign minister stated that he had been assured by Australia that Australia would not accept individuals processed on Nauru even if determined to be refugees and that this ‘solved the issue’. Following the meeting, Minister Downer said Indonesia was ‘pleased with the Australian government’s changes to processing of asylum seekers who arrive by sea’. Under the proposed changes made by this bill, refugees could be held indefinitely. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.