Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Does the minister recall comments by the Prime Minister on 17 June 2002 stating:

I want to make it clear that there is no intention—and there never has been—to excise any part of the Australian mainland. That is an absolutely ludicrous proposition.

Is the minister further aware of comments in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s report on the proposed new laws that state:

... the Bill amounts to an effective ‘self-excision’ of Australia from the international protection regime for all unauthorised boat arrivals.

Why is the minister proceeding with a bill based on what the Prime Minister himself described as ‘an absolutely ludicrous proposition’?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. Without the detail of those words in front of me, I have to be a little bit cautious in my response. The proposition put by the senator asking the question is that the Prime Minister has said that the bill does not excise the mainland, to paraphrase. He has gone on to say that the committee report apparently says that the mainland is, with two qualifiers, effectively excised—for a limited group of people. There is absolutely no inconsistency between those two statements.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When did being absolutely ludicrous become government policy? It is quite surprising. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Doesn’t the minister’s insistence that something which was an absolutely ludicrous proposition in 2002 should become law in 2006 show that the bill is nothing more than a totally unprincipled attempt to appease Indonesia? Far from bending over backwards for the backbench, isn’t the minister more interested in rolling over for Indonesia?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. I am sorry that the clarity of the difference between the two phrases raised by the senator is not obvious not only to himself but, clearly, also to his colleagues. There is a world of difference between doing something and doing something else which may have a very similar impact, but for a limited group. There is quite a world of difference.

The senator asked me about appeasement of Indonesia. I come back to the points that I have made in the past in relation to this. Firstly, despite a phone call from the Indonesian president to our Prime Minister, visas to 42 Indonesian West Papuans were granted. Why? It was because we will always follow our international commitments and we will follow our law at the time. But, subsequent to that boat arrival, the government is entitled to have a look and ask: ‘What else can be done to strengthen our borders and to work positively with Indonesia?’ And that is what we are doing. It is not appeasement. (Time expired)