John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from Senator Fierravanti-Wells proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The recent increased activities of people smuggling.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter, which is of great importance to many in Australia as we see the growing surge of people smuggling. Two things are very clear: firstly, that the Labor government’s border protection policies have failed miserably; secondly, that the Labor government’s softening of border protection laws has given the green light to people smugglers.

In the last eight months we have seen 20 boats, with over 714 unauthorised arrivals on board, come to Australia. This is a clear result of the government softening its border protection regime in August last year. In August last year we saw the abolition of temporary protection visas and, low and behold, as soon as that happened we started to see this surge. That, of course, can be compared to the record in the Howard years. From 2002 to 2005, only one boat arrived on our shores. It is very clear that the Labor government’s change of direction is sending the wrong message to people smugglers. On this side, the coalition has been warning the government repeatedly since August last year that this very situation would arise—that the softening of our border protection regime would give a green light to people smugglers to come on down.

Let us look at what some of the asylum seekers themselves are saying. We heard directly from one of the asylum seekers in Indonesia in a report on the AM program on 24 April, which I would like to quote for the record. The report said:

‘Kevin Rudd—he change everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different, different. Maybe accepted. But when John Howard, president Australia, he said come back to Indonesia.’ He says Kevin Rudd won’t send him back to Indonesia and that’s why he’ll be getting on a boat again.

Then, of course, we look at what the Indonesian ambassador has to say on the issue. The Indonesian ambassador to Australia has said that people smugglers are using the changes in policy as a marketing tool. In an article in the Australian on 22 April, he said:

I think maybe the traffickers use this as a trial to organise more of flowing of the refugees, because they get the money for that.

This is because the price has gone up because they can now guarantee that that they do not have to spend time in detention, and so it is going to make it a lot easier for them to give the guarantee: ‘Yes, come on down, go on down to Australia. Spend a little bit of time in detention, but before you know it you’ll be out there.’ And let us look at the comments by Mr Steve Cook that were reported in the Australian on 1 December. Mr Cook, the International Organisation for Migration’s chief of mission in Indonesia, said:

People smugglers have clearly noted that there has been a change in policy and they’re testing the envelope.

Even our own Australian Federal Police has reportedly warned the government that its softening of border protection laws would encourage the people smugglers. I would call on this government to immediately release any advice that it has received, particularly from the Australia Federal Police, about the impact of the changes of the border protection regime. The Australian public are entitled to know and have security about border protection, but it is very clear that this change in direction and this change in policy and the softening of border protection has resulted in the very thing that the Australian public does not want—that is, more people arriving on our shores.

And how many more will be coming? How many are waiting for the opportunity? We have seen them arrive virtually every day. Every day we are seeing another lot of boat people coming to our country. And every person who arrives in this manner is one less person who has been waiting in a camp, properly processed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who will not have the opportunity of coming to this place, who will not be afforded the opportunity of being resettled in a country like Australia. That is really the sad situation here. But of course, the minister is very happy to say, ‘Oh, but nothing has changed.’ It has changed, Minister. It is very, very clear that from the moment you abolished temporary protection visas in August we suddenly started to see this surge. It is very clear that there has been a clear change in policy.

Let us look at some of the changes that this government has effected: the closure of Manus and Nauru offshore detention centres, the abolishing of the temporary protection visas and the expansion of appeal rights for asylum seekers. In my 20 years of working in the Australian Government Solicitor’s office, and over the many years when I acted, from time to time over those 20 years, for the department of immigration, I saw many instances where there had been a clear abuse of those appeal rights in futile legal cases which resulted in millions and millions of dollars of costs to the taxpayers of Australia. The important thing about the temporary protection visas is that the temporary protection visa procedures made people available to be deported if they were not granted a proper visa. So that is really the key.

But let me look at some of the other changes. The minister is very fond of telling us that there has been no change. So in answer to my questions in estimates, and in answer to written questions on notice, there are 26 initiatives or projects that have been changed in the department to give effect to the government’s change of its border protection regime. These include: considering arrangements to apply the onus on the department to justify detention to detain an unlawful citizen—so now the onus is on the department to justify why a person has to remain in detention; strengthening arrangements to allow for the release of unauthorised arrivals when their immigration detention is no longer required for the management of health, identity and security risks to the Australian community; introducing further access to legal advice; least restrictive detention environments; use of community based alternatives. And then the minister gets upset because people criticise his change of direction.

It is interesting to look at the letters to the editor in the Daily Telegraph on 7 May. The minister got all huffy because somebody had written in. There was also a story in the Daily Telegraph which was headed ‘Illegals will get a cuppa and visa’ on 4 May. The minister got all worked up about this, but the reality is that a very strong message has gone out there that is basically saying we have gone soft, we have changed our regime, we have changed our system of dealing with illegals. So it is virtually a situation now where we say: ‘Yes, okay, well you’ll spend a little bit more time in detention, but come on down. It’s a lot easier.’ And that is why we are seeing this surge; it is because of the pull factors. The minister talks about the push factors, but without pull, you do not have push. And now we have some very strong pull factors that mean that it is much, much easier for people to abuse our system and to come on down, and that is why we are seeing, daily, more arrivals. And I say to the people of Australia who are very concerned about this: mark my words, this change of direction means that we are going to have many, many more. They are waiting in their thousands, and they are waiting to come on down.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pretty disappointed after hearing Senator Fierravanti-Wells in her rant regarding the matters of public importance. I am disappointed but I am not surprised by it. I note that the good Senators Payne and Troeth have both declined to speak—they are not on the speaking list. They would be pretty disappointed as well by that performance of Senator Fierravanti-Wells. The really interesting thing is that it highlights the divisions within the Liberal Party on this issue—not just within the Liberal Party but between the chambers. Before I came in today, I thought I would check what is going on in the House of Reps, the other place, to see what they are talking about today and see if they are actually debating immigration and border protection. Guess what—in question time, how many questions were on border protection or immigration? Have a guess.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams interjecting—

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on, Senator Williams, have a guess.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wouldn’t have a clue.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Zero. Not one question. How many notices of motion are there on immigration or border protection? Would you like to guess? Zero—none. In the other place they are debating the economy. They are talking about the stimulus package and the budget, but here in the Senate the Liberal hardliners are at it again. The hardliners are here in the Senate holding the flag.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask Senator Arbib to retract that last comment about the hard Right. I think it has connotations and would appreciate it if he would withdraw that. Thank you.

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

After receiving some advice, it is a general comment across the chamber, but I put it back to Senator Arbib that a senator has found offence at that comment and he may or may not decide that it is an appropriate comment.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of my statement, at no time did I talk about the hard Right; I talked about hardliners, so I do not intend to retract the comment. In terms of the hardliners on the other side of the chamber, they do not believe in global warming, they still believe in Work Choices and now they are returning to their roots in terms of immigration and border protection. Australia went down a very dark route when John Howard and the former government played wedge politics and dog-whistled on border protection. It looks like we are going back again. Here comes the new Liberal Party-National Party scare campaign and Senator Fierravanti-Wells is at the helm. So you have to ask: why are they referring back to immigration and asylum seekers? Why are they running a scare campaign? They are desperate. They are losing the debate on the economy, they are losing the debate on climate change and they are losing the debate on workplace relations, so they are back to their typical scare campaign.

The worrying thing about the scare campaign is that it is really a political game based on opportunism. It is not based on fact; it is based on fear. If you listen to Senator Fierravanti-Wells and some other members of the coalition frontbench, you would think that there is a huge difference between our position on border protection and immigration and the coalition’s position. Look at what the shadow minister, Sharman Stone, the member for Murray, said on Sky News on 16 April, straight after—this was minutes after—the Ashmore Reef explosion:

You can’t slash funds, you can’t take your eye off the ball, you can’t announce a softer policy and then expect people not to lose their lives through people smuggling ...

On 17 April, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, said:

There is no doubt the impression has been created that we are now more accommodating or taking a less hard line towards people smuggling than ... in the past.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells said we have given the green light to asylum seekers.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everybody says that.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everybody says that.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is amazing, because the Liberal Party and the coalition have completely changed their position over the past two to three months. This is a complete U-turn. They have finally found another scare campaign they can run. The facts tell the story, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Let’s go back to it. Let’s look at what the member for Murray, the shadow spokesperson for immigration, said on 2UE on 19 January this year:

Well certainly Rudd’s Government has continued with the excised migration zones. They’ve also continued with what was originally a Labor-introduced policy of mandatory detention—

That is right—

They’re using the Christmas Island detention centre, which we built.

What did she say on 2SM on 1 December? Listen to this, senators. She probably did not think anyone was listening:

Labor is echoing very much what we did; it’s just that they seem very reluctant to loudly and clearly state into the region, look, we still do have excised zones for migration purposes.

That was the Liberal shadow minister. She went on to say:

They also still of course have mandatory detention until you can prove the identity of the people. I don’t think we need—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about temporary protection visas?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hang on, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Please listen to this. I think you should listen to it because it was your own spokesperson.

The Acting Deputy President:

Please address your comments through the chair, Senator Arbib.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister said:

I don’t think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we’ve got of course Christmas Island. There’s a $360 million new detention centre sitting there.

Are the coalition coming into this chamber today and saying, ‘Let’s go back to the Pacific solution?’ No. Are coalition senators coming back today and saying, ‘Let’s go back to temporary protection visas?’ No. In fact, a joint standing committee looking at immigration detention measures released a report in December 2008. It was endorsed by shadow immigration minister Sharman Stone and Liberal MP Danna Vale. Senator Fierravanti-Wells left that out today, but it is useful information and I think other senators should know. The committee’s report endorsed the Rudd government’s abolition of the former Prime Minister’s inhumane approach to immigration detention. Let’s get the quote in. This is from the report, signed by the shadow minister:

The series of recommendations we have made will build on the new immigration detention values and strike a fair balance between protection of the Australian community and our obligations towards those in immigration detention.

The opposition’s own spokesperson has outlined how little difference there is in mandatory detention and border protection. You do not want to go back to the Pacific solution and neither do the government. You do not want to go back to temporary protection visas and neither do we. We do not want to go back to having women and children in endless detention, and I hope that you do not want to go back to that either. Of course, your spokesperson has said that, and I hope the senators on the other side will agree with that.

In terms of temporary protection visas, Senator Fierravanti-Wells made the point that there was a surge of asylum seekers when the government ended temporary protection visas, which is absolute rubbish. TPVs did not stop boats arriving.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston interjecting—

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen to the facts, Senator. Temporary protection visas were introduced in October 1999. There were 3,722 unauthorised boat arrivals that year. During the next two years there were 8,459 unauthorised arrivals, including 5,520 arrivals in 2001 alone. Not only was there an increase, people granted TPVs did not leave Australia. By the time TPVs were abolished last year, nearly 90 per cent of people initially granted a TPV had been granted a permanent protection visa or another visa to remain in Australia. Even the previous government realised TPVs were failing. The coalition’s 2007 election policy manifesto dealing with unauthorised boat arrivals made no reference, senators, to TPVs because they knew TPVs were not working.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells also made some claims about two asylum seekers who, apparently in news reports, had mentioned that Australia was a great place to come because of changed policies. Senator Fierravanti-Wells based that statement on two comments in a newspaper. Senators, there has actually been a report and a study done on this by Dr Roslyn Richardson of Charles Sturt University. She interviewed asylum seekers—not two, but many—and she did it in a systematic way. Let me offer a few quotes from her paper:

... none of the respondents who were interviewed for this study arrived in Australia with a detailed understanding of Australia’s immigration policies.

... some Afghan respondents reported that they had not even heard of a place called Australia prior to arriving on Australia’s shores.

While a number of the respondents said that they knew prior to their spontaneous arrival, that they might be detained in an Australian detention centre, only one of the respondents said that before he came to Australia, he knew that he might be subjected to the temporary protection visa.

... the apparent lack of importance of Australia to refugees prior to their arrival in Australia is worth noting. Australia to the respondents, pre arrival, was perhaps only as important to them as any other country which was outside of their region and with which they had little contact.

Most of the people interviewed actually came to Australia during the excesses of the Howard government asylum seeker policies, yet they were not even aware of the policies that were supposed to deter them. The argument that somehow there was a cause and effect relationship between the movement of asylum seekers and our domestic immigration policies was false then and it is false now.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells really did not go into the global factors that are driving the immigration, asylum seeker spike either. She just glossed over it like it is not happening. She did not mention Pakistan or the turmoil there. She did not mention the turmoil in Sri Lanka and she did not mention the turmoil in Iraq. She did not mention these issues or the conflicts that are causing people across the world to migrate and flee unsafe environments and look for safe havens.

The UN has described the situation in Sri Lanka as an intensifying emergency as tens of thousands of civilians continue to make their way out of the conflict zone. Among the major countries of origin of asylum seekers, the biggest increase in 2008 was registered by Afghanistan—numbers were up 85 per cent. Of course, Australia is going to be an area that is viewed as a safe haven. The UNHCR mentioned a 12 per cent spike in asylum seeker traffic across the globe. Senator Fierravanti-Wells never even mentioned these facts. What is happening globally is irrelevant to the Liberal Party. In the end this is a scare campaign not based on fact but based on opportunism.

Fortunately, though, there are some good people within the Liberal Party not motivated on this issue by political opportunism who have decided to take a stand. They have talked about the push and pull factors. Mr Barnett, the Western Australian Premier, said this about global factors:

I think what we are seeing is serious unrest in areas like Sri Lanka, Afghanistan … and there are desperate people trying to find a better life for themselves.

That was reported by AAP. The member for Pearce, Mrs Moylan, supported the government’s current policies and does not believe they are responsible for the rise in boat people. She said:

I don’t think that it is domestic policy driving this latest flood. I think you will see, like it was previously, that it is events in Afghanistan.

They are the facts. This is what is happening overseas and this is why there is a spike. It has absolutely nothing to do with government policy.

In its policy the government has maintained the strongest of border protection. If you look at the figures, funding has gone up for border security and border surveillance. Immigration and border protection policy for the Rudd government is based on six pillars: the excision of offshore islands; mandatory detention of all unauthorised boat arrivals; offshore processing of unauthorised boat arrivals on Christmas Island; extensive air, land and sea patrols; the prosecution of people smugglers; and working with our regional allies.

This is what the government is doing. We are working with Indonesia, Malaysia and Sri Lanka to ensure that these countries have the support and the resources they need to stop the people smugglers. We all know that in the end these are the people who are helping to drive unauthorised arrivals, and this is what the Rudd government is concerned about. We have heard what the Prime Minister has said about people smugglers, and we will continue the fight. The government has the strongest of border protections in place but is at the same time processing asylum seekers humanely. So I say to Senator Fierravanti-Wells and those senators on the other side of the chamber: when you are addressing the Liberal Party policy, do not talk to or look at John Howard; talk to former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All too often when we talk about and debate the issues surrounding Australia’s border protection policy, we find ourselves in this ridiculous mix of scaremongering campaigns run by particular members of the opposition. Despite the fact that we know there are a growing number of people around the world seeking refuge, the coalition continue to turn a blind eye to the terrifying circumstances that these people have fled and from which they are seeking our protection.

I find it absolutely disappointing that the coalition’s own rhetoric in the last day—even in the last half hour—has changed from demonising people smugglers to demonising those seeking refuge themselves. The senators’ comments this afternoon were more about those individual asylum seekers than about the people smugglers that they continue to say we need to tackle. I guess that gets to the heart of the problem: the coalition do not believe we should have refugees in Australia. They do not believe that we should have a compassionate approach. If they did, they would understand that those people seeking asylum are not illegal. Terms like ‘illegal’ are not only offensive but absolutely inaccurate. It is actually not illegal to arrive in Australia and seek asylum and refuge. I find it incredibly distressing and unfortunate that some people continue to use this to exploit desperate asylum seekers for their own political advantage. I think Senator Arbib said something quite important: perhaps it is because of your own irrelevancy that you turn to demonising those who are more desperate than you.

As a signatory to the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees and a country that considers itself a compassionate nation and a champion of the fair go, Australia must step up to our international obligations and our reputation and swiftly consider asylum seekers for refugee status. Australia has a role to play in the global community, as the movement of people will grow. We know from numerous reports that the global numbers of people seeking refuge have been rising for some time. According to the UNHCR, the recent increases in Australia are reflected in the global trends. Between 2001 and 2006, all countries experienced a large drop in asylum applications, and then from 2007 to 2008 there was a universal increase of around 11 per cent. In Australia, asylum applications increased by 19 per cent last year, from 3,980 to 4,750. Let me point out that fewer than four per cent of those people arrived here by boat. The majority of people seeking asylum in Australia arrived by plane, yet not once have we heard the coalition comment on those people. Not once do we hear them criticise border protection in our airports. It is an absolute double standard. And why? Because it is easy to whip up fear around poor people who arrive by leaky boat.

I do not know how many times the Greens have said this, but advocating harsher immigration policies, as some of those in the opposition continue to do, does not stop desperate people who are fleeing war and persecution. We know that the temporary protection visa scheme did not work in deterring people; in fact, we saw the numbers rise after the introduction of that scheme. We know that excising our territories does not work in deterring people, and we know that charging people for their own detention in immigration detention centres does not work in deterring people, despite the fact that even as late as this morning the opposition seemed split on whether we are going to go backwards to the dark old days where we charged people for detention regardless of whether they were found to be genuine refugees or not.

What I find most scary about the position currently being pushed by the opposition spokesperson for immigration and her supporters is that I thought Australia had moved on. The voters thought Australia had moved on. Had we not moved on from the days when we locked children in detention centres behind barbed wire in the middle of the desert? We knew that that was the case in the dark old days of the Howard regime, when Philip Ruddock was immigration minister and turned a blind eye to young children who had sewn their lips together in desperation for assistance. Yet those in the coalition who continue to feel irrelevant in their own positions have nothing better to do than prey on the fear and desperation of those more desperate than us.

I think we can all agree, on all sides of politics, that the people-smuggling trade is an appalling one that exploits innocent individuals who are in a desperate situation. Where I do think we differ, however, is on the role that Australia should play in managing the global rise in numbers of asylum seekers fleeing their homelands in search of a safe and peaceful environment. While there are reports that border security will receive a boost of up to $500 million in tonight’s budget to combat people smuggling, I hope that we also see an increase in our commitment to providing humanitarian visas and humanitarian aid.

Recent arrivals of people seeking asylum in Australia point to humanitarian problems right across the global community and increased refugee movement right around the world. Australia has an important part to play. Just as we want to be a player in helping to combat and deal with the global financial crisis, we have a role to play in helping to manage the movement of people globally and the numbers of people who will continue to seek refuge right around the world. We have a responsibility not just in our immediate region but in helping to manage those people right around the world.

Australia is one of the wealthiest nations in our region and we need to provide support to those in need without whipping up fear and unfounded scaremongering. Instead of spending millions of dollars on pushing people back, which we know is not a humane, appropriate or responsible way of managing the movement of people, we need to find better ways to create safer and more humane pathways for people to seek asylum.

I want to reiterate how disappointed I am that the coalition seem to be sliding back to the dark old days when we locked children in detention behind barbed wire in the middle of the desert and threw away the key, when we separated children from their parents because they happened to be at different stages of seeking asylum and having their visas processed, when we detained people unlawfully because they were not actually meant to be detained in the first place. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has found hundreds of cases where we detained people unlawfully. Do we really want to go back to the dark old days when Australia’s reputation in the international world was frowned upon? I do not think we do and I do not think the Australian public want us to.

We should be proud of being a compassionate, humane country which does give people a fair go and does not demonise people because of where they come from or how they arrive. Whether somebody arrives by boat or by plane, they still have the right to seek asylum. We should not accept double standards and we should not accept any calls from the coalition to return to the days of locking people in detention and throwing away the key.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Arbib got to his feet and I heard him speak, I knew that the government were lost and, having heard Senator Hanson-Young continue, I have to say that, disappointingly, in this matter this is a coalition of the unhinged. Two people who I have a deal of respect for stood up in this place and they clearly do not have any understanding of the sorts of challenges that we are facing in border protection. I think that really encapsulates it. They are simply in a state of denial.

The government are not in denial about one fact only—the fact that we have had a thirtyfold increase in the number of people who have come to this country by ship—forget about the lawfulness of it—since their decision to change the policy. Interestingly, in an answer during question time, Senator Evans said, ‘Of course, this is all the push factor.’ Talk about a bit of denial! The push factor is where we talk about Afghanistan, changes in the Middle East, changes in Sri Lanka. Perhaps the changes in Sri Lanka might have some sort of basis in fact; I will accept that.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then sit down!

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection from someone else who obviously does not know too much about the matter. It is useful to look at the actual facts of this matter. Twelve and 16 people, respectively, came from Sri Lanka. They are in different circumstances, but I think you will find that out of 763 people it would not be a demographic you would die on the list about. It just would not be a demographic about which you would say, ‘That’s certainly a push factor’, because that would be unmitigated rubbish, as it is most of the time we hear from that side, and it is completely uninformed. What about that other surprising demographic, the two Bhutanese fishermen who were washed up in an esky? That gives you 30 out of 763.

We have this push factor, but we are just one country in a global situation. You have to think about what is happening in places like Europe, with its 27 states. They have had an increase of six per cent. That is a significant increase. Perhaps there is an amazing refugee movement out there. So how is it that Australia has had a 19 per cent increase across the board? We have had that increase because we have had a change in policy, and to talk about the push factor being such an important issue is being in complete and absolute denial.

Senator Evans stood up here, and people were gasping around me when he said, ‘We have had no change in policy. There is no policy difference.’ Under the policies of the previous coalition government, processing at offshore excised places ensured that unauthorised arrivals did not have access to Australia’s extensive administrative and judicial review processes. It also meant that successful asylum seekers did not have an automatic right to apply for a temporary protection visa, and I suspect the Greens, at least, said they did not like that about us. The government is saying that is the policy we have today. The facts of the matter are, according to the same Minister Evans, that unauthorised arrivals taken to excised places have access to legal advice, independent review, oversight by the Ombudsman and an automatic right to apply for a permanent protection visa. That sounds to me like it is completely different. There are absolutely no similarities at all.

But, apart from the government being in denial, there is no pull factor; it is all push. We have wiped the push out. We understand that you managed 30 out of over 760. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who come to this country on a vessel expect to have a permanent migration outcome in 90 days. The last vessel was yesterday. Maybe I should check. It is only five o’clock; there may be another one today—who would know?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s right. You never know!

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would never know. But the notion of a rush is alive and well. I know those on the other side may be in denial about that. I have a comparison. Yesterday’s boat was found 23 nautical miles from the Tiwi Islands. Of course, 23 nautical miles from the Tiwi islands is pretty close, and I commend Customs for stopping it there, because of the extensive immigration issues that are associated with the vessels. In November 2003, the Minasa Bone, a vessel which had come to the Tiwi Islands, was pushed offshore by the traditional owners, Mr Brown and Gibson Farmer. They called Customs, and what did Customs do? They towed it offshore and said, ‘You have got to go back to Indonesia’, so that is what happened. There is the difference from the one that was 23 nautical miles off there today. They know where they are going. They are coming to Australia because they are going to get the migration outcome that has been promised by the people smugglers. They are selling a pretty good product. The product they are selling says, ‘If you come to Australia under the new regulations you will get to stay. You will get a bit of a sorting out, a few questions for three months. Then you are in, Buddy, and you are in for good.’

We have now got a further softening, I think. It is hard to know how soft you can get on this matter and pretend that you are a rod of iron. We have got Villawood, and we understand from the media today that potentially unauthorised arrivals are going to have access to Australian courts. Keeping them at Villawood is another softening of the policy. We are going to get a whole raft of new administrative appeals from what we had in that dim, distant past when the government that I belonged to, and was so proud to be a part of, changed.

I sympathise with Senator Hanson-Young of the Greens. I understand where she is coming from when she pleads about the difficulties of these people. But we need to understand that when those people set sail and come to Australia they pay people some money to get into a boat. They get into an aeroplane first of all, fly to Malaysia and then go through the process. This is a commercial operation. People say we should feel very sad for the poor buggers when they get here. I do, but what I really feel sad about is the woman who has lived in a Somali refugee camp and whose life only gets better because one of her children dies every month and that is one less mouth to feed. The other four she will possibly be able to look after.

As Australians, we are proud signatories to the UNHCR 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. That says we will take into this country those most in need, and that is who we will take. There is a line. The previous government, the government that I belonged to, was so proud to ensure that taking 13,000 out of that line was the greatest expansion of the humanitarian refugee process in Australia’s history. These people who come to our shores unlawfully displace people who need a place more than them and they put the quarantine of our nation at risk. We need to send a clear signal: do not put your families and children on these ships to come here. We need to send a clear signal, and that signal is not being sent. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise on this occasion and make a contribution to what I believe is a very important matters of public importance debate. We have heard from the opposition today the usual series of half-truths and distortions they trot out whenever this subject comes up. Those opposite have no leadership, no policies and no response to the challenges facing this country, and so once again they have turned to this tiresome old mechanism for diverting attention from their hopeless performance by drumming up another scare campaign concerning asylum seekers. They try to arouse xenophobic sentiment in Australia. They try to exploit the desperation and suffering of people seeking asylum. It is a sad and grubby exercise and it reflects very poorly on those who continue to promote it.

As those opposite know perfectly well, there is no connection whatever between the policies of the Rudd government and the recent rise in the number of persons trying to reach Australia by boat in order to claim asylum. The core proposition being advanced by those opposite is that the policies of this government create a pull factor. This is, of course, semi-codified language for what is a nonsensical proposition. The idea that desperate persons fleeing catastrophe, desperate persons in the middle of a humanitarian crisis—whether it be on the Jaffna Peninsula or in Afghanistan—are thumbing their way through the Hansard of the Commonwealth parliament is, of course, a nonsense.

This rise that has been experienced in Australia in recent days is a very small part of what is a worldwide upsurge in refugee movements. The upsurge began in 2006, when the Howard government was still in office, and it has been caused principally by the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, the escalation of the civil war in Sri Lanka, the increasing security concerns in Pakistan, the continuing violence in Iraq and, of course, the continuing conflict in several African countries. These are the drivers for creating a desperate population of persons who are on the move. Refugee numbers are rising all over the developed world, far more so than they are in Australia. In 2008, as we have heard, 36,000 people arrived by boat in Italy, 15,300 in Greece and 13,400 in Spain. Many thousands more have entered Europe overland. The US, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries all have major problems with would-be asylum seekers trying to cross their borders.

Australia’s problems are very minor indeed by comparison. In 2008 we saw just 127 asylum seekers arriving by boat. Not only is this a very small number when compared to those numbers experienced by other countries but it is also a small number compared to the number of people who arrive by air as tourists or students and then subsequently try to claim asylum while in Australia or who simply overstay their visas. That was true when those opposite were in government and that is still true today. But because those people are mostly from developed countries like New Zealand, the US or Britain those opposite do not make any fuss about them. They do not care how many people from those countries stay in Australia illegally. It is only the arrival of a very small number of people from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds—people from Afghanistan, Iraq or Sri Lanka—that arouses the passions of those opposite. That is because the other side learnt many years ago that to foster, nurture and promote the fear of the other is an opportunity to create votes. Those opposite are the poor shadow children of Pauline Hanson, who offer us xenophobia and racism in lieu of offering us real policies that will make a contribution to the challenges faced by this country.

Those opposite allege, quite falsely, that the current upsurge in attempts to reach Australia by boat is linked in some way to the policies of the Rudd government. This core proposition is completely contrary to the facts. It has also been refuted by leading experts in this area. What does Professor Susan Kneebone, Deputy Director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University, say? She says:

… desperate people … are not cognisant of Australia’s policies. They resort to people smugglers because there are not sufficient legal channels to get here.

Of course, this proves what is common sense: the idea that desperate people fleeing in humanitarian crises are making some kind of regulatory impact statement on the latest set of laws promoted by any one country is a nonsense. Neither the asylum seekers themselves nor the smuggling gangs who ferry them from Indonesia to Ashmore Reef know or care about the details of Australia’s policy on asylum seekers. Of course, the smugglers tell these unfortunate people that if they get to Australia they will be allowed to stay. That is what they used to say, that is what they still say and no doubt it is what they will always say. They tell them they will be given a house and a farm. They tell them whatever they think they need to tell them to produce customers in their own unique, grubby little market. They are in a business. They did that when those opposite were in government and they do it today.

The Rudd government has made two substantial changes to Australia’s immigration system relating to asylum seekers. Firstly, we have abolished the Howard government’s expensive and ineffective policy of dumping asylum seekers on Nauru and other islands and keeping them there indefinitely in the hope that they will either go mad or go home. We now take them to the new facility at Christmas Island—that $400 million, 800-bed facility built by those opposite—and there we process their claims properly and with due process. Those who do not gain acceptance as asylum seekers are sent home. Secondly, we have scrapped the Howard government’s unnecessarily punitive temporary protection visas—visas which denied people accepted as refugees the right to access refugee settlement services such as English-language programs, employment and income assistance and which denied them reunion with their families. Of course, by denying family access, the TPV system actually increased the number of people who were attempting illegal entry into this country.

Neither of these measures by this government has made the slightest difference to the border protection regime which the Rudd government inherited from the previous government. Not only has this government maintained a strong border protection regime but it has actually increased funding for border protection. The government recently announced a $44.7 million increase in new measures to fight people-smuggling in cooperation with our neighbours—principally, Indonesia. The government has sent two ministerial delegations to Indonesia to reinvigorate the Bali process on people-smuggling at a ministerial level—a process the previous government neglected. It is worth pointing out that although there has been an increase in the number of people trying to reach Australia by boat since 2007 none of them have succeeded in doing so. The only would-be asylum seekers who have succeeded in reaching the Australian mainland have been those who were seriously injured in the explosion on the boat at Ashmore Reef in April and who are now in Australian hospitals. All the others have been intercepted by the Navy or other services and taken to Christmas Island. In other words, under the Rudd government, Australia’s border protection regime has been maintained—indeed, it has been strengthened—and it has been effective in preventing unauthorised entry to Australia by boat.

It has been pleasing to see that not all members of the Liberal Party have been as willing as Senator Fierravanti-Wells and others to sell out their principles in pursuit of cheap and temporary political advantage. Once again we can find Liberal Party members and their utterances on both sides of the street. Mr Turnbull has called for the reintroduction of TPVs, although this has nothing to do with the border protection regime, since it affects only those who have already been accepted as refugees. Mr Russell Broadbent called TPVs ‘an extraordinarily harsh instrument’. Mr Petro Georgiou said there was no evidence that the Rudd government’s changes to the TPV system had any impact on asylum seeker arrivals. Ms Judi Moylan said that if TPVs were re-introduced ‘we’d put more lives in danger, especially those of women and children.’ That is what the parliamentary colleagues of those opposite think about Mr Turnbull’s cheap populist stunting. That is what they think about your siren song to the Hanson voters, who continue to appeal to your own desperate lack of policies. They are Liberals who have the courage to stick by genuinely liberal—small ‘l’ liberal—principles rather than wrapping themselves in Pauline Hanson’s flag.

What do the Australian people think about this cheap political xenophobia? Fortunately we do not have to guess, because last month the Essential Research poll asked this question: ‘Who would you trust most to handle Australia’s immigration and border security—Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party or Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party?’ The answer was 46 per cent for Kevin Rudd, 34 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull and 20 per cent were undecided. (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nobody wants to see hundreds of men, women and children travelling from small islands in Indonesia—travelling from Sri Lanka and Pakistan—to the north-west coast of Australia on small leaky boats. Nobody wants to see that. But the bumbling, fumbling, naive, negligent policies of this Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and this government have meant that we have seen a massive increase. Here are the facts that these speakers from the government simply refuse to acknowledge. In 2003-04, we had one boat; in 2004-05, we had no boats; in 2005-06, we had four boats; in 2006-07, we had five boats; in 2007-08, we had three boats; but in 2008-09, the one year that Labor has had total and sole responsibility for, we have had 20 boats and 763 arrivals. There was one yesterday, so I think it is now 21, but who is counting, because the number changes so regularly.

These government senators talk about the ‘dark time’ when John Howard and the coalition were in charge of immigration. The dark time was when border protection came upon this country as a major issue when we saw massive dislocation in the late nineties. We saw people in the water; we saw people perish. What did we do? We sent the right messages. We sent the right messages to South-East Asia, to people-smugglers and to the people who would pay the people-smugglers—the desperate, sad people who would pay, as the AFP used to tell me when I was the minister, US$18,000.

These ministers and members of the government delude themselves. The Indonesian ambassador has said that we have sent the wrong message; the changes in policy are being used as a marketing tool. That is what he said, but we do not believe him over there in the government because it is not convenient and does not fit our spin. The International Organisation for Migration’s chief of mission in Indonesia, Steve Cook, says that people smugglers have taken note of Australian government policy changes and are testing the envelope. But the government do not want to hear that because it does not fit within their spin. Lastly but most importantly, the Australian Federal police have warned the government that the change in policy is sending the wrong message.

I tell you that today I must say I was embarrassed for Senator Arbib. He said that in 2001 we had 5,000 boats. When a senator comes into the chamber, you would expect him to at least spend one or two minutes trying to learn the basic fundamentals of the issues upon which he seeks to give a dissertation. Sadly, it indicates he has spent far too many hours in Sussex Street plotting the demise of his colleagues and enemies within the New South Wales Right of the Labor Party. We had 54 boats, for his benefit. It is not hard to find out the actual facts. There were 4,137 arrivals. I am staggered that he would come in here and talk about 5,000 boats. Obviously he has no concept of the subject matter at hand.

This is spin about the dislocation in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. When the war was on in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002 we had no boats. During the Iraq War, 2003 and 2004, we had one boat. I have got to tell you that these guys over the other side will tell you anything that suits them. Their bumbling, naive, negligent policies are going to mean that men and women are on the water between Roti Island and Darwin and Broome. That is what they have done by bringing their naive stupidity. For 11 years they sat in opposition and thought, ‘Well, they are looking after people-smuggling. The AFP know what they are doing. We don’t need to get involved.’ As soon as they change the policy it is used as an advertising tool, as has been explained to them by the Indonesian ambassador. Do you think they are listening? They come in here today and try and skate over and paper over the cracks of their policy. This is absolutely stupid. You are sending the wrong message. This trade, this commercial corruption out there, depends upon the messages that you send. You do not need to be an Einstein to work that out. But this government has not got a clue.

It is laughable that when we had this incident off Ashmore Reef, when the boat burst into flames and exploded, the minister for border protection said to the media, ‘I don’t know anything more than what I have read in the press about this.’ Talk about utterly asleep at the wheel. Minister Debus is just comatose. He is an absolute disgrace. What I said to my department as minister was, ‘As soon as there is an event I must be in the loop, I must have the facts, I must be able to tell my prime minister and indeed the parliament what is going on.’ But let me tell you again what he said: ‘I don’t know anything more than what I’ve read in the press about this.’ If he was run over by a bus tomorrow, who would know? He is utterly asleep at the wheel. He is a disgrace, and he is very emblematic of the sorts of ministerial skills that these guys in the government bring to this very important issue. If you want to bring foot and mouth into this country, if you want to bring typhoid or TB or any of those things into this country, then just look at the style and the ability and the confidence imparted by Minister Debus and indeed the spin we have seen from Senator Arbib with his 5,000 boats in 2001. He does not even know what day it is. They are just appalling, and heaven help us if these boats keep coming.