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 move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Fierravanti-Wells and Cash today relating to immigration and asylum seekers.

Since July last year we have seen this government systematically and deliberately unravelling the whole suite of measures that the previous government had introduced which together, in their entirety, gave us a very effective immigration system and very strong border protection. In a speech on 29 July 2008, entitled ‘New directions in detention’, Minister Evans outlined his manifesto for what has now become the systematic dismantling of the immigration and border protection systems. It is interesting to go back and look at components of that speech. At the time, the minister couched it in language which seemed to say that the government was maintaining its commitment. In fact, the minister said in his speech:

The Labor Party went to the last election with a commitment to maintain a system of mandatory detention and the excision of certain places from the Migration zone, and both commitments will be honoured.

It is all very well to say that but, if you systematically whittle away the criteria and the conditions needed to maintain those systems, it really is a hollow promise and a hollow exercise. It is a false promise.

We are now seeing what was a very effective immigration and border protection system being whittled away bit by bit until it is left as a hollow shell. What do we see? First we saw the minister give us this speech, but then, in October last year in estimates, we started to see how this is actually unravelling. We saw this when the department outlined the details of the 26 program initiatives that the government was changing to give effect to its dismantling of key immigration platforms that had been very effective in giving us a strong immigration and border protection system.

Let us look at what has happened in immigration since that time. One of the most important things is that, while they are now saying, ‘Oh, yes, we have maintained detention,’ the reality is that 90 per cent of people are given permanent visas within 90 days. In my experience as a government lawyer, one of the difficulties that we most encountered in immigration cases was knowing who people actually were. When people come with false documents or when they do not have documents, it is so important from the perspectives of security and risk to the community to know who people are. One of the reasons why a lot of people spend time in detention is that you do not actually know who they are and you have to go back. My concern is whether there are corners being cut and whether there are circumstances where these proper procedures are not being followed.

Other strong signals have been given, such as the abolition of the detention debt. As I said in my speech, let us not forget that there are about 48,000 overstayers at any given time. Now, when those people, many of whom have been engaged in vexatious litigation, have racked up a huge debt, we are effectively saying to them: ‘It’s okay. Don’t worry about it. We forgive your debt.’ Yes, they will have their costs of removal on their movement alert list, but forgiving the substantial debts that they incurred by deliberately and knowingly overstaying their visas—and let us not forget that there are 48,000 overstayers at any given time—does send a message that you are dismantling this strong fabric.

There was also the abolition of the 45-day rule. What does that mean? Overstayers—people who came in on valid visas—can now suddenly decide: ‘I want to stay in Australia. I am going to whack in an asylum claim and prolong the time that I can stay in Australia.’ These are just two examples, but they contribute to the dismantling of this fabric. (Time expired)

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

It is amazing that, whenever we are talking about issues on which both government and opposition should be showing compassion towards people in very difficult circumstances, we have to sit in this chamber and listen to the tripe that is dished up. Look at the record of the previous government in relation to how they actually treated and processed asylum seekers.

Let us not forget that we are in the middle of the worst global financial crisis that this country has experienced in more than 75 years. As we know, that is affecting many, many other countries around the globe. It is very unfortunate that people and those seeking to make money out of the misery of others are taking to the seas and trying to enter our country illegally.

But let us not forget, either, the record of the former Howard coalition government when it comes to refugees. The Australian people very clearly remember ‘children overboard’. I do not hear anyone on the other side wanting to talk about that, apart from trying, as they do on so many issues, to rewrite history. I think the Australian people see a stark contrast between this government and those opposite who were in government under the Howard leadership. They remember very clearly the faces of children being held in detention behind barbed wire fences. It was very appropriate that the first speaker who raised this today reminded us of how little compassion was shown by those opposite when only last week they voted against the bill in relation to detention centre debts.

It is more than obvious that those opposite are still so far out of touch that they do not understand the concern and the compassion that the Australian community want us, as a responsible government, to demonstrate towards asylum seekers. And no-one—certainly no-one on this side of the chamber and, I believe, the majority of those opposite—want to see asylum seekers entering this country illegally. But the Rudd government have set very clear parameters on how we will deal with those refugees and asylum seekers. We are quite definitely opposed to people smuggling and the organisation of illegal entry and movements across international borders of people who are trying to enter our country. When we look at this very important issue, we must always show some compassion and make sure that these people are treated with dignity and respect. But when we come into this chamber and constantly hear from those opposite about the lack of planning and the lack of policies in this area, it is another example of how they want to incite racism in this country. Those opposite have learnt nothing since they have been on the opposition benches. They have learnt nothing about the way in which they should be listening to what the Australian people expect of them and of those who are fortunate enough to sit on the government benches.

Let us talk about past policies. The issue of policies has been very interesting over the weekend.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

God forbid, we protected our borders.

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

I will be most interested to hear if and when the opposition come up with policies other than the racial attitudes that they have demonstrated thus far, particularly in relation to their bringing back Work Choices. One can only assume that their old, worn out policies will be reignited at the next election. Those opposite are obviously quite slow at learning the lessons of defeat. The Australian people took very seriously the lies in relation to children overboard. The Australian people do not want to see children locked up in detention centres. They want to see people processed in a speedy manner and in their best interests and those of this country.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash interjecting—

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

Mr Deputy President, I will take the racist interjections any day because—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You will withdraw that reflection.

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

Mr Deputy President, I withdraw my comments in relation to the racist interjections from those opposite. Getting back to the important issue of people who are trying to come to this country, they see the circumstances for which they left their own country— (Time expired)

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

I am disappointed in the Labor Party. I thought they would take more issue with this debate on taking note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to questions without notice today, relating to asylum seekers. Instead of unleashing the big guns of border protection, the Labor Party have unleashed a trio who are pretending to be tough on border protection and having a mortgage on compassion.

I am disgusted with what Senator Polley said in this debate. She was trying to pick up the racist xenophobia line that is used to so unfairly characterise anyone who wants to be tough on Australian border protection. There are some harsh realities that the Labor Party have to observe here. Mr Deputy President, the Labor Party have to realise that denial is not just a river in Egypt. They are completely in denial about their outrageous policies that are soft on border protection and that are undermining Australia’s border integrity. That much is very clear. For anyone over there to deny that is to refuse reality. Even the minister at question time today said that there were around 1,000 unauthorised arrivals. Minister, I have to tell you that there are 1,456—that is 456 more people than you were prepared to admit to today. You are still in denial. You are in denial that the changes you have made to Australia’s border protection laws are actually encouraging and abetting people in coming here.

Further, Senator Polley has the gall to suggest that the global financial crisis is driving people to use people smugglers. The reality is that it costs thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars for someone to use a people smuggler to come to this country. People have jumped from one country to another country to another country in the hope of getting to Australia. It is hardly the conduct of people fleeing for their lives when they sit around in hotels in Indonesia waiting for a boat to come out here.

The government talks about compassion. Their border protection policies and the changes they have made to the previous policies that were working very well have resulted in things like two men in an esky floating their way over here. They get rescued and say, ‘No, we don’t want to go home.’ The Labor Party should be ashamed of themselves. They are living in a land where reality will not touch their policies. How else can we explain the fact that 1,456 people, on 31 boats, have attempted to make their way to Australia illegally since August 2008? How can we contrast and compare that with what happened in previous years. In 2002, border protection was strengthened and in that year there was one person; in 2003, there were 53; and, in 2004, there were 15 and so on. But when the border protection mechanisms were softened, those figures jumped from 161 to 589 in one year. Since the Labor Party have been elected, there have been 1,456 people in total. Yet the Labor Party say nothing is wrong. The numbers have doubled annually, yet the Labor Party think nothing is wrong. The Labor Party are saying, ‘We’re not encouraging them to come here, because nothing is wrong’—and they frame this as compassion. Do they know what compassion is?

Compassion is preventing people from doing things that are not in their interests, such as hopping into a leaky boat from Indonesia or anywhere else for that matter and putting their lives and those of their families in jeopardy. Compassion means putting people in a position where they can go through legal channels. Senator Polley, that is appropriate compassion. But we do not see that from the Labor Party. The Labor party are saying, ‘Come along and enter our waters illegally and we will house you, we will clothe you, we will feed you and we will give you every incentive to stay in this country.’ The tragedy is that the Labor Party are damned by their own policies. Senator Evans, when in opposition, belittled the Howard government for saying that the Christmas Island detention facility was a white elephant. He could have been right. Had we maintained tough border protection laws, it probably would have been a white elephant and might never have needed to be used. But now it is full to overflowing and the government do not know where to put people. The government are now boasting that they have another detention facility available in Darwin. This is wrong. It is wrong for people to come to this country illegally, to jump the queue and to take the place of those who are going through appropriate, prudent and legal channels. Every illegal immigrant who is allowed to stay in this country means that someone who has done the right thing is not allowed to stay. The Labor Party may be proud of that. They may be happy that their record is going to support that sort of conduct but the coalition is not.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, the scaremongering and political grandstanding coming from those opposite is absurd. In the face of difficult times in border security, they are putting their heads in the sand, pointing the finger and creating unnecessary fear in the community. Senator Bernardi, unfortunately, has obviously come to the view that ranting and raving is the best way to cover up the fact that there is absolutely no substance to his argument.

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

It is called telling the truth.

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

We are talking about ‘children overboard’, are we?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Polley, your colleague is trying to make a speech.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is pretty reflective of the character of those opposite that they are prepared to take this tack with such a serious issue, especially when those opposite really cannot put up a united front on this issue. After all, it is those opposite who are divided on immigration, which is why they are trying to score cheap political points. So for them to come into this place and falsely represent the government on this issue is really beyond belief.

The Australian government remains vigilant and committed to protecting Australia’s borders. The mudslinging continued by those opposite, attempting to claim Australia has changed its policy on asylum seekers, is once again completely false. Unaccompanied children are processed as a matter of priority. This is not a change of government policy. In fact, since being elected, the government has maintained one of the toughest and most comprehensive border security regimes in the world.

Contrary to the false accusations of those opposite, the government firmly believes that the control and management of our borders is integral to the nation’s security. And contrary to suggestions by those opposite that we have somehow gone soft on border protection, we have in fact built on measures by providing more funding and we have increased the extensive patrols of our coastline. Likewise, the Rudd government went to the last election with a commitment of maintaining a system of mandatory detention for all unauthorised boat arrivals, a commitment which has been honoured. We have also retained the excision of offshore islands and the offshore processing on Christmas Island of unauthorised arrivals. As the minister pointed out, the Rudd government believes that the excision and offshore processing at Christmas Island will signal that the Australian government maintains a very strong anti-people-smuggling stance. It also reinforces in the minds of our neighbours our strong commitment and the value we place on their cooperation. As I have mentioned, we have also maintained extensive air, land and sea patrols, we have put a priority on the prosecution of people smugglers and increased our strategic regional engagement.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And roll out the welcome mat!

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash may interject all she likes, but that sort of ill-informed comment and interjection does not carry any weight with the Australian people. As I was saying, all of these measures are the actions of a government that is strongly committed to protecting our borders and reducing the number of people arriving illegally in our country.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You really need to go and listen to what Senator Bernardi said.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cash!

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listen intently to—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then you should not be incorrectly using the numbers.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cash!

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, are you sure that Senator Cash has got it out of her system?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t put questions like that to the chair, Senator Carol Brown. Just continue with your speech.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government rejects the notion that dehumanising and punishing unauthorised arrivals with long-term detention is an appropriate or effective response. Desperate people are not deterred by the threat of harsh detention; they are often fleeing far worse circumstances. The overly punitive policies of those opposite are unwarranted and do nothing to add to the effectiveness of Australia’s border protection policies. Indeed, the Rudd Labor government was elected on a platform which, in partnership with retaining strong border protection measures, included a commitment to reform and a more humane treatment of those seeking our protection. Indeed, in 2009— (Time expired)

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

It is vary rare in this place when those on the other side throw taunts like ‘racist’ across the chamber. It is just as well because being attacked by those on the other side is like being attacked by dead sheep. I will ignore it on this particular occasion. They talk about compassion, about feeling and about being a caring country. Well that we are. We put in place an important sweep of policies to prevent people from seeing as a reasonable option putting their belongings, their family and their children upon a boat which had, at best, only a reasonable chance of making the voyage. That was a compassionate and thoughtful approach to policy. Perhaps it is difficult for those on the other side to defend their policy, which has failed absolutely. Labor quite often use the new term ‘evidence based policy’.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Give us the evidence.

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

I will, Senator Cash. The evidence is quite stark. There has been a heightened incidence of vessels coming to Australia. At the height of it, we had up to 4,000, down to 3,000, 75, 54 and 19 boats. So we changed the policy. We said: how can we provide a legislative environment that will convince people not to put their families and their children upon a boat? We made a number of legislative changes. If you have a look scientifically at the empirical evidence, you will see that it shows our policies worked. In fact, the number of boats went from 75 to 54 to 19 and then to zero, three, zero, eight, four and three. You could say that there were a few people coming over but those policies have had a significant impact. They were excellent policies, put forward by a government which knew that were signatories to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and that we would stick to that convention and ensure that we provided a disincentive package, which clearly worked.

But, suddenly, in 2007-08 something changed. What changed was Labor’s policy. You can imagine the people smugglers saying, ‘What are the conditions of our business? It is very difficult to get to Australia. When you get to Australia, unfortunately, they have this nasty mandatory detention.’ That was softened and we took families out but we ensured that there was mandatory detention. On Australia’s approach to forum shopping they said: ‘It’s really difficult. What happens is that, if you go there, they actually believe in the convention that they signed. You can go to Australia but it will not guarantee that the forum you choose, which is Australia, will be where you stay.’ Because we were signatories to a convention that said that is not the idea that everybody signed up to: that if you come to Australia you can get a migration outcome.

So when they were sitting down at Christmas, they would have said: ‘What’s my Christmas list? Dear Santa, I want to make it easier to get to Australia. I don’t want any detention. What about having a few work rights and welfare rights when people get there? Perhaps I could also offer a permanent migration outcome.’ I am sure that they did not vote but they might as well have, because that is exactly what they have got. That is the new environment. And how did we get there? We have made some policy changes. We will slip in straight away ‘abolish the Pacific Solution’, meaning that all applicants will be resettled in Australia, rather than meeting the requirements of the convention. ‘We’ll abolish temporary protection visas. We’ll end the option of returning boats of embarkation.’ Now that was difficult, wasn’t it! Send home a poor old people smuggler trying to make a buck who says: ‘Off we go. We get to the border and Australia tows us back. It was so frustrating—very annoying. People stopped going and people wanted to stop buying my product. It was a terrible business. Now, though, you go out there and they will throw you a towline and they’ll take you across.’ I will tell you what: it is all about inputs and outputs in business, and if you can save half your fuel it is a good thing.

So, then the government abolished the detention debt. The attempt for us was to ensure that we prevented repeat offenders. We abolished the 45-day rule. We publicly announced that the Navy will not actually be operating between December and February because that is the calmest time—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s the peak period.

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

That is the peak period for business. So the effect of this policy is that it is easier to reach Australia. You are released into the community after a pretty short time. You have work rights, and if you do not have work rights you have welfare rights and permanent migration outcomes. Why would you not say, ‘That’s the product I want because that’s the outcome I want.’ So you wonder why it happens. It has happened because we have had a disastrous change in policy. That policy means that people now seek to get on boats to come here. The reason they all seek to come here is that Labor has failed in its policy. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.