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, Back and Cash today relating to border protection and to the Tamil Tigers.

Today we had contrived indignation from the minister in relation to the use of the word ‘illegal’ in response to questions asked by Senators Back and Cash. It is all very well when the Prime Minister uses the word. For example, on PM with Mark Colvin, the Prime Minister says, ‘I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for taking a hard line on illegal immigration to Australia.’ So it is all very well for the Prime Minister to use that terminology but, of course, when we use that terminology, there is indeed a different standard. I have to say that is really quite hypocritical.

I wish to pick up on a couple of points in the time available to me. The minister absolutely failed to answer my question in relation to the Indonesian plan. At estimates on 22 October, the Ambassador for People Smuggling Issues said, ‘We haven’t actually sat down with the Indonesians yet to negotiate what this framework will look like or what forms our support will take.’ But, the day after, we get reports in the paper about the so-called $50-plus million plan where Labor will be outsourcing its border protection policy failures to the Indonesians. Today I asked the minister to clarify that and to tell us what the cost is. He gave us a diatribe and avoided answering the question, which makes me think that $50 million is just, in effect, a starting point—

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

Order! There are far too many conversations on my left. Could you please conduct your conversations outside of the chamber.

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

Of course, $50 million is just the starting point. In the end, this is going to cost the Australian taxpayers a lot of money and, quite frankly, Minister, the Australian public is entitled to know, up-front, what their obligations are going to be and how much it is going to cost them. Yet we are not aware of what the negotiations are between Australia and the Indonesian government. Is there going to be a bounty on every boat that is caught or a bounty on every asylum seeker? The reality is that this government has totally lost control. It has effectively, over the last year, dismantled so many aspects of our immigration policy that, as a consequence—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like what? Which bits? They’re just words!

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

Senator Marshall, you will have your chance later.

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

Senator Marshall, thank you for that interjection. Of course, if you had bothered to follow all the legislative changes that your government has put through in this chamber in relation to immigration matters, you would know. Perhaps you might like to go and read the minister’s evidence.

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

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, address the chair.

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

But I would like to focus on one aspect in the time available to me, and that is the issue of security checks. It is appropriate that this question is asked, because the minister maintains the assurances that are given in relation to security checks. Labor did promise that it would complete its processing in the same times. It keeps saying that this is what the Howard government did. But reports being produced show that the time that is now being taken in relation to security checks certainly does not fall within the time parameters.

Security checks are very important. Why do people arrive with no documents? Why do people destroy their documents? In my time—over 20 years—of working at the Australian Government Solicitor I did my fair share of immigration law, and you can bet your bottom dollar that when people destroy their documents they do so for a reason. They want to hide their identity. They want to hide their past. And they also do so with the objective of deliberate delay and obstruction of processes, because they think it is going to make it a lot harder to find out who they actually are. It is legitimate for us to ask the question and get assurances about proper security checks.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in this debate and take up the points that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has raised. One point she raises is that the government has lost control. What hypocrisy from an opposition whose deputy leader describes that opposition as ‘a rabble’—something I have been describing the opposition as for some time. I am glad the deputy opposition leader now agrees with my view of the opposition as a rabble.

This issue is a complex and important one. The issue of asylum seekers fleeing from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan will be an ongoing problem for this community, this nation and the United Nations. I just want to bring this debate back to exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about refugees. We are not talking about illegal immigrants; we are talking about refugees. Look at article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and I note that earlier Senator Cash was talking about how she analysed this. Well, Senator Cash is a lawyer; I am not sure if she has looked at article 14 recently. It says:

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

People who are persecuted are entitled to seek asylum.

The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, provide a definition of the term ‘refugee’. The definition is that a refugee is someone who:

… owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or … unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country …

This is about people who are in trouble. This is about people who are fleeing wars, who are fleeing persecution in their own country. And what do we have from the opposition? We have the lowest common denominator—the fear factor. When you do not have a policy, when you do not have any ideas, when you have no way of dealing with the issue, start a fear campaign! And that is typical of the opposition: a fear campaign against the weakest, most vulnerable people in the world—refugees. You should be ashamed of where you have taken this debate, because this debate should be about ensuring some fairness, some dignity and some protection for people who are fleeing war zones, are looking for protection and want to ensure that they can be safe from persecution in the country that they are fleeing from.

But it is so easy when you are a rabble to actually adopt the rabble approach, and the approach of the rabble is not to think the issues through; the approach of the rabble, which is the coalition in this place, is to go after the weak and exposed. It is to make sure that you hide your incapacity to develop a policy on the treatment of refugees coming to this country, to make sure that you hide your incapacity to formulate a policy of fairness and equity and of treating refugees with dignity. The Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, has spoken about intolerance. Let me tell you that the coalition’s intolerance has been on show for the public to see. Your intolerance is reprehensible. Your intolerance is borne of no capacity to develop policy. Your intolerance is an absolute disgrace to this country. (Time expired)

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

The answers of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in question time today proved yet again how chronically negligent Labor are when it comes to ensuring the security of this nation. Labor have failed the first responsibility of a Commonwealth government—to ensure the security of the nation and its people. Its continued claims that there is no causal link between the winding back of the strong Howard government policies and the increase in the number of unlawful arrivals on Australia’s shores become more absurd and more far fetched every single day as another boat arrives.

Let us run through the statistics again. There have been 17 unauthorised boat arrivals in the last eight weeks, 44 unauthorised boats since the Rudd government began their dismantling of Australia’s border protection regime and over 2,069 people have now risked their lives to come to Australia. For a Prime Minister who in a speech to the parliament in 2002 acknowledged that a government must be judged on its actions, not through the political rhetoric of government, this evidence shows that he stands condemned. He stands condemned for his government’s actions and the failure of his government when it comes to border security, condemned out of the words of his own mouth. The minister and the government are an abject failure when it comes to discharging border security policy.

If you want to talk about rhetoric, Annabel Crabb sums it up nicely today in her article:

… anyone who in the past 10 days has been knocking the top off a cold one every time the Prime Minister describes his own immigration policy as “unapologetically tough” would by now be too plastered to read this column.

Labor is contemptuous of its fundamental responsibility to maintain border security. Labor has shown contempt for the people of Australia by abrogating to the people smugglers the right to determine who comes to this country lawfully. But further, and more shamefully, Labor is contemptuous of those people who seek to enter this country lawfully through recognised migration channels.

What message is the Labor Prime Minister of Australia giving to those hundreds of thousands of people who are currently housed in United Nations refugee camps around the world and who have made proper applications—they have gone through medical and other screening tests—in an effort to seek lawful entry into Australia and other countries around the world? Mr Rudd’s message to those people who attempt to go down the legal route is this: ‘Thanks for doing the right thing, mate, but sorry—we can’t assist you because we’ve abrogated Australia’s lawful right to decide who enters our country to the people smugglers.’ What sovereign government abandons the refugees who want to enter Australia lawfully—because that is what they have done—and lets the people smugglers decide who can come to this country?

There will always be push factors across the world, but what we do not need is the foot on the accelerator approach taken by the government through a set of pull factors created by them. The reality for Rudd Labor is that, as long as it continues to dismantle the coalition’s strong border protection measures and put out the Rudd welcome mat to the people smugglers, the pull factors will see a surge in people smuggling continue. Mr Rudd must take decisive and direct action to stop this despicable trade. How much more money from Australian taxpayers will Mr Rudd pay to Indonesia to keep his own hands clean? How many more people will put their lives at risk as a result of Labor’s softened border protection policies? Mr Rudd and the minister, Senator Evans, must stand before the Australian people and admit to them that Labor has failed on border protection.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is often debate in this chamber. Because there is an opposition and a government, often that debate has differences of opinion. It can be quite aggressive from time to time, but I must say I have never contributed in a debate in this place that has actually sickened me like this debate. What really sickens me is the approach of the opposition in the way they attack some of the most defenceless and vulnerable people, who are not here illegally. They are here because they are seeking asylum. If it is proved that they are not genuine refugees and therefore here as illegal entrants, they are moved away. But the most defenceless people come here seeking refuge—refuge from some of the most hideous and sickening circumstances that exist in the world today. The political opportunism, the absolute low road, of the opposition does this country no credit, it does this Senate no credit, it does our people no credit and it makes me sick.

We had to hear Senator Fierravanti-Wells ask, ‘Why do people arrive without documents?’ and go on and make the suggestion that people who arrive here without documents have destroyed them. Then she asked, ‘What sort of people are they?’ What Senator Fierravanti-Wells should understand is that people arrive here more often than not with only the shirt on their back. The reason they have fled is that they have been displaced, and they have been displaced because their village may have been burnt to the ground or their whole family may have been murdered. Maybe those are their circumstances. Maybe they have just been moved on in packs by either military regimes or dictatorships or any of the other horrendous circumstances that millions and millions of people find themselves in, through no fault of their own. Instead of any semblance of compassion, all we get is the opposition attacking the weak and the vulnerable. I think it is a disgrace. They should take a long, hard look at themselves.

We heard Senator Back in his question today make the absolute suggestion that this process is about terrorism importation. Really, come on. Get a grip. The process of checks that goes on at Christmas Island involves security checking and health checking. It is the same format that is well established in this country. It was going on under the previous government and it has not changed. It has not changed. Senator Fierravanti-Wells knows that because we went through this in Senate estimates for hour after hour and that was the evidence of all the officials and the minister. She knows the facts but conveniently leaves that out and again simply takes the low road—the politics of dog whistling. It is shameful. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Senator Cash of course introduced the issue of queue-jumping. Well, she really took us back. She started quoting John Howard. I love it when they quote John Howard now because they pretend he has gone and then they go and quote his ideas. It was all about queue-jumping—again accommodating the lowest common denominator argument. If you want to actually have a mature debate about these issues then you really should get a grip on some of these issues and understand what the serious push factors are—the fact that there are 42 million displaced people in the world at the moment. And you want to run those lines.

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

Senator Cash interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you tell me where all those queues are, Senator Cash. When a village is burnt to the ground and people are moved on, and they are desperate to go, are you saying that they should go halfway around the world to get in some non-existent queue? Really, it is a silly argument.

It is not done to actually have a serious debate about these issues; it is done by resorting to the lowest common denominator, trying to evoke emotional support for their low-road politics. Through all of this, did we hear Senator Fierravanti-Wells actually suggest what the coalition might do on any of these things? She talked about some of the changes we have made, and I wish I had time to go through those things. But all the changes we made were ultimately supported in this place by the coalition. Every single one of them was supported by the coalition. We make no excuse for treating the most vulnerable people in this world with humanity. We do it in a properly regulated, tough manner—where if you come here seeking asylum, you are treated with dignity; and if you are here illegally, you get deported. (Time expired)

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

Politics is like a pack of cards: you can always tell when the government are out of aces because they only have one card left to play. It is no longer their tough talk of ‘We’re going to turn back the boats,’ as we heard Mr Rudd say when he was opposition leader; it is now Senator Marshall’s ‘compassion card’. As if somehow letting through any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to come here in a boat is compassionate. It is not. It is not compassionate to encourage or provide incentives or opportunities for people to hop into leaky, crowded boats and cross dangerous seas in the hope that they will be intercepted by an Australian naval vessel and brought to this country, where they can claim asylum. It is not compassionate to do that.

Let me dispel a couple of other myths that Senator Marshall has put forward. He talked about how these people come from unfortunate circumstances. I would agree, and I am sure they do. I accept that there are many ‘maybes’ that Senator Marshall raised, and many people do come from extreme hardship and extreme poverty, and from areas and circumstances which are very difficult for us to comprehend. But let us not lose sight of the facts. The facts are that millions of people who are displaced, according to Senator Marshall, are doing the right thing—millions of them are doing the right thing and going to United Nations refugee camps. They are waiting their turn. They are applying appropriately and seeking a better life for themselves and their families.

The people Senator Marshall is talking about are fleeing impoverished circumstances and dangerous circumstances. But how, then, are these people are paying thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars to people smugglers to enter Australian waters illegally? That is why these vessels are called suspected illegal entry vessels because they are entering our waters illegally. These are people who are, in many cases, trashing their identification and making up a past—making up a number of circumstances so they can get into Australia, where of course life is better. Life is better in Australia, even if you are on the dole, than it is in many other places. Does that mean we should allow people to jump the queue and stop people from coming to this country via the appropriate humanitarian channels? I would say no. And to encourage anyone to enter this country illegally and take such extreme risks for themselves and their family, and to put other people’s lives at risk, is, quite frankly, irresponsible.

Once you get past the emotive arguments which tug at the heartstrings, arguments which are completed devoid of any real substance, which Senator Marshall offered, we have to come back to the facts and let logic determine how we should approach this. Here are the facts: the Rudd government changed the laws about illegal boats coming into this country and how we treat asylum seekers or illegal entrants. And what has happened? We have seen an explosion—you cannot describe it in any other way—in illegal entry vessels coming into this country. In 2002 and 2003 we had none. We had three boats in 2003-04, zero in 2004-05, eight in 2005-06, four the following year and three in 2007-08. Then the Rudd government comes in and we have 22 boats, with 1,039 people, entering our country illegally via illegal entry vessels. In 2009-10 we have had 20 boats so far, with another 964 people. The facts speak for themselves.

The Rudd government wound back effective policy that deterred people from taking unnecessary, unwarranted and very, very dangerous chances with their own lives and with other lives. And now what happens? We have the Bart Simpson of Australian politics, Mr Rudd, saying: ‘I didn’t do it. It wasn’t me.’ Let me tell you: there is a direct link. Labor changed the laws, and the boats, the hordes, started coming. The people smugglers went back into business because they knew that Australia had become a soft target under this government.

I do not know anyone who does not support Australia playing a compassionate and humanitarian role in dealing with displaced people, but it is not compassionate, it is not humanitarian, to support the business of people smugglers, who prey on the vulnerable and weak—and rich. They ignore the truly vulnerable, the impoverished, those who have no opportunities and no chance.

Question agreed to.