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

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

The continued policy failures of the Rudd Labor Government relating to border security

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.

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

What does a policy failure look like? How would we know one if we saw one? Perhaps a policy failure could be identified as the comprehensive failure to achieve every single one of a government’s stated objectives. We know what the government’s stated objectives are in relation to border protection. The stated objectives of the Rudd Labor government in relation to border protection were essentially the same as the stated objectives of the Howard government and other Australian governments before them—that is, to keep Australia’s maritime borders secure from unlawful arrivals.

So how can we judge whether the policy objective as stated by the Rudd Labor government has been achieved? It is not very hard. We can identify whether there has been a failure to achieve that objective by the extent to which there has been penetration of Australia’s maritime borders or attempts to penetrate those borders, and by that test the Rudd Labor government’s policy failure in relation to border protection has been absolute and  comprehensive. But, sadly, it is even worse than that. Not only has there been a comprehensive and total policy failure; by adopting a new suite of policies, announced in this chamber by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, in August last year, the Rudd Labor government has—as my friend and colleague Tony Abbott said on Lateline last night—taken a situation which had been solved and created a problem. That is the difference, as Mr Abbott pointed out.

When the Howard government was in office it found a problem and created a solution. At the time of the election of the Rudd Labor government, there was no longer a problem. The problem had been solved by the policy of the Howard government. The Rudd government, through its incompetence, through its inability to match its tough rhetoric with tough policies, in fact reinvented the problem.

Let us see what the track record was. The document to which I am about to refer has been prepared by the Parliamentary Library. It tabulates unlawful boat arrivals in Australia since 1989, before the election of the Howard government. It goes all the way back to when the Hawke government was in office. The document tells us that, in the four financial years from 1990 to 1994, there were about four or five unlawful boat arrivals a year. They began to increase significantly in 1994-95, when there were 21 unlawful arrivals. They fell away again for a few years and then the problem got really severe in 1998-99, when there were 42 unlawful arrivals. That was on the watch of the Howard government. It became more severe in the following year, 1999-2000, when there were 75 unlawful arrivals. In 2000-01 it remained very severe, when there were 54 unlawful arrivals, with 4,137 passengers on the boats. That is the year in which the Howard government introduced a suite of tough and decisive measures.

What happened after the Howard government introduced those measures in 2001? In 2001-02, the number of boat arrivals fell from 54 to 19, because the people smugglers were being put out of business. The people smugglers were being put out of business because they could no longer deliver to their customers the promise to secure an immigration outcome on the shores of Australia. In 2002-03 the number of unlawful boats setting sail across the Timor Sea for Australia had fallen to zero. In the following year there were three. In 2004-05 there were zero. So I do not think—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go on, complete the picture.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will, Senator Evans, but let me just interpolate to say that I do not think you need to have more than about a year 1 education in arithmetic to work out that when the number of arrivals falls from a peak of 75 to zero two years later that is a very sharp, indeed an absolute, decline. That did not happen for no reason; it happened because of the policies implemented by the Howard government—the tough policies implemented by the Howard government, and announced in the middle of 2001, which in August last year Senator Evans, the minister sitting at the table, abandoned. It remained the case that there were no—or single-digit numbers of—unauthorised boat arrivals right up until August last year when the Rudd Labor government, through its minister Senator Evans, announced the abandonment of the tough policies by which the Howard government had succeeded in the space of three years in taking the number of unauthorised boat arrivals from 75 a year to zero.

Is there anybody in the entire country who is so foolish that they would think that there was not a cause and effect relationship between the introduction of tough policies and the fall to zero of the number of unauthorised boat arrivals two years later? Equally, is there anybody so foolish that they would doubt that there is equally a cause and effect relationship between the announcement by Senator Evans of the withdrawal of those tough policies in August 2008 and the sharp upward spike in the number of unauthorised boat arrivals?

We have now gone from a situation where in the first year of the Rudd government, when the Howard government’s policies were still in place, there were only three unauthorised boat arrivals to a situation where, in the 15 months since the abandonment of those tough policies, there have been 45 unauthorised boat arrivals—and the trend is escalating. The number of unauthorised arrivals is increasing at an increasing rate. Those are the statistics from the Parliamentary Library’s tabulation—it went from 75 a year to zero in consequence of the adoption of tough policies by the Howard government and from three to 45 in the space of two years as a direct result of the abandonment of those tough policies by the Rudd Labor government.

This is what the opposition always says about this issue. It is not enough to have tough words—the Prime Minister is a past master at using belligerent language; you have to have the policy courage to match the tough rhetoric with tough policies. If you do not have tough policies, the people smugglers will see right through you—as they have seen right through the Rudd Labor government. They will be back in business—as they are back in business today—and they will ply their evil trade so as to imperil the lives of innocent people buying passage on their boats. That is the result of your policy failure and weakness. (Time expired)

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

I am delighted indeed to speak on this subject on such an auspicious day. Today is an auspicious day because in the Catholic calendar of saints today is St Godwin’s day, a day which I know is of great spiritual significance to senators opposite. I know that those opposite have long been devotees of the cult of St Godwin because a few months ago they gave evidence of their faith by displaying in this Senate a holy relic of the saint, a miraculous email of Saint Godwin, which had apparently come to Senator Abetz in a vision. So, in keeping with this auspicious day, I thought I would start my contribution today with a text from Holy Scripture. In the Book of Proverbs, at Proverbs 26:11 in fact, we read:

As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly.

I am sure those opposite will see at once the relevance of this text to today’s debate. Today in this matter of public importance motion we are seeing the opposition repeating the folly of its MPI on Monday. Like the dog that returns to its vomit, the opposition comes back to the folly of this divisive, inflammatory debate about asylum seekers. Of all the issues which face this great nation today, the only issue which those opposite think is urgent is the appearance of a few dozen Sri Lankans in boats in the seas to our north-west—in fact technically one might say a few dozen Sri Lankans appearing in the Indonesian zone for rescue and safety. At a time when Australia is facing the challenge of the greatest global economic crisis since the 1930s, when we are embarking upon the greatest modernisation program for Australian schools in our history and when the world is facing the challenge of dangerous climate change, what do those opposite want to debate? Of course they want to debate asylum seekers.

Senator Brandis a few moments ago had the gall, dare I say it, the ‘courage’, to try to lecture this government about policy courage. How Senator Brandis could do that when opposition senators have yet to come to terms with any of the great debates which are taking place in this parliament is a matter of wonderment. I do not know who coalition senators think they are fooling with this barrage of motions and speeches on asylum seekers. Everyone knows what is going on here. This is an opposition that do not and cannot debate the economy. This an opposition that cannot and will not debate action on climate change. They do not want to have a debate about schools or workplace relations. All of those are subjects that those opposite cannot debate because they are divided and because they do not have a policy—because they are spending their energy fighting with one another on those matters rather than bringing a position to this parliament. On all of these subjects they have no policies, no leadership and no credibility. So this debate is the last resort of a scoundrel.

The debate on asylum seekers is a debate they want to have but, consistently, the opposition continue to not have a policy on this matter either. They have rhetoric; they do not have a policy. Tony Abbott demonstrated this graphically during his appearance on ABC television just last night. When Tony Jones repeatedly asked him what his policy was concerning the recent Sri Lankan boat arrivals, his only response was, ‘Well, I’m not the government, Tony.’ Strangely enough, that is also what the shadow minister for immigration, Sharman Stone, says every time she is asked what the opposition policy is. So you can bemoan the fact that John Howard is no longer your Prime Minister and you can weep for the fact that his harsh policies on boat people are no longer in place, but consider this: you are not advocating their return either.

The reason the opposition want to talk about asylum seekers is desperation politics—desperation politics from a desperate, divided and demoralised opposition which have now reached the very bottom of the political trough, right down there with One Nation and a whole other band of brothers, trying to appeal to the lowest political instincts of xenophobia and racism, which they hope are still lurking in sections of the electorate. They are trying to pull, from opposition, the trick that they so fondly remember from 2001. But in 2001 they were in office, and in 2001 they were led by John Howard. The trick will not be able to be repeated when they have no credibility on any of the other great issues facing this country and a leader who could not sell ice to Eskimos.

The core proposition underpinning the opposition argument on this matter is that since the Rudd government introduced a more humane and widely accepted regime it has attracted refugees to our shores. That is their core proposition. But they know it to be a falsehood, because those pull factors are as if nothing when one considers the push factors that are taking place across the world at the moment. Literally millions of people are on the move. Conflicts throughout Africa, Central Asia and, most recently, Sri Lanka have driven literally hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes to become internally or internationally displaced persons. A tiny fraction of these folk make their way to Australia’s shores, and upon them the opposition pin their hopes for election.

Before the current beat-up about Sri Lankan boat arrivals, the government’s support was running at 59 per cent of the two-party vote, and now the opposition’s strategists must ponder the fact that it is still running at 59 per cent. They have to ponder the fact that their argument does not have the facts to underpin it. For 25 of the last 33 years there have been unauthorised boat arrivals in this country. The fact is that those years Senator Brandis tried to paint as representing years of success for Howard’s policies were in fact nothing more than the logical ramifications of the fall of the Taliban in the final months of 2001 in Afghanistan. The opposition, in this area as in so many others, have ignored the facts and the evidence and are relying on a farrago of rhetoric.

The central thesis of the opposition’s case on asylum seekers is, as I said, that the changes in policy which the Rudd government carried out in 2008—principally the abolition of TPVs and the dumping grounds of the Pacific solution—have led to the current increase in unauthorised boat arrivals. But we know—we can prove—that this does not stand up to scrutiny or examination. The simplest way to demonstrate that is to look at the number of arrivals. In 2005 there were 11 people who arrived in this way; in 2006 there were 60; in 2007 there were 148; and in 2008 there were 161. So we can see quite clearly that the abolition of TPVs and the closing of the Nauru and Manus facilities had nothing whatever to do with the trend of arrivals. This trend began in 2005, when those opposite were in government, and it has continued ever since. And, of course, it has continued ever since, irrespective of regulation in this country, because of the crises happening around the world.

The second way to demonstrate the falsity of the opposition thesis is to compare Australia’s experience with that of other countries. I gave senators opposite this information on Monday but, since they were obviously not listening carefully, I will do them the justice of repeating it. In 2008 there were 36,000 unauthorised maritime arrivals to Italy, 15,300 to Greece and 13,400 to Spain. All of these figures have risen sharply over the past few years, and the reasons for this are well documented. In 2008 there was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghani asylum seekers worldwide and a 24 per cent increase in the number of Sri Lankan asylum seekers.

The third refutation of the opposition’s thesis on asylum seekers is the preferred destination of these people—because those opposite work very hard to try and convince Australians that our borders are in crisis, that they are permeable and that we risk an influx of hordes of strangers. But of course nothing could be further from the truth. Our borders and our border-management policies are not only intact, they are working. The recent hubbub has been built up over a vessel which was in distress—a vessel which was in distress in international waters; a vessel which was in distress in international waters but in the zone for which Indonesia is responsible for safety and rescue.

The Indonesians, being our close allies and our partners in managing our borders in our region, contacted us and said, ‘Notwithstanding the fact that this vessel is in our area, and notwithstanding the fact that it is our responsibility to conduct rescue operations in these waters, could you please do it on this occasion as your assets are closer?’ On that basis, Australia responded. We did not simply respond because we are a good ally of Indonesia; we responded because it is the decent thing to do when vessels on the high seas are in distress. On the back of that story, and on the back of those facts, those opposite now like to preach to us about an Indonesian solution. Those opposite like to talk about how we are dumping people in Indonesia. They like to talk about the fact that our borders and our vessels are challenged as they have never been challenged before. That is a nonsense, and a careful study of the facts reveals it to be so.

If asylum seekers really thought Australia was a ‘soft touch’ in terms of granting asylum, as the opposition allege, we would be seeing a significant proportion of these asylum seekers trying to come to Australia who otherwise seem to be searching the Mediterranean and elsewhere. But that is not what we are seeing. We are not seeing a changing composition in the persons seeking asylum in this country. Among industrialised countries, in 2008, 96 per cent of Afghan, 97 per cent of Iraqi and 82 per cent of Sri Lankan asylum seekers sought asylum in Europe. Australia is much closer to Sri Lanka than Europe is, yet 82 per cent of the Sri Lankan asylum seekers were trying to get to Europe rather than Australia.

Those opposite would have you believe that in these war-torn villages, in these desperate communities, in these places that have been ravaged by war, by famine and by conflict, people gather and do a quick regulatory impact study based on what law changes have occurred here in Australia and perhaps other jurisdictions too. The opposition would have you believe that these people sit around the beaches of Sri Lanka and the war-torn hills of Afghanistan and carefully look through the policies of this government and our border protection regime. Mercifully, they are not reading your press releases. The truth is, of course, that these are desperate people who will take what escape they can. The proposition that they are motivated to come to Australia on leaky boats because word has reached the distant hills of the Pashtun tribes that Senator Evans has changed the laws here in Australia is a fantasy, a nonsense—and a nonsense that will not survive serious debate or serious discussion.

So much for the opposition’s thesis. To be fair to them, putting together a rational argument based on facts was never their challenge. They have not tried it and they are not starting today. This is a desperate political stratagem borne of desperation. Somewhere deep in the bowels of the Liberal Party is a panicked strategy group, a panicked leader surrounded by panicked staffers who has pulled the last lever in the conservative toolbox—a xenophobic debate in Australia about immigration. This is not, and it has unfortunately never been, an argument about facts, because those opposite do not care about the facts. They do not care about the fate of asylum seekers and they certainly do not care about Australia’s national interest.

All they care about is saving their own skins from the political tsunami that they have worked so hard—and, God bless them, with St Godwin’s help—to bring to their own destruction. That is what this is all about: an opposition’s vain hope that by appealing to a Hansonite instinct they will get the same response they believe they got in 2001. But, as I said, this is not 2001 and you ain’t got anybody like John Howard. This is a tactic of the desperate and the doomed but, worse than that, it is a tactic of the discredited and the dishonoured. It is the tactic of a parliamentary party that can no longer come to this place with an argument. There are worse things than losing elections. One is losing respect, and that is what this opposition have well and truly embarked upon.

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

I rise to briefly participate in this debate, one that I think Australians right around the country would be disappointed that we are actually engaging in. No longer do we want to participate in a debate in Australia about demonising vulnerable people rather than focusing on the responsibilities of our government, our national and international responsibilities and laws. I believe that the Australian public have moved past the dark days of the Tampa and understand that we do have a responsibility to help people when they are in need. We know that the number of people seeking refuge around the world varies at different times, and it is quite clear that one of those times is now.

I am extremely disappointed to hear that the Prime Minister has not been able to come to a workable solution with Indonesia to ensure that the people onboard the Oceanic Viking will be guaranteed to have their claims processed fairly and safely. This ‘Indonesian solution’, as named not just by the coalition but also by the government, is really no different to the Pacific solution. It may be in a different place and we may have a different Prime Minister, but without some decent guarantees and some ground rules about how people in these situations will be treated—how quickly their applications will be processed, a guarantee that children will not be detained and a commitment to help resettle people who are found to be genuine refugees around the region, including Australia—this solution is no different to the Pacific solution.

That is one point that I would say I probably do agree with the coalition on, despite the fact that I am not quite sure exactly where all their arguments have been of late. I feel that they are in essence a little lost at sea. But, in saying that, the Prime Minister did not take the decisions that he should have last week. The Prime Minister would like us to believe that control of the situation is completely out of his hands. We know that this is an Australian ship. The Prime Minister could call this ship home to Australia any time he wanted. We called for this a week ago, and 10 days later there are still children, women, men and families on board the Oceanic Viking, circling the ocean, waiting for a safe place to land. The Prime Minister has lost control of his promise of a humane approach—that is certain as this ship endlessly circles around the ocean in the vain hope of a place to land. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard from Senator Feeney, and he reminded me of Corinthians: ‘If I speak with the tongues of angels but do not have love, I am nothing.’ But in this case he does not even have an idea of scripture. It is very interesting—and this would have to be the clanger of all time—that his so-called feast day of St Godwin is today—today being, if I am correct, the 28th or the 27th.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 28th.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyway, today is the feast day of St Jude Thaddeus, the patron saint of hopeless causes. That is so typical of exactly where the Labor Party’s policy is. The saint of today, St Jude, is the patron saint of hopeless causes. That is exactly where they are. How completely apt is his discussion about a patron saint. How completely lacking in detail is the Labor Party, as usual. They are completely bereft of any research. There are just wonderful statements about the cabal of the illuminati but without a skerrick of detail sitting underneath what they talk to you about. This is just so beautiful! What a great day to be in this chamber when they make such a clanger like that. It is a ripper.

This is a very serious issue, and not for one moment would I cast aspersions on the character of the people who are endeavouring to come out. They are coming out not because of a push issue but because of a massive pull issue. Have a look around you. We are so lucky and blessed to live in a country like this. It is logical for people to want to enhance their economic position in life, but Australia does not have an unlimited capacity. It cannot simply lose control of its borders. If it does, it will just get completely out of control. At the moment we have a blue and yellow fiasco called the Oceanic Viking. We had something similar to that in our time, called the Cormo Express, but fortunately with the Cormo Express we were only dealing with sheep. This time the Labor Party have taken it up a level—they are dealing with people. And it is an icebreaker, so help me, that these people are on and that is wandering around in equatorial Indonesia. Where are they going to take them next: Macquarie Island? Davis? This is because you have lost control of our nation’s borders. Through your complete lack of decisiveness in dealing with this issue, we have now got ourselves into a position where the communication channel is open and the phone calls are being made back. It is quite evident that there is knowledge afoot that Australia has become an easier target.

Senator Feeney just had to listen to the Sri Lankans who managed to get themselves onto AM in the morning. We can also read their statements in the paper as to how they see Australia. They believe the policy has changed, and they are right. They have perfect market knowledge. They know the policy has changed. They know the Labor Party, as of August last year, watered the policy down. We are now dealing with the issues. I have been to Christmas Island a couple of times and I would not cast aspersions against the people, but there is a driving force. It is the driving force that is always there—the desire to migrate to a better place. But it just cannot happen like this. It just cannot happen that people jump on a boat and make their own arrangements. There must be controls over our borders, and we have lost those controls under the Labor government.

The fact of their arrival by ship carries associated issues such as the possibility of rabies coming in. There is most definitely, especially amongst crew members, tuberculosis on board. If we lose control of it, that will work its way into Indigenous communities and have huge health ramifications, especially in Northern Australia. There are also the issues of foot and mouth and screwfly. These all go hand in glove with a loss of control over our borders. This is what the Labor Party has delivered to us—and this is on St Jude’s day; St Jude, the patron saint of hopeless causes: hopeless policy, a complete lack of decisiveness, acumen and research, and a desire to gloss over the reality of the situation with garbage.

I acknowledge that Senator Feeney says there are not many Sri Lankans coming here and that they are mainly going to Europe. There is also the truth that the vast majority of people illegally in Australia are backpackers, predominantly from England. The problem with that argument is that, while those people are also illegal, they have gone through some form of customs protection. What we have here is a complete disregard for a border protection policy. We are opening ourselves up to a whole range of problems, including inciting these people to take huge risks in their lives and inciting them to put themselves in the hands of people who will definitely exploit them. It is a fact that under the former government’s policies, arrivals went to zero. As Senator Brandis has said, actions speak louder than words.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s not true, though.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the case. In 2004 and 2005 there were no arrivals. They say, ‘There were no push factors.’ What section of the world are you looking at? There are continual push factors. If you were making an argument on push factors then you could make them on the situation in sub Saharan Africa, on civil war in Angola or genocide in southern Sudan. There are also a whole range of people on the Thai-Burma border. These people constantly want to get themselves into a position of safety or into a position where there is economic improvement in their lives. It is not fair to the Karen who have been pushed out by the Burmese that we just say, ‘Oh, well, it’s a shame you couldn’t get yourself to Indonesia and get yourself onto a boat because then you could have come in 90 days and with no questions asked.’

The Labor Party has created this problem and Mr Rudd is looking completely unauthentic. He is looking indecisive and, to be honest, hypocritical. He is trying to ride both sides of the fence on this issue and it just does not ring true. Before the election, Mr Rudd delivered rhetoric to the Australian people that showed that he thought he could run a compassionate argument—but run it with a wink and a nod. He hoped that everything would stay under control. Now he has found that he appears neither compassionate in his delivery to the Australian people nor decisive in trying to actually fix the problem. His policy has become a sort of quagmire policy—one of hope in which he is pleading that the neighbours, that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, will fix this problem. It is not the President of Indonesia’s problem; it is Australia’s problem, and Australia has to fix it.

No wonder the Indonesians are getting frustrated. They are saying: ‘It is your issue. They are jumping over your fence. You are the ones complaining about it. Fix your own problems. Don’t come over to Indonesia and say we have to fix your problems.’ So it is looking like a complete mess. It is an absolute mess and it is going to make its way onto the international stage even more than it already is. We will have this big yellow and blue fiasco that will continue on until such time as this government manage to grasp the nettle, become decisive, make changes and prove to the Australian people that they can protect our nation’s borders.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, in opening his contribution to this discussion on border security, asked the rhetorical question, ‘What is a policy failure?’ and proceeded to try and answer his own question as part of the debate. The correct answer, in part, is to rely on a maxim that would be familiar to the many lawyers in this place, particularly the many lawyers on the opposition benches—that is, if you want to go to a court of equity for redress, for comfort, come with clean hands or, as was said in another famous document, those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. So in this discussion why don’t we start properly at the beginning, avoiding rhetorical questions, and ask: who has clean hands in this debate and who has hands that are soiled, dirty and unbecoming? To answer that question, why don’t we review what has occurred in the area of illegal immigrants or asylum seekers over the last six, seven or eight years in this country. Let us examine the actual record of the previous Howard government and let us compare and contrast that record, based in fact, with the current practices of the Rudd Labor government. Let us review the practices of the previous government.

It is fair to comment at the outset that their solution to the then problem of asylum seekers was a barbaric solution. It resulted in deaths at sea, wholesale lying to the Australian public, excision of offshore islands of this nation, remote processing facilities and, what is worse, the locking up of children and women, often for periods of one or more years, simply on the basis that these people did not have the immediate capacity to defend their interests. What was the result of that practice, implemented wilfully, deliberately and over a long period of time by the Howard government? When the dust had settled, what did we find as those then asylum seekers and refugees sought recourse to the tribunals in this country? We found that over 94 per cent of those persons were admitted lawfully to this country, issued with visas, permitted to settle and get about their lawful and proper domestic business. The policy that was created, implemented and which the previous government stood by for a long period of time resulted in total failure in practice and the opposite of what it sought to achieve—that is, the total, lawful admission to this country of an overwhelming majority of those persons who were then described as asylum seekers. The position of the then Howard government in practice and over time was one of total failure.

What have they learnt from that experience going back four and five years? What have they been able to put into practice? What wisdom have they been able to bring and what capacity have they added to this debate, as this country faces difficult choices about people who are lost at sea? After almost two years in opposition, their position is simply a search for a policy on immigration. The coalition know they cannot go back to the Howard era policies and the two contributions to date have expressly refused to address the issue of a sound policy on illegal immigrants into this country. When Labor abolished the failed and wasteful Pacific solution, who opposed it? Not the opposition. When Labor abolished the failed and inhumane temporary protection visa regime, who moved to disallow the regulations and give effect to their beliefs? Not the opposition. The opposition, subsequent to both of those moves by the current Labor government, have made no commitment at all to reintroducing either of those demonstrably failed policies. In addition to not giving a commitment to previous policies, they have outlined no policy that the Australian people can give consideration to.

In contrast, Labor has maintained excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing of irregular maritime arrivals on Christmas Island. Even in some of the more divisive elements of the previous government’s policy, which the Labor government committed to prior to the last election and has maintained since, the opposition coalition cannot differentiate themselves then or now in policy. They cannot participate in a public debate like this because they do not have a policy. We know they do not have a policy because the two representatives of the coalition who chose to participate in this debate in the last half an hour, Senator Brandis and Senator Joyce, could not outline one phrase or one clause which might be characterised as a policy on illegal immigrants and which they might be able to put in this debate or take to the Australian people in due course. There is no policy; simply a vacuum.

Why is that? Because for the last six months all they have done is concentrate on themselves and their own wasted failures. They are so hopelessly divided, confused, devoid of purpose and have no capacity to get themselves out of the policy development mire they have put themselves in, particularly in the last six weeks. In that context it is unfair to say that some members of the coalition have not addressed themselves to this issue. Indeed, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration unanimously endorsed the Rudd government’s new directions in detention policy. That was best described by members of that committee as ‘a continuation of the reforms begun under the Howard government in 2005’. Yet when the legislation giving effect to those reforms was introduced into the parliament the coalition opposed it. Coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration endorsed its call for the abolition of detention debt, yet when the legislation was introduced into the parliament we had a huge, continuing and histrionic debate about the utility of abolishing debts accumulated by people who had been locked up in detention centres for many years. What did the coalition do then? They opposed the bill that was introduced by the Rudd Labor government.

While on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, the shadow minister expressed concern about people without work rights and access to Medicare. The government listened to the recommendations of that committee, in a unanimous sense, and moved to address those issues. It wanted to reform work rights for asylum seekers, but what was the coalition’s response? They moved to disallow the regulations. Principled coalition members and senators, to their credit, spoke in favour of the government’s changes on each occasion. In their search for a policy—because they have no policy, because their two principal spokesmen in this chamber today could not put words towards a policy, because they have not worked it out in either party room or brought it together in their joint party room—I suggest that the coalition follow the worthwhile advice of Senator Troeth when she spoke recently on an immigration issue. She said:

Let us grasp a new opportunity to understand the difference between sending the wrong message to those who truly wish us harm and sending the right message to those who need our help. Australia does not have to choose between strong, secure borders and compassion for those seeking liberty and freedom. We can have both.

Of course we can have both. As if it is beyond the wisdom of humankind to work out a solution to this problem. The words of Senator Troeth, both in terms of emotion and in terms of sound policy advice, are worth following.

We heard some discussion earlier, by both Senator Feeney and Senator Joyce, about the international factors that drive the increase in illegal immigration or asylum seekers from time to time. As some of the other speakers today have said, we know that the number of those who are displaced, seeking a permanent home or seeking comfort have now risen to many millions. Somewhere in excess of 40 million people are displaced around the world, living in camps and border camps and seeking comfort in another country so they can go about their lives.

In recent years, global factors have been a significant contributory factor to the number of asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and refugees who come down into this part of the world. As was also identified by previous speakers, the principal cause of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants coming down here in the last five to seven years is the displacement of people arising out of the consequences of wars in their homelands. When the Iraq war was at its peak, large numbers of people were leaving Iraq, going to their borders, getting caught up in the system and heading south seeking a home, trying to seek safety and the like.

Similarly now, as the war in Afghanistan has intensified, as a civil war particularly in the southern areas and the areas bordering Pakistan has become more and more violent and as more and more destruction has occurred, more and more people are either displaced or are seeking to remove themselves from the war zone. Large numbers of people have been heading south, by land and by sea, and they have been arriving in the waters around this country and around Indonesia, Malaysia and the like. Similarly, as the civil war that has been a feature of Sri Lanka for the last 20 years has resolved itself and one side has been able to claim unconditional victory in that war, those who are on the losing side have sought to flee their country. Again, the large numbers of people seeking support, comfort or a homeland away from Sri Lanka arise out of the failure of that country to regulate itself and out of the consequences of a civil war. We have seen tens of thousands of people displaced—arguably hundreds of thousands or millions—and seeking comfort all around Europe, through South Asia and up into the Middle East. One does not have to be any type of clairvoyant to know that if the war in Pakistan continues, with the government of Pakistan fighting the Taliban forces in particular areas and seeking to eliminate them, large numbers of Pakistani citizens will cross the border and flee, and some of them—perhaps a small number—will find their way down here.

It is totally unreasonable to suggest that because of the changed policies of the current government—which, as I identified, are a logical continuum of the policies of the previous government, with some changes on the margins—there is now a pull factor, a demand factor, whereby tens of thousands of people are immediately saying, ‘Let’s race down to Australia. Let’s get into that country, because the welcome mat is out.’ What a load of rubbish. All we heard from Senator Brandis, but more particularly from Senator Joyce, was the repeated assertion of that proposition. It was not supported by one argument, by one set of facts, or by one set of numbers. It was simply an assertion that changes of policy on the margins, on the periphery, have resulted in this dramatic influx of people into the waters immediately surrounding our country and Indonesia, going up as far as Singapore and Malaysia. Of course that is a nonsense. If you do look at the numbers of people who are displaced from civil wars in their own countries, you can see the clear reason as to why so many people are now, over the last few weeks, seeking comfort in this country.

In that context, what are the Rudd government border security initiatives? We have all seen the news on the TV: ‘tough but humane.’ But what does this mean? It means a tough approach towards those who seek to improperly profit and manipulate those who are without support or comfort, and it means a humane and fair means of access for those who seek comfort. In that context, what has the Rudd government done? It has maintained excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing of irregular maritime arrivals on Christmas Island. It has established a dedicated Border Protection Committee of Cabinet to drive whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party is the master of obfuscation. Before I address some of the issues Senator Bishop raised, I would like to address some of the issues raised by Senator Feeney in his address earlier. It was alleged that we did not want to debate the economy. If Senator Feeney wants to debate the economy, he, along with the whole government, will find the opposition front and centre talking about what debt burden this government will leave Australia and future generations with. We will talk about schools and education and how the other side of this chamber refuses to let parents know about the standards and achievements of their children. They are captured by the public sector unions. But, apparently, this is one issue we are not allowed to discuss.

Senator Feeney made some allegations about the Liberal Party, which I will not repeat but I will address. It takes a lot of gumption for the Labor Party to come in here and try to allege that the Liberal Party is running a fear campaign and dallying with One Nation, because it was not the Victorian Liberal Party at the last federal election that got One Nation Senate preferences; it was the Labor Party. It was not people on this side of the chamber who benefited from those. For the party of White Australia, for the party of Arthur Calwell, who made appalling comments when he was the then Labor leader, for the party of Gough Whitlam, who made comments—and I will dignify this chamber by not repeating them—about Vietnamese asylum seekers coming to Australia, to accuse the Liberal Party of such appalling manoeuvres requires an unprecedented amount of gumption.

The Liberal Party and the coalition have credibility on this matter. We have a track record of managing Australian borders. This government refuses to understand two things in particular. Firstly, it refuses to concede that pull factors and its policies make a difference, and that they go directly to the proposition that people smugglers—the vermin that both sides of this chamber agree about—through these areas sell the prospect of passage to Australia. I am not contending necessarily that everyone is jumping on a mobile phone and reading about the latest press release from Senator Evans; however, we do know that people smugglers are selling a product, we know that they take notice and we know that they solicit business. So to deny that pull factors—the policies of this government, the signals it has sent on weakening Australia’s border protection—have an impact on what people smugglers around these countries say is a farce. The government knows it, we know it and the Australian people know it.

The measure of success of a government policy is in its direct impact. Senator Brandis mentioned a few of the numbers, but they are worth covering again. In 2000-01, there were 54 boat arrivals, with 4,134 people. In 2001-02—including the period where the previous government brought in policies to send the right signal to these people, particularly to the people smugglers—arrivals fell to 19 vessels and 3,039 people. But, in 2002-03, it fell to zero on both counts—zero vessels, zero people. In 2003-04, there were three vessels and 84 people. Those numbers remained relatively stable up to 2007-08, when there were three vessels and 25 people. In 2008-09 the increase started: 22 vessels and 1,039 people. No-one here denies the impact of push factors. No-one here denies that the global environment has an impact. What we are saying, however, is that the policies of this government have a direct impact on propositions the people smugglers sell to people who seek passage to a country like Australia. In 2009-10, so far, we have had over 20 vessels. That is directly following this government’s changes on border protection policies that have allowed those people smugglers to sell such a message.

The obfuscation this government undertakes is extreme. It says that we have more people illegally in Australia who have arrived by plane—and that is all true; and that we have more people who arrive by plane and seek asylum—and that is true. But the difference is that those people have legally entered Australia. At airports all around the world, people coming to Australia are checked as to whether they have a valid visa. No-one is denying the right of people to apply for asylum. We are saying that policies that encourage people to take this risky trip, that give the vermin of people smugglers a better proposition to sell, are the wrong way to address this particular global problem. We are not comparing apples with apples. That is an immigration issue. It is not an issue of illegal—sorry, I correct myself: ‘unlawful entry’. I do not necessarily want to use the words of the Prime Minister.

The Labor government walks both sides of the street on this issue. Our Prime Minister goes to extraordinary lengths not to answer this question and not to answer questions about this in a way that will see him on television. The Prime Minister has gone to immense trouble to not answer questions in parliament. He does not want footage of himself in parliament answering a question on this, because he does not want to be talking about it in public. I will quote him at length, and this is a particularly long sentence; I have not managed to count the number of commas in it. For a person who is quite successful at delivering the eight-second grab, it is amazing how this Prime Minister will avoid delivering an eight-second grab on this particular issue. He does not want people watching television news to know that he is trying to walk both sides of the street on this. He talks to The 7.30 Report; he does not talk to A Current Affair. He says one thing to the Age; he does everything he can do to avoid it being in the Herald Sun. This is what the Prime Minister said in response to a question on this issue:

But you know, if you’re being serious about this, we are dealing with challenges in source countries, dealing with challenges in transit countries, dealing with challenges of course in interdicting vessels at sea, and dealing of course with the processes of mandatory detention of proper processing to ensure that you’re dealing with the physical and security questions which are part and parcel of the proper processes of Government.

Is that not diplo-babble or bureauspeak? It is an example of this government trying to avoid scrutiny, an example of the Prime Minister walking both sides of the street and an example of this government’s hypocrisy.

This government has sent the wrong signal. It has allowed people smugglers to walk around these countries and advocate that passage to Australia has become easier. That is an appalling risk for these people. I join Senator Joyce in saying that I am not attempting to besmirch people seeking asylum. However, I say to people who are truly concerned about the vulnerable: the people who can afford passage are not always the most vulnerable people in these countries. It is outrageous to assert that we should be prioritising those who have the means, the contacts and the networks to come across the Indian Ocean when resources and places will inevitably be taken by those people. We do not know about the others who are left. We do not know about those who may be in greater need of protection.

I will conclude on this: this country has a record, of which I am personally proud, of a large immigration program and a particularly large humanitarian program. But public faith in that program is dependent upon the government having control over our borders. This government is weakening border security. This government is giving the people smugglers a better product to sell. This government is not justifying its own policies; it is just trying to obfuscate by making comparisons to Europe and talking about the opposition. This government is going to undermine this very pact which both sides of politics in this country should be proud of.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance has now concluded.