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

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans. Does the government agree that Australia should decide who comes to our country, and the conditions under which they come? If not, who should decide?

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

I thank the senator for her question. I am sure I have heard that phrase somewhere before. It must mean that John Howard is making a comeback inside Liberal ranks after being abandoned for the last couple of years.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I am glad to see Liberal senators take an interest in his policies.

The Rudd Labor government is absolutely committed to strong border protection measures: we have been consistent in applying the excision of offshore islands; we have increased provisions for border patrols, we have 25 per cent more border patrols occurring than under the previous government, and we have invested $650-odd million in extra funding for border protection measures in the last budget. As a result, we are able to intercept any unauthorised boat arrivals, take them to Christmas Island and have them processed under the excise offshore place provisions.

That provides us with strong border security measures that then allow us to detain mandatorily, as we have done, all unauthorised boat arrivals, and then to ensure that they have the appropriate health, identity and security checks. Those checks are vigorous; they are designed to protect Australians, to ensure that no-one is released into the Australian community until we are satisfied about their health, security and identity. Those measures that are in place are the same as those that were in place under the previous government, except that the border patrol measures have been enhanced. We have more border protection patrolling than under the previous government.

Yes, we do maintain strong border security and strong control over our borders so we can identify who seeks to come into this country—either authorised or unauthorised—and maintain the integrity of our migration system.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister agree with Sri Lanka’s permanent representative to the United Nations, who said:

As long as the pull factor is brought to an end or satisfactorily controlled. I think this exodus will cease almost immediately.

Will the minister now concede that it is not the so-called ‘push factors’ that are actively encouraging people smuggling to Australia; it is the fact that the pull factor is practised by the Rudd government?

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

From the outset, I make the point that push factors are responsible for the increased movement of people throughout the world. We see increased arrivals in Australia consistent with the increased arrivals in many other Western nations. I understand that Greece has had 15,000 arrivals in the first six months of the year, which doubles the number they received last year.

We have seen a large number of Sri Lankans on the move. They have been fleeing to Western Europe, to Canada and to Australia. We get our share, although it is still a small proportion, of the Sri Lankans seeking asylum in the world. The particular gentleman referred to was on Lateline. I had dinner with Pal in Sri Lanka a couple of months ago. He is a former serving official of our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, so he obviously has a very fond view of Australia. He made the point that Australia is a very attractive destination, and that is right. All the western democracies are attractive destinations for people seeking safety.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order—on relevance. I asked the minister a very direct question: does he, or does he not, agree with Sri Lanka’s UN representative? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would suffice.

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

Again, this is a point of order which has been taken and which provides a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response request by the opposition. The minister is answering the question and he is being directly relevant to the question. When you require a yes or no answer, I think it misplaces where the question is and where the answer should be. The opposition already know, in fact, from their own position what they want the response to be. They may not like the response by the minister in this respect, but the minister is being relevant in answering the question. To use that device is, in my view, not a point of order at all.

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

I believe the minister is answering the question. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question, nor can I make the minister respond in a particularly desired way that the questioner may have. I draw the minister’s attention to the fact that if he has further to add, he has five seconds remaining.

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

A check of the Hansard will reflect that I answered directly both parts of the senator’s question.

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 refer to the Australian government’s promised four to six week resettlement for the asylum seekers who leave the Oceanic Viking. Can the minister tell the Senate how doing special deals and allowing itself to be held to ransom maintains the integrity of our borders?

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

There is no special deal. What there is is an agreement with the Indonesian government about how we will process those persons who come off the Oceanic Viking. As the senator would know, if she had read the documentation which we released publicly, we indicated that that time frame for processing applied not to asylum seekers but to people who have already been found to be refugees by the UNHCR. That applied to people who are already classified by the UNHCR as refugees and who have been determined as in need of resettlement. So the senator’s question is misleading.

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

It’s not!

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

Well, it has been made very clear that we have, in consultation with the Indonesian government, outlined to those on the Oceanic Viking what conditions will apply when they come off in Indonesia—not in Australia, as they sought to, but in Indonesia.