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

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

The Rudd Labor Government's failed border protection policy

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

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

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

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

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. The government today has failed miserably to come into this parliament and the Senate to explain the special deals that have been offered to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. The government and the Prime Minister have told us that there were no special deals, yet we have seen reports of a written offer. We have heard from Indonesian officials that the people on the vessel have been offered fast-track access to Australia—much faster than they would have been promised or entitled to even if they had gone to Christmas Island itself.

The minister was today asked to table that correspondence. I have sought to find this on the immigration website. I have found a report of it and I would like to take the Senate through this letter which Minister Evans purports to say is not a special deal. This is indeed a special deal. I speak from having spent many years working as a government lawyer and doing my fair share of immigration law. This looks pretty special to me. One only has to look at this headline in the Herald Sun of Saturday, 14 November. It says: ‘Deal to get Sri Lankans off customs vessel: quickie visa for Tamils’. Doesn’t that summarise what this is really all about?

Why have we had this deal? Because the Prime Minister wants to save face. This has been an absolute shemozzle from day one, and now he desperately has to get them off the boat. He has repeatedly said that they are not going to come to Christmas Island. They are going to end up coming to Australia anyway, because one only has to look at this letter to see what this is really about. Let us look at the conditions in the report dated 12 November. It says:

If UNHCR has found you to be a refugee—Australian officials will assist you to be resettled within four to six weeks from the time you disembark the vessel.

There are millions of people who have been found to be refugees under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and they are sitting there languishing—but not this lot; not this group of people who have held an Australian ship to ransom, effectively, at the cost of approximately $75,000 a day. They have stood their ground and they have got a special deal. This is the special deal that they are getting:

If you have already registered with UNHCR—Australian officials will assist with your UNHCR processing. If you are found to be a refugee, you will be resettled within 12 weeks from the time you disembark.

The minister comes in here and tells us, ‘Of course, with most people being registered the times vary.’ Of course it varies because sometimes it takes years and years and years. But because this group of people have acted in the way that they have acted and have been shown queue jumping in the most extreme of circumstances, they are going to be rewarded by being fast tracked on special circumstances to come to Australia. Then this letter tells us about special English classes, contact with families—and the list goes on in relation to the assistance that they will be given. What does that tell us? What does that say to the industry that is out there about people smuggling and more generally about the impression that Australia has softened its immigration system? Immigration is about order and process. This demonstrates that order and process as far as this government’s immigration policies and its border protection policies have monumentally failed.

Julia Gillard said years ago that one boat was one policy failure. This is an astronomical policy failure. Effectively, this is the welcome: ‘Come on down to Australia! K Rudd will look after you. Come on down!’ What does that tell you? That whole thing will permeate through what is now the immigration industry. And, yes, this government will seek to confine its changes to border protection and say it is only about boats. It is not about boats. This government has effectively dismantled the framework of immigration and border protection that was put in place by the Howard government over a number of years and now it has systematically gone through its department, through program after program after program. It has made a change here, a change there. What is the cumulative effect of all these changes? The cumulative effect of all these changes is to tell the world that Australia’s immigration policies have been softened. This will not only affect the impression about our policies for unauthorised boat rivals but also give that impression for all arrivals and in particular for those people who may come to Australia on a valid visa and may then seek to claim asylum because of the changes that this government has made, the cumulative effect of which it fails to admit. It will permeate through that, so we are going to see increases in the number of people who are going to be claiming asylum right across the spectrum because of these changes. But, of course, this government goes on.

People smuggling is really a business. What the people smugglers are selling is a product, and that product is permanent residency in Australia. If you get yourself in, you will get permanent residency. And with that permanent residency go a whole lot of other things, including family reunion. This country is a country that has been built by the work of migrants. I myself am the daughter of migrants to this country. But my parents and millions of other people came in through the front door, and that is the important thing about order and process in immigration. Australians are fair, but they do not accept queue jumping and this is what we are seeing. In the end, what this government, what K Rudd, has done is make that product—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Fierravanti-Wells, you must refer to the Prime Minister by his proper title.

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 withdraw that. What the Prime Minister and his immigration minister have done is make that product much more attractive. The Sri Lankan ambassador was interviewed on Lateline on 11 November, and it is important to go back and look at that interview because he really put a lot of things into perspective. First of all, he told us that many of these people never started the journey from Sri Lanka; they came from elsewhere. He said:

… this talk about the push factor is an over-exaggeration

This, I might remind you, is the Sri Lankans’ representative to the United Nations. He told us:

In the absence of a push factor it’s the magnetic attraction of Australia that has brought these people to Australia’s shores illegally.

I think this is emotional blackmail, people going and sitting on leaking vessels and then refusing to get off those vessels. In the first instance there is a legal manner in which people could migrate to Australia. This avenue was not used. Instead they used an illicit method and now they are exerting pressure on the Australian authorities to accommodate them. I think it is wrong. He also went on to say:

Personally I do not think they are refugees, unless you use that expression in a rather loose manner, they are economic refugees looking for greener pastures elsewhere.

In another part of the interview he said—and this is really the crux of it:

As long as the pull factor is brought to an end or satisfactorily controlled. I think this exodus will cease almost immediately. At the moment, we see a large number of people who are making use of the opportunity, exploiting the opportunity to go to countries like Australia and Canada.

This will cease immediately the pull factor that is there at the moment is brought to an end.

That is the Sri Lankan representative to the United Nations and I think you cannot get a simpler situation than that statement by him. It is time that this government realised the effect that its cumulative changes have made to weaken our immigration and border security framework.

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

This is the third occasion in recent weeks that I have had the opportunity to rise in this place and speak about opposition motions of this kind. The wording of all these motions has been much the same and that reflects the fact that the political motivation underpinning them is exactly the same: they are all trying to extract some cheap political advantage from the issue of asylum seekers. Once again, we all understand exactly what this is about: this is yet another pathetic attempt by those opposite to divert attention from Malcolm Turnbull’s weak and discredited leadership and from the opposition’s deep and continuing divisions over critical issues of policy. Once again the opposition is trying the oldest and the dirtiest scare tactic available in Australian politics, the tactic of whipping up fear about immigration as a diversion from the deep policy divisions that split their own ranks.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells described the government’s position with respect to border protection as an absolute shemozzle. I will give her at least one thing: she is equipped to know a shemozzle when she sees one because she works in the midst of one, and that of course is the parliamentary Liberal Party. Even for an opposition that has got itself into as deep a political mess as that one over there, this is nonetheless indicative of a cheapening and coarsening sense of the Australian body politic and what makes for good political discourse. Making appeals, whether overt or covert, to racism and xenophobia is always a dangerous and dirty tactic. It has a long and discredited history in Australian politics. Until recently we thought we had seen the end of this tactic, but desperate times have called for desperate measures amongst those opposite and sadly this was not the case. This is apparently an opposition which cannot see a gutter without clinging to it in the event of its own political catastrophe.

Once again we have seen Senator Fierravanti-Wells cling to the language of queue jumping, so it is important in the first instance to have a look at some of the key facts that are germane to this debate. With respect to the Oceanic Viking, a vessel filled with refugees sent out a distress signal while it was in international waters. Notwithstanding the fact that they were in international waters, they were within what is internationally understood to be the Indonesian safety and rescue zone, so of course it was the responsibility of the Indonesian authorities to seek to provide assistance to that vessel consistent with the conventions of the sea. By virtue of the fact that an Australian naval asset was closer to the point of crisis than what Indonesia was able to offer, we received a request from the Indonesian government to provide assistance, and of course we did so. No-one opposite has yet been brave enough to get up and suggest we should have done anything else, but they have on occasions been on the cusp of doing just that.

So we are not talking here about queue jumping. We are talking here about the fact that asylum seekers rescued at sea in the Indonesian safety and rescue zone were returned to Indonesian waters and an Indonesian port by an Australian vessel. Fundamentally, what we have here is a situation where Australia has done everything it could, should and must do in these kinds of circumstances: respond to a request from a friend and ally, respond to a distress signal at sea and conform with the standards that are appropriate to a seafaring nation like ours. Those are the facts. Notwithstanding those facts, those opposite are determined to whip up frenzy and fear. Senator Fierravanti-Wells said immigration is about order and process, and she is right. It is about order and process, but it is about some other things too. It is about conducting ourselves in a manner that does honour to our nation and it is about treating people humanely and fairly. Labor offers a policy in the immigration sphere which provides not only process and order but also humane and proper treatment of asylum seekers.

We are not surprised that the opposition are persisting with this desperate, grubby, divisive tactic, because their political fortunes are at a very low ebb, and I fear this is the only issue that remains in the cupboard that unites them. On every other important question being debated in the Senate, those opposite cannot come forward with a unified position. This is the one debate on which they can offer up a common front, because they are united by fear and they are united by a sense that their tactics will repeat their 2001 victory. This is what an opposition does when it has nothing else it can talk about because of its own internal divisions. They do not have anything to say to us about the economy. They abandoned the debt debate that they so woefully commenced earlier this year. They do not have anything to say to us about climate change. We know how hopelessly split they are on the question of how to deal with it in policy terms and how to deal with it in political terms. The opposition do not have anything to say to us about workplace relations. Their Work Choices remains a shame they dare not discuss. They do not have anything to say to us about infrastructure. The Liberals remain deeply divided on all of these critical questions and they have a leadership which is now too weak to wander into their party room and play a leadership role. They have a multitude of spokespersons giving different policy positions on everything. This really is the only debate left to those opposite, the last debate left to a discredited opposition.

This week, for instance, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill will be coming back to the Senate. We are only a few weeks away from the Copenhagen climate change summit. Australia has seen an intense debate about this issue now for the last three years at least, yet the opposition still have not got to first base on this issue, the most important issue facing Australian legislators today. Those opposite cannot even decide if climate change is real. They cannot even reach an agreed position about whether it is anthropogenic. They cannot even agree whether there should be action on climate change. Mr Turnbull, Ms Bishop and Mr Hunt say that there should be action on climate change but, lo and behold, Senator Minchin told us on Four Corners last week that climate change is all just a left-wing conspiracy. Make up your minds and devote yourselves to the task of making up your minds so that you do not keep wandering into this place with these cheapened tactics on immigration and bashing asylum seekers. It does you no credit, it does this Senate no credit and it does Australian politics no credit.

Senator Minchin is now openly dissenting from the position taken by Mr Turnbull and is openly undermining his leader. I used to think those opposite were just determined obstructionists of the Rudd government and of our mandate to govern, but I was wrong. They are not just determined obstructionists of the Rudd government in the House of Representatives. They are determined obstructionists of their own opposition leader in the House of Representatives. The Senate Liberal Party team have exited the base—left the building—and are now roaming the halls of this place completely unguided. That is the kind of opposition we now have to deal with. We can barely work with them; Malcolm Turnbull has abandoned the task. We are now trying to negotiate in good faith with the opposition on the CPRS Bill while many prominent senators opposite insist that, even if we were to agree in those negotiations, they would be unable to support the bill. This is a party that cannot even agree on the basic scientific question of whether climate change is real or not.

The opposition would rather talk about anything but the real issues facing Australia today, and that is why we are talking about this motion today. They know that their opposition to the government’s measures to protect Australia from the effects of the global financial crisis was a mistake and that it has been proved wrong by subsequent events and the continuing economic data that pours into this place. They know that their decision to vote against our national building infrastructure and schools modernisation programs was a terrible mistake. That is why opposition senators can still be seen at the photo opportunities and the launches and will still try and make their way into the ribbon-cutting sessions, notwithstanding the fact that they opposed those measures here. They are getting that message from their own electorates every day. They know how fearful their fate will be at the next election, and that is why they cling to this raft with far more desperation than an asylum seeker does.

They know that their inability to develop a coherent policy on climate change is causing great anger in the business community because the stability and certainty the business community look for from Australian legislators and regulators is impossible while those opposite remain the unguided missiles that they are. They know that on all of these important issues they are out of touch, out of step and out of tune with the Australian people and even with their own supporters. That is why the opposition is so keen to take up the Senate’s time with these endless, repetitive, silly motions on asylum seekers, the one issue remaining in the pantheon that you can find agreement on—or mostly.

But, since the opposition wants to talk yet again about asylum seekers, we on this side are very happy to do so. We are not in the least embarrassed about this issue, on which we have a strong record, a record we are proud of—a record of strong border protection combined with a sensible and pragmatic understanding of what is required in this field. We will treat people with dignity and in a manner consistent with our international obligations. We will not engage in the sort of meaningless brutalities that so often punctuated your time in office.

When we came to office, we found nothing less than a policy mess in this sphere. We found a policy of dumping asylum seekers on remote islands with great political fanfare, detaining them for months or years under very harsh conditions and then quietly allowing most of them to settle in Australia when the heat had died down. That is right: we found a policy of giving asylum seekers these temporary protection visas, which those opposite trumpet as such a policy success and as the great deterrent, yet when we look at this great deterrent that TPVs allegedly were we see that in fact 90 per cent of those people given TPVs were eventually allowed to settle in Australia—that is to say, TPVs not only were not a deterrent but were a completely useless instrument. They did not do anything that other instruments could not do. We found a policy of secret deals with previous Indonesian regimes, as the former foreign minister, Mr Downer, confirmed in his usual smug way in an interview just recently. These secret deals left thousands of people in limbo in Indonesia, waiting years to be processed and for a determination to be made about their status. So, before you get too unctuous with the government about the so-called Indonesian solution, take a careful look at your own performance in this area.

The opposition likes to boast that the cynical, opportunistic mishmash of a policy pursued by the Howard government deterred people smugglers and eliminated the unauthorised arrival of asylum seekers by boat into Australian waters. It is a myth and it is a nonsense. There was a fall-off in boat arrivals between 2001 and 2005, but that can be clearly attributed to international events, most spectacularly the invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 2001, with the subsequent repatriation of millions of Afghan refugees living in camps in Pakistan and Iran, and of course the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. These had far more to do with Australian statistics in those years than any of the grandstanding that was attempted by the Prime Minister of the time. But in 2005, as the security situation in Afghanistan and Iraq deteriorated, the number of refugees from these countries began to increase again. From 2007 this trend was reinforced by the upsurge in fighting in the civil war in Sri Lanka, which culminated in the conquest of the Tamil areas by the Sri Lankan Army earlier this year.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells quoted with great glee the utterances of the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN, who of course was proclaiming that pull factors were a critical factor in the decision of Sri Lankan asylum seekers to make their way here. Let us try to add some important facts to this debate. Fact 1: it is a tiny fraction of Sri Lankan asylum seekers who make their way to Australia. We can see statistically that the vast majority of them are moving elsewhere, into India, Pakistan, Europe and Canada. But did you expect the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN to say anything else? Did you imagine that the Sri Lankan ambassador would have declared that push factors were the critical issue and that the conflict zone had generated asylum seekers? Of course not. You are quoting a government representative defending his own government. Congratulations. But, as a debating point in this place, it is useless.

The opposition keeps trying to argue that the rise in boat arrivals followed the changes that this government made and was therefore caused by them, but this government was elected in late 2007 and our changes were made in 2008. The rise in arrivals, however, began in 2005. It has taken place independently of changes in policy in Australia and it is consistent with the enormous rise in asylum seekers around the world—a rise of which we and our shores have seen only the tiniest fragment. But that has not dissuaded those opposite from trying to make a political meal out of it.

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

I rise today to contribute to this debate, but before I get into it I want to acknowledge that this is the third, the fourth or perhaps the fifth time in the last six months that we have had a similar debate here in the Senate. Yet here we are again, and nothing has quite changed. Nothing is any better for those people who are seeking asylum and refuge. In fact, the only change I can see is a failing lack of leadership both from the government, through the Prime Minister, and from the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition’s immigration spokespeople.

There is an outstanding lack of leadership on this issue from both the Labor Party and the coalition, to a point where we are now debating the ignorances of the issue—not fact but fiction, the myths that go with asylum seekers and refugees. These are myths that, when times are tough in this issue, people resort to because they are more simplistic to debate—issues of queue jumping and the idea that somehow punishing the victim will stop people smugglers—when of course we know that none of these things are actually true. Yet we continue in the face of crass debate to revert to simplistic arguments and name-calling simply to get through.

Those of you who were in the chamber at the time only three weeks ago may remember I moved a motion calling on the Senate to support the idea of having a proper debate but of doing it respectfully. I am disappointed that that motion did not get up. There was a pledge from Senator Fierravanti-Wells to ensure that any discussion and debate on this issue would be done respectfully and in line with the facts and not simply fiction. I think the display that we have seen today means that she has either forgotten or decided to overlook that pledge.

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

Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are acting in bad faith.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Brandis.

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

I believe the government has to take a lot of responsibility for where we are in this debate at the moment. The Prime Minister himself has allowed for the space and the oxygen to be given to those within the coalition who want to exploit this issue for their own political gain. The Prime Minister has to take as much responsibility for this as anybody else. He has shown a lack of leadership at a time when we need to see a new way forward and a new approach to managing the movement of people and the rise in the number of people around the world seeking refuge. The Prime Minister has failed to discuss the issue openly and to not beat it up for his own particular purpose, and he has allowed those within the opposition who like to beat up these issues to have the oxygen to continue to fan the flames of fear, hatred and ignorance. I think the Prime Minister has to take a lot of responsibility here. It started on day one when he started using the term ‘tough but humane’ and did not actually articulate what policies he would introduce that are actually humane or how he would manage the situation to ensure that people’s human rights are protected regardless of whether they are on a boat in international waters, Australian waters or Indonesian waters.

I want us to reflect quickly on why there is a refugee convention and why it is Australia is a signatory to the refugee convention. After World War II nations around the world reflected on what had happened in the past decade or two and decided that never again did they want to see people who were in desperation and crying out for help being sent back to persecution and torture. That is why nations around the world agreed that there must be a better way and that never again would they allow people to be returned to places of persecution and torture and to have their lives put at risk. We agreed that we needed some type of convention to help us manage this. That is why Australia signed up. We proudly signed up. We thought, ‘Yes, this is absolutely something we should be doing.’

Yet, over the last few weeks, the debate seems to have forgotten the reasons why we have rules and regulations. Of course we need to process people’s claims, but they have a right to claim asylum. We agreed to that. That is why we are a signatory to the refugee convention. Other nations in our region, however, are not. Indonesia is one such country; Malaysia is another. We should be working to encourage those countries to sign the refugee convention, particularly if we want to develop some type of regional partnership or solution. We need to ensure that those other countries, our regional partners and neighbours, are on the same page, that they all agree that seeking asylum is a right. When someone puts their hand up and says, ‘I would like refuge—please assess me,’ we go through the process. While they are being assessed, we obviously protect them and uphold their human rights. We should not be detaining children behind bars, as we are in places in Indonesia. These are the bare minimum of things, the ground rules, that Australia should be negotiating with Indonesia before we start saying we have some wonderful solution.

We know that the Prime Minister himself has wanted to make this into a crisis. We have seen that the opposition believe it is a crisis—‘One more boat; oh, my gosh, the world is ending.’ No, it is not. Boats are going to continue to come—

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

What about the people who drown?

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

as long as there are people fleeing persecution. We need to find a better way. Of course we do not want people having to take that treacherous trip across the ocean. Of course it is dangerous. We know that. Senator Brandis has just pointed that out. It absolutely is dangerous. But simply pushing boats back and saying that it is not our problem is not the resolution that we need in terms of taking on our responsibilities and having a humane approach. It may be tough but I would not say it is fair.

We need a better approach. We need a real solution, something that Australia owns—an Australian solution perhaps. We need a Prime Minister who will not see each boat as a crisis and give the oxygen to fuel the flames of those who would prefer we did not take any refugees. We need a Prime Minister who has the leadership to say: ‘I want to make a difference. I think we need a new way forward. Let’s do it calmly. Let’s be practical. But let’s ensure that humane treatment, fairness and those people who are the most vulnerable are at the centre of the discussion.’ We have not seen this to date from the Prime Minister or the opposition leader.

I am very disappointed that the opposition announced late last week that they would reintroduce temporary protection visas. It is a very big mistake. Malcolm Turnbull has not learnt one thing from his predecessors. It did not work then; it will not work now. It was not humane then; it is not humane now. It is a sad indictment that the leadership of the opposition has not been able to come up with a better solution than simply reverting to the past.

I think the government, the Prime Minister and the leadership within the Labor Party need to stand up and show what difference they will make. Temporary protection visas, pushing boats back and saying it is someone else’s problem—that it is okay if children are held behind bars as long as it does not happen on Australian soil—are not appropriate. If we agree that those things are not appropriate then what is the government going to do? Making a crisis out of every single boat that comes along is not the solution. We need a long-term, practical and humane approach. It is not good enough to be a wolf dressed up in sheep’s clothing. This is the challenge to the Prime Minister: take a stand and say that we will take people, because people need to be protected; that we will have a process but we will do it properly, we will do it humanely and we will treat people with dignity; and that we will not say, ‘Because you have not crossed this line, you are not our problem.’ We are all part of the global community and if for one moment we were able to think about how we would act if it was us and our children then I think we would be making very different decisions.

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

As a Prime Minister who has acknowledged in a speech to parliament that a government must be judged on its action, not its political rhetoric, and as a Prime Minister who told the people of Australia prior to the 2007 election that Labor’s stated objective in relation to border protection was essentially the same as the Howard government’s—that being to keep Australia’s maritime borders secure from unlawful arrivals—Kevin Rudd should stand condemned for his actions and the failure of the Labor government’s policies on border protection. The Rudd Labor government is nothing less than chronically negligent when it comes to managing Australia’s borders.

Fifty boats have now arrived since August 2008, when Mr Rudd and Labor decided to roll back the effective and strong border protection regime we had in place. Remember those fateful words of Julia Gillard when she was shadow immigration minister when she said, ‘Another boat, another policy failure.’ Well, haven’t those fateful words come back to bite Labor. If another boat equals a policy failure then what can you say when we are up to 50? And I bet if I were to give this speech tomorrow then I would be saying it was 51.

Based on the hysterical and hypocritical rhetoric Mr Rudd continues to spout, his claims to have a ‘tough but humane’ border protection policy are blown out of the water with the ongoing debacle with the Oceanic Viking. Instead of trying to find a solution to the problem that he has created, like Pontius Pilate he seeks to wash his hands of any blame and wash his hands of the problem. When it all became too hard for Mr Rudd, what did he do? He called the Indonesian President. He tried to make his policy failure Indonesia’s problem. And—surprise, surprise!—that did not work. Mr Rudd has now been snubbed by the Indonesian President, as reported on the front page of the West Australian today:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Indonesian solution to the boat people surge is unravelling, with Jakarta making plain its opposition to becoming the dumping ground for Australia-bound asylum seekers.

Instead of doing what a true leader would do—instead of taking total responsibility for his own policy failure—what does Mr Rudd do? He offers a special deal, a ‘buy one, here you go, get one free’ deal: he gives them fast and expedited passage to Australia. Not only that—and the mums and dads of Australia are going to like this—they may also get access to public housing, special payments and jobs. What a kick in the teeth for the average Australian. That must be rolled gold for the people smugglers. You can only imagine what they are now saying: ‘When it all gets tough, you know that guy Kevin Rudd in Australia rolls over—he caves in and he offers up fast and expedited passage to Australia.’

How humiliating. How demeaning for Mr Rudd. This is the Prime Minister of Australia who prides himself on being the consummate diplomat, and what has he had to do? He has had to get down on his hands and knees and beg these people to get off the boat. That is an absolute disgrace and it is because of his total policy failure. And despite the fantastic deal that he has offered them, he has only managed to get 22 people off the Oceanic Viking. One can only imagine what type of deal he is now going to offer to get the rest of them off the boat—maybe a position in his cabinet? God knows they are running the country already.

The Labor government, by their policy decisions, have rolled out the welcome matt; they have rolled out the ‘Rudd carpet’ to the people smugglers. The people of Australia should be demanding to know from Rudd Labor why they support the people smugglers. Why does Mr Rudd introduce policies that support the people that he referred to as the vilest form of human life? Why does Mr Rudd implement policies that he knows will increase the despicable trade of people smuggling? Why doesn’t Mr Rudd stand up for legitimate refugees who are doing the right thing—the hundreds of thousands of legitimate refugees who are in refugee camps around the world and who have made proper, legal application? They are going through the proper process in order to seek lawful entry into Australia. Why doesn’t Rudd Labor stand up for these people?

I0M Cash, Sen Michaelia 40

The people-smuggling trade is a dangerous trade. We know that because Mr Rudd keeps telling us that, yet he continues to ignore the evidence. Already we have seen innocent lives lost because of the current people smuggling. We have now got a cyclone season that will soon be upon us. What is Mr Rudd going to do when further people lose their lives? We heard in question time today the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship using the increased number of refugees and displaced people globally as a justification for the increased number of asylum seekers trying to come here unlawfully. If Labor are aware of this, as the minister tells this place they are, why do they continue to implement policies that support the people smugglers? The reality for Rudd Labor is that as long as they continue with their current policies we will see a rise in the number of people trying to enter this country unlawfully.

It is not just the coalition who is telling Mr Rudd that his policies have made people smuggling more attractive. We also had the Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN, the Indonesian ambassador, the Federal Police and the International Organisation on Migration all saying that Kevin Rudd’s policies have increased the pull factors. Mr Rudd created the problem and he now needs to find the solution. Remember that this is the Prime Minister who, many years ago when commenting on Howard government policy, said that a government should be judged on:

… concrete measures taken … so that this nation is truly secure, not simply projected to be secure through the political rhetoric of … government.

Mr Rudd has failed Australia on border protection and as the Prime Minister of this country he stands condemned.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance today and, in doing so, I must say that today I have seen one of the worst performances from those opposite. The contribution that has been made is nothing short of appalling. I welcome the opportunity here today to be able to dispel the myths underpinning the arguments of those opposite and to set the facts straight about what the government has done and is doing in this critical area of border protection. I welcome the opportunity to set the facts straight about the global context that has given rise to people of many nations being displaced, some forced to flee from civil wars and the like. To set the facts straight about the world situations which have given encouragement to those involved in the despicable trade of people smuggling, it is important that the myths and any untruths are dispelled and corrected.

Border protection is indeed a matter of public importance and the Rudd Labor government takes this issue very seriously. Consistent with our election commitments, this government has overseen a tough and responsible policy of border protection. This policy encompasses a humane, respectful approach to those who are genuinely seeking asylum, while enforcing a hard line against people smugglers. Those opposite will tell you we have been soft. Still, they cannot even make up their minds on this. In the eyes of the member for Warringah, Mr Abbott, this government’s policy is supposedly brutal. At least, that is how he described it last month on ABC TV’s Lateline. Neither accusation is a reflection of the truth or grounded in reality.

This government has invested more resources in this area than the former government. We have more boats patrolling our waters than our predecessors had—a 25 per cent increase since 2007. We have a stronger interception record than the former government. The Rudd government has intercepted 98 per cent of boats before they reach the mainland, while under Mr Howard’s watch more than one in 10 boats got through to the mainland. Since September 2008 there have been 61 people-smuggling arrests and 23 people have been convicted on such charges. There are currently another 37 defendants before the courts relating to 17 people-smuggling offences.

All irregular maritime arrivals to Australia are placed under mandatory detention for identity, security and health checks. No-one is granted a visa to Australia or released into the community without undergoing a comprehensive security- and identity-checking process. In addition to convicting people smugglers and increasing Australia’s interception rates, the Rudd Labor government has returned more than 100 people to their countries of origin because their asylum claims have been refused. Just in the past 48 hours, six Sri Lankans who arrived by boat in April and were detained on Christmas Island were returned home after it was found they were not refugees under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This removal means that more than two thirds of the group’s 50 people now have been sent back to Sri Lanka after their claims for protection were assessed; 30 others returned voluntarily; 12 people from the same boat have been granted protection visas and settled on the mainland; and a further two people are in the final stages of their processing on Christmas Island.

The government has made it abundantly clear: those who deserve Australia’s protection under our international obligations will be given that protection. Those found not to be owed protection will be removed from Australia. This government has also been closely working with Asia-Pacific regional law enforcement and government officials combating people smuggling. One example of this crucial collaboration was the recent detention of Captain Bram, which was a major setback for people smuggling in the region.

The issue of unauthorised boat arrivals is not confined to Australia. It is a global problem. There are more than 42 million displaced people around the world. Of these people, the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR, estimates that 16 million of them are refugees and asylum seekers, while 26 million are displaced within their own communities. Of the latter group, 4.6 million people were newly displaced in 2008. Most recently we have seen a surge of mainly Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum seekers.

This situation has been driven by the push factors of conflict, persecution and insecurity—in these cases the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan and the civil war in Sri Lanka and its aftermath. It is not a result, as those opposite would have us believe, of pull factors. It is not as a result of this government’s policy that people are seeking asylum in Australia. What we are experiencing here is happening at exactly the same time everywhere around the world. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Iraqis, Sri Lankans and Afghans seeking asylum globally rose 193 per cent, 72 per cent and 139 per cent respectively. So the Liberal Party myth, the untruth, that Labor’s tough and humane immigration policy has caused the current increase in asylum seekers coming to Australia is nonsense—just as it is nonsense that the Howard government’s so-called Pacific solution caused a reduction in asylum seekers arriving in Australia between 2001 and 2003. There was a decrease in numbers during this time; we know that is true. But such decreases were happening all over the world. Between 2001 and 2003 the number of Iraqis, Sri Lankans and Afghans claiming asylum globally plummeted by 48 per cent, 61 per cent and 73 per cent respectively.

People movement in our region is not a new phenomenon. There have been surges in boat arrivals since the 1970s. From 1991 to 2001 under the former government, Australia saw more than 12,000 unauthorised boat arrivals. The Liberal Party did not claim then that pull factors were causing such movement to Australia, and they were not. The brutal regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were causing people to flee their homelands and seek protection elsewhere. So, as I have already said, we have seen this people movement again in recent times.

I should make mention that just last week those opposite announced their asylum seeker policy in response to the government’s position. I use the term ‘policy’ quite loosely here for, as Minister Evans pointed out on Friday, it consists of four dot points. There is no detail in it and nothing substantive apart from calling for the return of the temporary protection visas available under the Howard government. And I quote Senator Evans regarding temporary protection visas: ‘Following their introduction, we then had the two largest years of boat arrivals in Australia’s history.’ The important point to make here is that temporary protection visas did not stop people coming and they never went home. When the Rudd government abolished temporary protection visas last year, the opposition did not block the move, and they now have a revolt on their hands in relation to the proposal to bring them back in. TPVs are an inhumane policy and they do not work. Interestingly, the TPV abolition is the only measure the government has taken on immigration that the opposition’s new four dot point so-called policy would overturn.

Rather than worry about the opposition’s squabbling over this issue, though, this government will continue to honour its election commitment to protect Australia’s borders whilst being tough on people smugglers and humane in our dealings with genuine refugees. We will be— (Time expired)

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Rudd Labor government has comprehensively failed to provide a clear, definitive policy on border protection by whatever criteria or analysis one wishes to use. The Prime Minister can repeat as many times as he likes that his approach is a tough but humane one, but no amount of repetitive hype will conceal the ineptitude of his government and the disastrous consequences of this border protection policy. As we heard in the speech by Senator Cash, since August last year we are now up to 50 unlawful boat arrivals with over 2,200 refugees seeking asylum. The approach taken has been, in effect, to provide a gilt-edged invitation to asylum seekers to subvert the processes and to pay many thousands of dollars, amounting to a lifetime of savings, to a human trafficker—the people smugglers who, in my thinking, are the scourge of the earth.

These poor people then take huge risks in vessels of questionable seaworthiness. So I ask Prime Minister Rudd: does this qualify as humane? Is it humane to have a policy that actively encourages people in stricken circumstances, perhaps life-threatening ones, to take their chances with crooks with leaky boats who seek to offer people hope for thousands of dollars? They pilot boats into Indonesian and Australian territory and, as we now know, some bail, leaving the people literally adrift while they wait for a conspirator to pick them up so that they are not subject to the lawful consequences. So the refugees are literally at sea without captain or pilot.

I refer to a Fairfax newspaper report, which clearly demonstrated what New Zealand thinks about Australia’s approach in an interview with the New Zealand immigration minister, Jonathan Coleman, who had talks with Australia and advised that New Zealand rejected all plans and requests to rehouse them in their country. I will quote some comments that the immigration minister, Jonathan Coleman, made. He said:

The New Zealand government does not believe that an ad hoc approach to dealing with individual cases like the Oceanic Viking will send the right message …

The broader issues aren’t going to go away. There are literally thousands of displaced people across the Asia-Pacific region.

We’re wary of rewarding actions that seek to jump the queue for entry to New Zealand.

For these reasons the New Zealand government would be unlikely to offer settlement to asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking.

I have conveyed this to my Australian counterpart.

There is no-one in this chamber, I would suggest, who is not concerned or moved by the difficulties faced by displaced persons in the world, whether they be from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan or Africa. But it is in the interests of all displaced people that proper asylum is provided in refugee camps, that appropriate assessment is made by the UNHCR to ascertain the validity of the refugee applications and that the people-smugglers who seek to subvert this process are appropriately dealt with. To do this, though, Australia must have a strong, unequivocal position—one that says to those considering hopping on a boat that there will be no advantage in their doing so.

But a clear and unequivocal position requires a Prime Minister to use plain language, to be upfront and transparent about the discussions and negotiations that have taken place. The Oceanic Viking is just one case in point. The Prime Minister must come clean on what he has offered the 78 asylum seekers who have called it home for over four weeks, what special incentives were offered to induce them off the boat. He must confirm whether they were offered a special deal in reducing the time of the application process. Senator Feeney talked earlier about the government’s priority for process and order. Well, those who have watched the news night after night, watching these people onboard the Oceanic Viking, would hardly describe that as ‘process and order’. It beggars belief that the government does not realise that it has essentially flagged to the world that, if you hold out and refuse to cooperate, you are in a better bargaining position.

How fair is that to the many displaced people in refugee camps, waiting for the processing of their applications? How fair is it to the many immigrant families who have made Australia their home and sought a future here, through the appropriate channels, and have contributed—and continue to contribute—in such a huge and meaningful way to all our lives? It is no coincidence that the fiercest critics of the Rudd government’s soft and failed policies are those who have resettled through the lawful immigration process and will, I am sure, continue to make a wonderful contribution to our great country.

Mr Rudd’s soft approach to border protection continues to create more problems than it solves. It is costing the taxpayer a fortune. And, despite Mr Rudd’s rhetoric, the Australian people know it. They also know that, contrary to what Senator Wortley has just said, TPVs do work— (Time expired)