Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I cannot think of an occasion, in the last 20 years—at least in my term in parliament, which covers three governments, I should add—where Australia has projected such a humiliating weakness to our regional neighbours and to the region of this country. I cannot think of an occasion where that has occurred. For weeks and weeks the Oceanic Viking has been floating around—virtually aimlessly—and on our television screens every night we see asylum seekers basically holding the Australian government to ransom. This humiliation has been projected around the region. We are told today—the latest on the lines, if it is to be believed, because seeing is believing in this issue, I will say that—that there has been a resolution to this matter. Finally—if that is true. But nothing wipes away the weeks and weeks of humiliation that this country has faced and has projected to its neighbours. Moreover, we have the humiliation and embarrassment of this country losing its strength of border protection, with 50-plus boats since August 2008 having broken through our so-called border security lines. Over 50 boats—and rest assured they are coming in by the day and there are many, many more to come.

What of those Indonesian asylum seekers that have been waiting years and years to be assessed? And that is just in Indonesia. I am not talking about the other refugee camps where applications are being assessed properly, legally and in order. There are those even waiting in Indonesia to be assessed to come out to Australia. Instead, this government humiliates the nation by having to make a very special deal with those on board the Oceanic Viking. Today we are told that the last of the 56 asylum seekers have also struck up a special deal with this government to be assessed with privileges. Not even those in Indonesia that are waiting to come out have these privileges.

The Australian people are in on this—make no mistake. They are quite aware that our border security is now weakened. It is a prime responsibility of any government of any colour, and it is now weakened. It is coming out through the polls, through people you meet and probably through their own branch meetings—if they bothered to turn up to any these days—that the government are enhancing the profits of the people-smugglers. The Australian people are well aware that the government are endangering the lives of asylum seekers and inciting them to make those perilous journeys.

There is one other issue. Time does not permit me to develop it as well as I would like to, but I have touched on it in previous speeches. In addition to all those moral issues that the other side will not tackle—enhancing the ability and profits of people-smugglers, inciting people to undertake perilous journeys, weakening our borders and also promoting queue jumpers—there is another issue that has come to light. That is that the government has placed a wrecking ball through our relationship with Indonesia—one that the previous government built up. Times were perilous after East Timor, and it was vital to delicately massage, if you like, our relationship, but under the Howard government the relationship could not have been better. As I say, maintaining the relationship is never going to be easy, given the size and geography of the country, but it is vital, not just in the fight against terror but in the fight against people-smugglers. The three stooges have simply sent a wrecking ball through the relationship—the three stooges being, of course, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Who saw the foreign minister on Sky TV the other day, insulting the Indonesians and insulting the decent President of Indonesia, President Yudhoyono, saying that his words take a while to trickle down to local government? Let me tell you: they do not.

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

Order! Before I call Senator Moore, there is far too much audible conversation on my right.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin by acknowledging the years of rhetoric we have had from Senator McGauran. He opened his contribution by sharing with us that he has seen three governments. So we have had three governments worth of rhetoric—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will see four.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had maybe four governments of rhetoric from Senator McGauran, and I think we should acknowledge that. One of the most alarming things in today’s questions was the desperate, ongoing attempt to make political mileage out of a very sad situation—running the consistent line about special deals, which has been picked up by the media. As Senator McGauran says, there has been media coverage of this extraordinarily difficult and most distressing situation.

But the government has been very clear and very open about the process that has occurred. As we have heard, there is a full public document about what was discussed with the people onboard the particular vessel, plus the ongoing negotiations with the Indonesian government. The minister replied extremely patiently to the continuing questions of yesterday and today, pointing out the clear facts: this vessel was in Indonesian waters and the Australian government came in to support the vessel, but at the request of the Indonesian government the process has gone on with the Indonesian government to ensure that there is respect given to the people on board. It is most important to treat the people with respect, referring to them as people who are seeking asylum—not, as we heard in the rhetoric of some of the questions today, yet again, the awful term ‘illegals’. We are talking about asylum seekers.

The processing will be done most clearly under the UNHCR rules—there is no doubt about that. We are working with the UNHCR, which is the international body that looks after people seeking asylum and looking to be considered as refugees in the international focus. What we consistently forget in the debates that have been forcibly imposed in this area over many years is that people moving and seeking asylum across our globe is an international issue. It is not peculiar to Australia. It is not peculiar to the Pacific. It is a problem that the world must acknowledge. As the result of a range of horrific circumstances across our globe, people are trying to move to seek new lives. Some of those people will be assessed under the UNHCR processes to be genuine refugees. Some will not. We must make that process, to which we as a government are signatories, clear. That will now be enforced. As with the document that was made public yesterday, all actions will be made public in this process. Every time a boat is seen or a process is undertaken on this issue, what we do will be made public, will be available to the world.

It is so distressing when we hear allegations that there are more boats. Look at the records. Look at the numbers. As people seek asylum in this area, we will have people who are desperate enough to come on boats. The saddest thing—in fact, the most offensive thing—is the allegation that we are supporting people-smugglers. That is wrong. That is actually quite a dangerous thing to say. It also means that people are not listening effectively to process. We can talk about the budget, and that will be put forward. We can talk about the international relations and processes that have been moved forward by our government. We can talk about the processes that are being put in place to ensure clear understanding, for any individual who is trying to move from their home to seek refuge in another place. That is all part of government policy. We are not moving from that. To have people using the sanctity of this chamber to make allegations that there is any softness on people-smuggling by our government is false, misleading and dangerous. What we must do is to seek solutions for people who are desperate, understand their desperation and make sure that there are clear assessment processes which are understood and from which there is no deviation in terms of what constitutes a refugee. Most importantly, we must maintain respect for those involved.

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

Earlier on, Senator Moore criticised the use of the term ‘illegals’. I am sure there is someone back in an office in this building who will be reporting her to the Prime Minister, because it was the term he used, and we all know how well he takes criticism!

What really bewilders me is how the people on the other side of this chamber always seek to justify their policy in terms of a higher moral ground. It must get dizzy that high up on the soapbox. This side of the chamber has not said that you are supporting people smugglers. What we have said is that your changes in policy have given them a product to sell. No-one here has suggested that people in northern Sri Lanka are jumping on the internet to read the latest press release from Minister Evans, but we do allege that the people-smugglers are—the people-smugglers who sell the product, who walk around the villages, who go to camps and who say to people, ‘Give us $20,000 and we will put you on a boat.’ Your government has made that a better product to sell. Your government has given those people something they did not have two years ago. They could not say two years ago, ‘Come to Australia and you will be out in 90 days.’ They could not say, ‘You will have the right to bring your family.’ They could not say, ‘You will have the right to access benefits and work.’ But they can say that now because of what the Labor government has done.

We warned you what the consequences would be of watering down the measures and policies of the previous government. We warned you it would lead to an increase in the number of boats. We warned you that it would increase the number of unlawful arrivals, that it would increase the number of people putting their lives at risk. And tragically that is exactly what has happened. We warned you this would give people-smugglers a better product to sell. We know that is the case because the AFP has said so. The AFP has said that people-smugglers have got a better product to sell.

Over the last 24 hours, members of this government have wanted to deny that there is some sort of special deal. So I looked up the dictionary definition of the term ‘special’. It could be ‘distinct’, ‘exceptional’, ‘different’ or ‘out of the ordinary’. Whatever we say, the people who were on the Oceanic Viking and who got off several days ago were offered a deal that was different to people waiting in camps all around the world. They were offered a deal that was different to everyone else who has sought to be an unlawful entrant into Australia or Australian territory. That is a special deal. You may try to run away from it, you may try to obfuscate, you may try to say that it is all part of a global problem. This is the first government in Australian history that actually does not want to own up to any problem. Every problem is the result of someone else, something else or an external event. You do not want to take responsibility for the challenges that face government. But on this occasion the government cannot avoid it, because it is their own actions that have brought it about.

This is a special deal. We have seen 52 boats since they changed the law. There is no end in sight. What is truly tragic about this is that the people who are the most vulnerable, the people who truly deserve prioritised protection, the people who desperately need protection are the people who do not have $20,000. They are the people who do not have the means to jump on a boat. They are the people caught in camps without family members, without the means to support themselves and without the means to jump on a boat and seek to use a people-smuggler to get to Australia. I am surprised, because this country is proud of its humanitarian intake, as it should be. But this government’s policies are weakening public faith in that because the trade-off for a substantial humanitarian intake has always been control over our borders. The implication that people who oppose this government’s policy and the implication that somehow people on this side of the chamber are not as concerned with the most vulnerable people in the world is offensive. But the other side of the chamber just like to jump up on their soapbox.

Australians know that we cannot solve the world’s problems. But Australians also know that the government changed the laws, despite being warned by us and the by Federal Police, and after the changes in those laws we have seen a massive, unprecedented spike, given where we were immediately beforehand, in the number of boats and unlawful entrants and people placing their lives at risk—they know what that means and that will rest on this government’s head.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are so many soapboxes that people have been jumping on here this afternoon about a dreadful problem that we as a nation need to confront. We all know the reason these people are on the Oceanic Viking. Their vessel was in distress and they were rescued. We all know, as Senator Moore eloquently outlined, that people-smuggling is not just a problem for our nation. As we have been reminded in here and in the other chamber, something like 42 million people are displaced in the world at the moment because of civil war or the end of conflicts. When I was in Turkey in the middle of this year I was told that something like 67,000 people have passed through Turkey into Greece—so much so that those illegal migrants in that country were seen as a threat to civil society. We also know that, as a result of the conflicts in Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq and other places in Asia and Africa, Europe and North America are prime destinations for those men, women and children. We also know that they wish to come here and to North America and Europe because it offers them a better life.

I am disturbed that some of my Liberal colleagues, whom I do regard as quite honourable men, would get up here this afternoon and take what might be seen as this high moral ground, suggesting that we are somehow encouraging people to use people smugglers. Senator Moore rightly took objection to that allegation, because this government is very much committed to making sure that this does not occur. As I said earlier, there are so many displaced men, women and children in other parts of the world who are seeking to get to our country to make life better for themselves. I think of the generosity that was displayed towards many men, women and children after the fall of Vietnam in 1975 by the then Liberal government led by Malcolm Fraser after it got into power. That government was very generous in assisting those men, women and children to start a new life in this country. They have been great citizens. It is unfair to jump up here and get morally indignant because this is a difficulty that we should attempt to deal with in a bipartisan way.

The government has started introducing specific measures to try to curtail this growing problem. But it is not just our nation and it is not just this part of the world that has to deal with the issue. We have, just in the last period, committed up to $234 million: $22 million to establish a capacity in customs and border protection for the towing and disposal of intercepted vessels; $63 million for aerial surveillance, including more than $16 million in extra funding for two additional aircraft; $6 million for the Oceanic Viking to undertake an additional 80 days of surveillance and patrol; $1 million to progress options for replacing Bay class vessels. What we are doing is to seek solutions for these desperate people. We are attempting to make sure that the smugglers are not encouraged to continue to use men and women. It should be done with bipartisan support and not on some moral soapbox.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I contribute to this debate in response to those answers given by Senator Evans this afternoon. In the matter of border protection, it is important that the chamber understands that the Howard government confronted a problem and it found a solution. The Rudd government removed that solution and they have now created a problem for themselves—but not just for themselves but for the Australian people also and, worse, for the would-be asylum seekers. The only, the best and the safest way to save and protect the lives of these people is for them not to go to sea in the first place. Nobody in this chamber is suggesting that anybody has any objective other than to protect the lives of those men, women and children who are being subjected by people smugglers to this shocking trade. We know that in Asia and other places people smugglers are very active. We know they have increased their activity, and that is what must be stopped if we are to once again protect the lives of these people. Our immigration policies are well known in Asia and the Indian subcontinent. They are known on the streets of Pakistan. They are known by taxi drivers. They are very, very well known.

I simply ask the question: in the lamentable case of these Sri Lankans who are attempting to leave their country, why is it that more than double the number are wanting to come to Australia than are going to India, to the Middle East or to the Islamic countries of Asia? Why is it that so many of these people are welcomed into countries like Malaysia, which is itself Islamic? They are welcomed into an Islamic country but only welcomed to go through it, not to stay. If they go down to Indonesia, they are welcome to keep moving but not to stay. They want to come to Australia. This is where we must be directing our activities.

Despite the denials of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, we know very well that a special deal was struck for these people. Why were the Prime Minister’s own staff involved in this particular negotiation? Are they involved in all the other negotiations? We suspect that they are not. Why was the Prime Minister ignored at APEC in Singapore on the weekend, to the embarrassment of this country and no doubt himself? Why is it that the Indonesian President has cancelled a diplomatic visit to this country this week? Because they just do not like the megaphone mentality and being preached at, as they are by this government.

We know that even people in Indonesia who have been in refugee camps for many years are bitterly resentful of the people who have come off the Oceanic Viking and the other 56. Why are they being held in protection in that camp? Because of the resentment of the other people in that refugee camp, who know that these others have received and are receiving preferential treatment. What are the people smugglers going to say to the next raft? I do remind you, as one who knows those waters well, that from November through to March we are in the cyclone season; therefore, the safety of the people on these vessels is even more at risk. We have to stop this for no other reason than their safety. We must stop this before the onset of the cyclone season.

Here in Australia, people who have recently arrived and been processed in the correct way are deeply angered by this fast-tracking. I say again in this chamber that Australia has a very proud record of taking migrants into this country—second, I understand, only to Canada on a per capita basis. But we know that for every one, for every 10, for every 100 who come in through the backdoor it is another one, 10 or 100 who sit in another camp in Somalia or the Sudan or wherever they may be simply because they do not have the funds to be attractive to the people smugglers. Those on the other side of this chamber want to see a resolution. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, they were handed a solution and they threw that solution to one side. They derided us over the activities on Christmas Island, only then to turn around and have to use it again. In conclusion, I ask: where does the UNHCR stand on this whole issue? What is their understanding of Australia’s policy when they believe we are going through normal processes only to see them changed? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.