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

I move:

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

I commence my comments by looking at today’s article in the Australian. I do not normally quote Paul Kelly, but if Paul Kelly is saying that ‘Rudd is treating us like mugs’, maybe it is time that the Prime Minister really did take note. Mr Kelly says:

There is an emerging credibility gap in the Rudd government’s navigation of contentious policy issues, a compulsion that denies the obvious and rests on the apparent assumption that Australians are mugs.

Does the Prime Minister think that the Australian public cannot see through all of this spin? I will quote another section from Mr Kelly’s article:

He seems to think almost any line can be spun and will be believed, even when it is nonsense.

Of course, it is sheer nonsense when this government says that a deal which looks like a special deal, sounds like a special deal and is precisely a special deal, is actually not a special deal. Are you taking the Australian public for fools? You are really taking them for a ride. Admit that this is a special deal.

In my many years of involvement in immigration matters, I have to say that I have never seen anything quite like this. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is not here, and it is interesting that the minister has not been present in any of the motions to take note or answers or any of the MPIs that we have had in relation to this very important border protection issue. He has not been here to answer to this Senate and to the Australian public for his conduct. One only has to look at the department of immigration’s figures to see that in 2007-08 89 refugees processed by the UNHCR in Indonesia were resettled in Australia. In 2008-09, 35 were  resettled—hardly large numbers. Indeed, the minister recently told us at the FECCA conference that around 1,300 people had been resettled to third countries from Indonesia since 2001, with Australia taking about a third of those refugees. So in about eight years we have taken about 430 people from Indonesia and resettled them here.

Those people have been sitting in Indonesia for years and years. The processes that they have gone through have been slow and painstaking, but the people on the Oceanic Viking were given a codified letter, as the minister tells us. The codified letter, the bribe that they were offered because the Prime Minister was so desperate for them to get off this ship, is nowhere near what any other person who has been sitting in Indonesia will ever be offered. Indeed, how can the government possibly still persist in treating the Australian public with utter contempt by denying that this was a special deal to bribe the asylum seekers off that boat?

Then we have this situation where the Prime Minister now says, ‘Of course, I didn’t know anything about this.’ For goodness sake, this is a Prime Minister—and I am not going to criticise workaholics—who is really into the detail. Do not tell me that he did not know! Now he says that it was his staff who negotiated. It was interesting to hear the minister’s answer—or non-answer!—to Senator Ryan in relation to this very question, because the minister failed to answer the question about the Prime Minister’s staff’s involvement in this deal. That is the answer that the Australian public need to know.

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

This afternoon I rise to take note of the same answers to questions as the previous speaker. As has been pointed out time and time again, this is a debate that the Liberal Party returns to in the Senate because there are so many other important debates where it is completely unable to make a contribution. When one looks at issues like the NBN, the economy, the stimulus package, the global financial crisis and action on climate change, we can see that the Liberal Party has completely vacated the field. So, notwithstanding the fact that these are the debates that are dominating public life and our newspapers and televisions, they remain debates that the Liberal Party shies away from in the Senate—and for good reason: it has no policy and its viewpoint has no traction with the Australian people.

The interesting thing about the debate on border protection is that, while the Liberal Party finds itself agreeing on using the language of hysteria and on signalling to the Australian public messages of xenophobia and a fear of immigrants, it nonetheless remains consistent: the Liberal Party has no policy to offer in this sphere either. No-one on that side of politics has yet suggested that TPVs should be restored and no-one on that side of politics can deny that the changes made by this government to our immigration regime were supported and voted for by them; but the latest fear-mongering goes to this proposition about special deals, and in particular the proposition that we have been ransomed. To use the emotive language, the vessel was held to ransom, the government engaged in bribery to get these people off the vessel and these people are queuejumpers. This is the language of emotion and fear but it does not cut the mustard when one looks for facts.

The fact of the matter is that there is no special deal. The fact of the matter is that Australia has done the proper thing and responded to a request from an ally—a friend, a neighbour and an ally—to rescue a vessel in distress, which was in international waters and in the Indonesian zone for rescue. After accomplishing that deed—which no-one on the other side says we should not have done—those people were taken back to an Indonesian port. The government, when we found the occupants of this vessel making demands upon us, were patient. We did not give in. We did not relent in the face of those demands. We were patient, and we reached an accommodation—not with the occupants of that vessel but with the Indonesian government.

When it comes to special deals with the Indonesian government the opposition are experts. They have a long and proud history of it. I would like to quote Alexander Downer, who appeared on an ABC’s Radio National program on the 13th of this month. He said, in his relaxed, calm, post-retirement timbre of voice:

The other thing we did, which we did more sotto voce, was to tow the boats. I must say this is not something that has generated much publicity recently in Australia. We used to get the Navy not to guide the boats into the Australian shoreline. What we did was we got the Navy to tow the boats back to the Indonesian territorial waters, left the boats with enough fuel, food and so on to get to a port in Indonesia, guided them where to go, and then left them. Obviously monitored them to make sure the boat was safe but disappeared over the horizon. And this worked very effectively. But we did this without any publicity. We didn’t run around boasting that we were doing this because we knew the Indonesians accepted these people back through gritted teeth.

Those opposite have a long and ignoble tradition in dealing with immigration in this country. But the critical points remain. We have not reached a secret or special deal with these people; rather, we have reached an agreement with the Indonesians about how they are to be processed—in a manner that is consistent with Australian custom and practice and consistent with our treaty obligations. These people are going to receive post-settlement terms which are completely mundane and completely typical of the services that other refugees receive. Notwithstanding the hysterical language of those opposite, they did vote for these changes. (Time expired)

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

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Evans, but firstly I would be negligent if I did not respond to a couple of the comments that have just been made by Senator Feeney on the other side. I would firstly like to point out to Senator Feeney that our history of appropriate, humane and definitive border protection has seen this country governed well. Under the former Howard government we did not have a collapse of public policy and we actually looked after those who sought to come to this country through proper, lawful immigration processes.

Senator Feeney has said in this chamber that the government has an approach of process and order for border protection. All I can say to Senator Feeney in response to that is, ‘Heaven help us if this is process and order when we watch the news every night and see people on boats who cannot get off, who are seeking a life elsewhere!’ What a terrible reflection on this government and its public policy.

The immigration detention centre on Christmas Island is a place that was described by those on the other side of this chamber as a white elephant. Can I suggest that it is better described these days as an overcrowded Noah’s Ark. It is not people trying to get on Christmas Island two by two but rather more boats that are arriving and seeking refuge. The detention centre on Christmas Island was designed and purpose-built to accommodate 800 people, but it is now overflowing with over 1,000 people. We heard from Senator Evans earlier on in question time about how they are making arrangements—which he was not too clear-cut about—as to how they are to accommodate further arrivals. Given that in the last four days we have seen four boats—not just one but four boats—arrive, Senator Evans had better hurry up a bit and make provisions because, as we all know, the extension that they are planning for Christmas Island has not even seen the first sod turned. I would ask Senator Evans to be a little more expedient and look at the actual policy to determine whether or not their process is working, because I would suggest that it is not.

What I find absolutely gobsmacking is that the government think that the Australian public are so gullible as to wear this hogwash that they are hearing. Given the number of displaced people seeking asylum in Australia since the changed policy, where are future refugees to be housed? We have just had a concession from the senator that they will actually consider the northern detention centre in Darwin. If this is the case and this is the future policy intent of this government, then I suggest that it is yet another open invitation to people-smugglers—who, let us face it, make a very good dollar. Selling places on these boats is a financially rewarding business for people-smugglers. All this is doing is rolling out another red carpet to them so that they can say to those who are in stricken circumstances that there is an opportunity for them to reach the mainland of Australia. We have heard that there were special deals done for those on the Oceanic Viking. The government must swallow their pride on this one, relook at the policy that they have advertised far and wide, and consider a humane approach. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the third day in a row that we have had the opposition using question time and taking note of answers debates to demonise people who are asylum seekers and who may or may not be found to be refugees. It is extremely disappointing that instead of using the opportunity that they have to question ministers of the government about issues of genuine importance to Australians—for example, health, education or even, God forbid, climate change—they continue on their unsavoury path of whipping up fear and loathing by again using the emotive and loaded terminology that we just heard. Senator Kroger used words like ‘queuejumper’, ‘rolling out the red carpet treatment’, ‘special deals’, ‘bribes’, ‘ransom’ and ‘being held to hostage’. We have had weeks of this. Instead of constructively engaging in the debate about how Australia and indeed the rest of the world can respond to the global problem of 42 million displaced persons and 15.2 million refugees, the opposition attempt to use the tragedy of global movement of people and those people who prey upon them, people-smugglers, to disguise their own lack of any semblance of compassionate and coherent policy in this area and lack of agreement within their caucus on important matters that the Senate should be debating—for example, climate change. Instead of constructive debate and alternative, sensible proposals about the global problem of displaced persons, we continue to get hysteria, fearmongering and a failure to acknowledge the many facts around this issue.

Here are some of those facts. People movement in our region is not a new phenomenon. There have probably, arguably, always been boat arrivals in Australia from our near neighbours. We know that there have always been surges in boat arrivals, since at least the 1970s, when we first had boat arrivals from Vietnam. Subsequently there have been boat arrivals from China, Cambodia, Iraq and Iran. What are the characteristics of those countries that would have led to a surge in people attempting to flee those countries by boat and seek safe haven? All of those countries at the time were characterised by conflicts, persecution of certain groups of people and increased insecurity for the inhabitants of those countries. They are the classic factors that see people in many countries attempt to find safe haven and a secure future in an alternative country. They are what we call the push factors. Just as in the past, today it is the push factors that cause people to take the fraught step of fleeing their own country and sometimes engaging a people-smuggler to help them find safe haven. The current surge of boat people, as we know, is from both Sri Lanka and Afghanistan—both extremely troubled countries with large numbers of displaced persons.

The fact is that there always have been persons seeking asylum in other countries and there always will be. The important thing for a country to do—countries like Australia, which, I acknowledge, is a target for people seeking asylum—is to treat those people compassionately and, as the Prime Minister has said, in a way that is tough but humane. That is exactly what we have been doing in this situation not just with the Oceanic Viking but with all the other boat arrivals we have seen attempt to come to Australia in recent times. The coalition’s only response is to demonise those persons and make a half-hearted attempt to bring back the dreaded temporary protection visas, which were a mechanism of the former Howard government and which, as anybody who has dealt with refugee groups knows, were a complete failure.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a relief that we have had sufficient from the other side on this. Apparently we are demonising asylum seekers. We are somehow offending asylum seekers with those dreadful words ‘special deal’ and those dreadful words ‘queuejumpers’. I can just see them cringing in the queues! That was probably one of the weakest contributions I have seen from those on the other side. I have seen some pretty feeble presentations in this place but today’s has to be an absolutely Olympic stand-out. We on this side, on the other hand, are representing the Australian people. It is quite clear there are two questions in this regard. The first one is: have 78 asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking received some special deal or special treatment?

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The second question is: how will this affect the pull factors that have been created by the Rudd government’s policies? Those are the two fundamental questions that the people of Australia are looking at. Of course, there has been a complete denial from the other side regarding the special treatment. But I note that on 16 November a letter was sent out, with the signature of the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, containing a number of dot points that were obviously intended to ensure that this was absolutely consistent. Dot point 5 is interesting. It states:

The group is being treated in a manner consistent with that afforded to any other asylum seeker or refugee in Indonesia.

Well, the only part of that that is accurate is that they will be assessed under exactly the same processes. So their assessment processes—the circumstances in the countries they came from and whether they were being persecuted—are of course exactly the same. I think it would be absolutely obvious, certainly to every Australian, that there is a differential between every other refugee in the world at the moment and those who were offered a special deal. In fact, the special deal was set out in a Department of Immigration and Citizenship letter. It says, ‘Here is a special deal,’ and it is titled ‘Message to the 78 passengers on the Oceanic Viking’. Well, I will tell you what: nobody else in Indonesia got one of those! And of course the special deal you get is identified in this letter. It spells it out. Here is the special deal, and no-one else gets this apart from 78 of you. All 78 will get: a daily visit from an Australian immigration officer—no-one else will; assistance from Australian officials to register with the UNHCR—no-one else will; and 12 weeks from registration to resettlement—no-one else will.

It is interesting to look at what people quite close to the issue are saying. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Ben Doherty—and there were sources within the detention facility, and it has also been widely reported in the press in Indonesia—stated:

The 22 Sri Lankan asylum seekers who left the Australian customs vessel Oceanic Viking and are being held in Indonesian detention are being kept separate from other detainees out of fear they will be targeted because they are receiving—

a special deal! Everybody else in the world knows it is a special deal. ‘Denial’ is not a river in North Africa. The people opposite need to start getting with the program and start getting onto the truth, because they have been exposed. There is absolutely no doubt about it that these individuals have had special treatment in this special offer.

How will this affect the pull factors? You can imagine now that they are saying: ‘We need to do the brochure up every week. We just sent a boatload over. Tragedy happened—the boat sinks or is in a lot of trouble. It is rescued by the Australian authorities. Maybe this is a dud and they will not be happy with our product.’ But, no, there is a guarantee, mate, from Mr Rudd; it is a guarantee that says, ‘To all 78 persons who have slipped out of the people-smugglers cooperative arrangements shown in the brochure, we will guarantee you something that you cannot get anywhere else.’ They must be delighted, because once again the Australian Prime Minister has sent a message to those people who are responsible for the transportation of those people who most need a bit of sympathy and most need a bit of compassion—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on down!

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, come on down. Do you know what he said to the people-smugglers once again? ‘You are going to be the people who make the choice about who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come.’ And if you do not have 15 thousand bucks for every man, woman and child in your family or whoever you want to bring then you are not going to come to this country. I can tell you that those opposite—who are sitting in a denial phase behind this pathetic policy and behind this pathetic statement about their not having got a decent deal—have not conned me, have not conned this place and have not conned the citizens of Australia.

Question agreed to.