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

At the request of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes the continued presence of pull factors as part of the problem Australia faces on the issue of illegal immigration;

(b)

notes and condemns the Government’s handling of the recent situation aboard the Oceanic Viking;

(c)

notes the special deal that was offered to those asylum seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking was an inducement to disembark the ship; and

(d)

notes that the Rudd Labor Government has yet to come up with an effective solution to this situation.

I congratulate Senator Fierravanti-Wells on her motion today relating to the Labor government’s failure to maintain control of Australia’s borders. Based on the rhetoric that the government has been spinning over the last few months, a number of rhetorical questions come to mind. The first is when is a pull factor not a pull factor? Of course, the answer can only be when it is created by the Rudd Labor government. The second question that comes to mind is, to quote Julia Gillard, when is another boat arrival not another policy failure? Again, when the boat arrives under the Rudd government’s watch. And the final question which comes to mind is this: when is a special deal not a special deal? Again, it can only be when it is negotiated by those opposite, the Rudd Labor government.

I will quote our control freak Prime Minister, who claims that he has no knowledge of this special deal. This is what he said to the parliament: ‘No, I didn’t know. It was handled by some of my staff in the special cabinet subcommittee.’ So we have a special cabinet subcommittee that is doing special deals for asylum seekers and the Prime Minister of Australia knows nothing about these special deals. The bad news for the Prime Minister is this: Mr Rudd, your staff have been negotiating a special deal—in fact, it is a very special deal for these asylum seekers—and it has been presented to them on behalf of the Australian government. This is the deal—a message to the 78 passengers on the Oceanic Viking from the Australian government: the government guarantees that mandated refugees will be resettled. This is where the special deal kicks in. If you are already found to be a refugee, we will settle you within four to six weeks of getting off the Oceanic Viking. If you have already registered with the UNHCR but you have not yet been found to be a refugee, we will resettle you within 12 weeks when you are found to be one. It then gets better. If you have not registered, we will actually help you to register and then you get the same deal. You can be in another country within 12 weeks.

But wait! Under this Rudd Labor special deal there is more. You asylum seekers have asked us some questions, so we are going to set out the answers for you. You have asked, ‘Could I have English classes while my case is being processed?’ The answer to that is, ‘Yes, we will provide you with that.’ You have asked, ‘Is it possible for me to make contact with my family?’ The answer is: ‘Yes, we will arrange that for you. You can even have assistance with your refugee applications.’

Why do we on this side of the chamber say that that is a special deal? It is for this reason: because no other asylum seeker currently in Indonesia who was intercepted on Australia’s behalf—and some of them, including women and children who have been there for six, seven, eight months or more, have yet to be looked at by the UNHCR—is getting the promise of being settled in Australia within 12 weeks. They are not receiving daily visits from Australian officials who are there to help them determine their cases.

There are further comments. Let us now look at the comments coming from the detainees at the Tanjung Penang detention centre. This is what they have been quoted as saying today:

We’ve been here seven months, and some of the boys have only now been registered … and half of the people have not been interviewed, but in less than one week—

the Oceanic Viking Sri Lankans—

have been interviewed and registration is going on.

Despite the Prime Minister’s denials, and despite the denials of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, that a special deal has been offered to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking, that is a special deal—there are no two ways about it.

Mr Rudd continues to say, though, that there is no special deal, as did his minister in question time today. The minister is from Western Australia and he clearly forgot to read the front page of the West Australian today, because that is what it said. Minister, whilst you may not think that there has been a special deal done, the 247 Sri Lankan asylum seekers aboard a boat in the Indonesian port of Merak do. And this is what they are asking for. They are now pleading with the Rudd government for their own special deal to bring them to Australia. Maybe this time, Mr Rudd, your staff can throw in lifetime membership of the ALP as part of the next deal that is struck.

The Labor Party’s claim that there is no causal link between its relaxation of the coalition’s tough border protection policies in August 2008 and the increase in the number of unlawful arrivals in Australian waters becomes more absurd as each day goes by. Fifty-one smuggler boats carrying over 2,200 people have now arrived in Australian waters since Prime Minister Rudd started unravelling the coalition’s strong border protection measures. But Mr Rudd would tell you that this is the effect of Labor’s tough policy. So, Australia, let us give the Labor Party and Mr Rudd a big clap on the back for the success of their border protection policy. What an absolute joke! If that is a policy success, God help Australia when those opposite have a policy failure.

I again remind senators that this is the Prime Minister who, when in opposition, put on the Hansard record when referring to national security, ‘It depends on concrete measures taken … so that this nation is truly secure, not simply projected to be secure through the political rhetoric of … government.’ The fact that 51 boats have now arrived in Australia since August 2008 shows that Kevin Rudd stands condemned for his actions in relation to Australia’s border security. But, worse than that, those actions show complete contempt for those people who seek to come to Australia through the lawful channels. Our Prime Minister, by his policy decisions, is discouraging people to enter Australia lawfully through recognised migration channels.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in United Nations refugee camps. They have gone down the right path by seeking proper application and have gone through medical tests and screenings in order to seek lawful entry into this country, and Mr Rudd treats them with utter contempt. He basically says to them: ‘Thanks a lot for doing the right thing but, sorry, the Labor government in Australia cannot assist you because we have abrogated Australia’s lawful right to determine who comes into this country to the people smugglers. Bad luck to you. We have no room left.’ That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace on the part of the Labor Party that a sovereign government could hand over to people smugglers the right to determine who comes to this country and upon what terms.

But Mr Rudd’s loss of control of our borders is not his only failure. What about Mr Rudd’s single-handed destruction of Australia’s relationship with Indonesia? We need to set the scene here. We have to remember that this is the Mr Rudd who struts the world stage with delusions of self-importance and grandiosity. This is the same Mr Rudd who holds himself out to the people of Australia as being the consummate Asia-Pacific diplomat. One can only then say how humiliating, how mortifying and how undignifying it must be for Mr Rudd with the last-minute cancellation of the Indonesian President’s visit to Australia. We all know that, in the diplomatic world where Mr Rudd likes to live, this is a complete slap in the face. It is an extraordinary event for an Indonesian president, having made a commitment to come to Australia to speak to our parliament, to then cancel the visit.

We all saw via television the body language between Mr Rudd and the Indonesian President at the APEC summit. Our relations with Indonesia are clearly very strained, and they are very strained because of Mr Rudd’s colossal failure of policy and his failure to effectively manage our relationship with our largest and closest neighbour. And this is what Mr Rudd says in response: ‘My dealings with President Yudhoyono ... are in first-class working order right across the spread of the bilateral relationship.’ I can only translate that as being Rudd-speak for, ‘I have personally stuffed up the relationship with Indonesia and I don’t want to tell the people of Australia about it.’ In order to win the battle against people smuggling and illegal immigration, Australia needs to send not only the right message but a consistent message to criminal people smugglers who illegally trade in human cargo. There will always be push factors across the world that draw people to other countries—that is an acknowledged fact. But what we do not need is the foot on the accelerator approach to those pull factors by the Rudd government.

Labor have softened our strong border protection policies, and in doing that they have sent a green light to people smugglers that our borders are open and we are open for business. And guess what—lo and behold, the people smugglers have heard Labor’s message loud and clear and are responding by sending increased numbers of illegal boats with their human cargo to Australia. The reality for Mr Rudd is this: as long as Labor continues to dismantle the coalition’s strong border protection measures and puts out the Rudd welcome mat to people smugglers, the pull factors will see a surge in the number of people trying to get to Australia. Mr Rudd cannot sit on his hands and expect the Indonesians to do all of his heavy lifting. Mr Rudd created this problem and now Mr Rudd, like a true leader, needs to find a solution.

More than that, though, the government needs to explain to Australians how it intends to overcome the conundrum that it created for itself by softening our borders. The people of Australia are entitled to answers to the following questions. If the Rudd government cannot guarantee the security of our borders from people smugglers, can our government then guarantee the security of our borders from drug smugglers? Can it guarantee the security of our fishing interests and resources and our billion-dollar oil and gas industry? This will require a lot more than Mr Rudd’s little Indonesian solution, which was nothing more and nothing less than Mr Rudd paying the Indonesians money to keep his own hands clean. But has that worked? Again, no, it has not. The Indonesians have put Mr Rudd in his place. Mr Rudd, the diplomat who likes to strut the world’s stage, has been snubbed by the Indonesians. As reported in the West Australian on 16 September 2009:

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.

How unbelievable.

What do we have from those on the other side in response? This is what the minister continues to tell us. They refuse to accept responsibility and they like to use the increase in the number of refugees and the number of displaced people globally as a justification for their failed border protection policies. Logically, one might say that, if Mr Rudd and his minister are prepared to acknowledge that there has been an increase in the number of displaced people, why did he soften Australia’s strong border protection regime? Why then did he take steps to ensure that Australia would become a target for people smugglers? Why isn’t Mr Rudd standing up for the thousands of refugees and displaced persons who are doing the right thing and who are seeking to come here lawfully?

The Rudd government has done nothing more and nothing less than make it easier for the people smugglers to sell their product. People smuggling, as we all know, is a business. People smugglers sell a product, and the product that they are selling is unlawful passage to Australia. With his policy decisions Mr Rudd has now given them something that they did not have under the former coalition government. He has given them a marketing edge by way of special deals. It was bad enough that in August 2008 he took the decision to soften Australia’s border protection regime. That was a marketing tool in itself, but the people smugglers now have the written message on Australian government letterhead sent to the 78 people aboard the Oceanic Viking setting out the special deal that those people will get. The people smugglers can now pass that around to potential customers in Indonesia.

But it is not just the coalition who have been telling those opposite that Kevin Rudd’s policies have made people smuggling more attractive. Let’s look at who else has come to that same conclusion: the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN, the Indonesian ambassador, the Federal Police, the International Organisation for Migration. They all say to those opposite that Kevin Rudd’s policies have increased the pull factors. Mr Rudd created the problem; Mr Rudd now needs to find the solution. The simple fact is that the object of any government policy should be to eliminate people smuggling so far as it is practicable so that there are no unauthorised maritime arrivals of people seeking asylum in Australia. That is not a racist comment; it is not a heartless comment. It is not a comment that is lacking in compassion. It is an acknowledgement that people smuggling must be stopped. It should never, ever be controversial to state as a matter of policy that Australians have the right to determine who comes to this country—our country—and the manner in which they come.

Mr Rudd’s policies, the Labor government’s policies, put lives at risk. They have assisted international criminals to grow fat on the profits that they create. But, worse than that, Australia’s limited humanitarian and refugee resources are diverted. They are diverted from the people that we should be assisting to those whose clients have the cash and the contacts to get ahead of the queue. Australians will not be conned by the constant rhetoric in relation to their failure on border protection by Rudd Labor. Remember: this is the man who said ‘concrete measures’ must be taken if a government is to be judged, ‘so that this nation is truly secure, not simply projected to be secure through the political rhetoric of government’.

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

It will come as no surprise that I intend to speak against the motion. Once again, the Senate’s time is being wasted by another tedious opposition motion concerning the Oceanic Viking. In the last fortnight of the Senate sittings for this year, when we have a raft of legislation waiting to be debated, waiting for passage through this place, and, most importantly, when we have had the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills before the Senate, the opposition has chosen time and time again to burn up our valuable time with lengthy tirades concerning asylum seekers such as the one we have just heard from Senator Cash. Senator Cash’s speech was mostly a rehash of some of her earlier contributions this week, but it does invite me to rehash some of the points I have made in earlier contributions concerning what this debate is really about and the departure of the parliamentary Liberal Party from fact and reason.

Ultimately it has to do with the worsening and growing divisions within the Liberal Party and within the ranks of the opposition over how they deal with the great political issues confronting this parliament and this nation at this time. This morning we heard yet another extraordinary speech from Senator Minchin, the Leader of the Liberal Party in this place, who once again flatly and openly contradicted his leader Malcolm Turnbull and contradicted the purported policy of his own party on the issue of climate change. Senator Minchin said quite flatly that not only is he opposed to the CPRS bills currently before the Senate but he is opposed to any emissions trading scheme at all because, he says, anthropogenic climate change is only a theory. He told us that literally thousands of eminent and highly qualified scientists in Australia and all over the world do not accept the IPCC’s hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

E5V Parry, Sen Stephen 0Senator Parry—On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: the debate has nothing to do with the CPRS; the debate concerns border protection. So I draw your attention to relevance and that Senator Feeney has strayed very wide from the debate.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Parry. I think there is a wide debate on these matters and Senator Feeney is within the confines of that wide debate.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, for dealing with that outrageous attempt at censorship. The overwhelming majority of qualified climate scientists not only accepts that anthropogenic emissions are the cause of global warming but also is warning us with ever greater urgency that we must act to curb our emissions or face unstoppable and highly damaging climate change.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Deputy President: Senator Feeney is not being relevant in any way, shape or form to the motion before the chamber and I ask you to call him to order.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: firstly, by long tradition in this place debates and contributions have been wide ranging and certainly far more wide ranging than Senator Feeney’s contribution today; and, secondly, it is very dangerous to raise points of order like this because, if you follow the logic of the argument on the point of order, which I would argue is not within the standing orders, there would be many speeches from both sides of the chamber that would be ruled out of order. Senator Cormann should think about what he wishes for.

The Acting Deputy President:

Thank you, Senator Sherry. There is no point of order, Senator Cormann, but, Senator Feeney, you must touch on the terms of the motion.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I reassure the Senate and those opposite that I will be turning to their miserable record on asylum seekers momentarily. The statement made earlier today—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

10000 ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The 1The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Feeney, please ignore the interjections and continue with your remarks.

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

Certainly. More to the point, that statement is also a repudiation of the position taken by Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop and Greg Hunt, which is that anthropogenic climate change is real and we must act on it. It is a repudiation of the negotiations currently being conducted by the government in good faith with Ian Macfarlane on the opposition’s proposed amendments to the bills. It is an open declaration that, even if the government accepts all of the opposition’s amendments and even if Malcolm Turnbull then decides that the bill should be passed, Senator Minchin and his suicide squad in the Senate will continue to oppose it.

It is for these important reasons that the opposition are determined to come into this place and debate asylum seekers rather than debate the other great questions before this country and the Senate. Those opposite not only have become obstructionists to the Rudd Labor government but have become obstructionists to their own opposition leader in the House of Representatives. Those opposite have become a rogue Senate team and Malcolm Turnbull is herding cats rather than leading an opposition. Those opposite in this place are now debating asylum seekers because they are unable to debate any of the other major questions before this parliament. The asylum seeker debate is their substitute for debating the CPRS, the economy, the government’s response to the global financial crisis and a plethora of other important issues. So we must now contend with a rogue Liberal Party Senate team sailing the political seas under their own flag led by Captain No, Senator Minchin, and continuing to obstruct both the government and Malcolm Turnbull in the Senate. Senator Cash has taken on the role of chief incendiarist for the opposition in this campaign of diffusion and obstruction, and I hope she does not have cause in the future to regret the role she has played in this asylum seeker debate.

I would like to go back over the events of the last month and go through, on a factual basis, the events in the matter of the Oceanic Viking and how it pertains to government policy. On 18 October, a call was made to Australian search and rescue authorities indicating that a vessel was in distress in the waters between Australia and Indonesia. The vessel was in the Indonesian search and rescue zone. That means it was Indonesia’s responsibility under the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, to which Indonesia and Australia are both signatories. I quote from that convention:

Parties shall ensure that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea. They shall do so regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found—

and—

… to provide their initial medical or other needs and deliver them to a place of safety.

Upon receiving this call, Australian officials contacted the relevant Indonesian search and rescue maritime authorities. Indonesian officials told Australian officials that they had no vessels in the vicinity and asked if Australia could provide assistance. Since there were no commercial vessels in the area, HMAS Armidale was sent to the vessel in distress. When the Armidale reached the vessel, Royal Australian Navy personnel concluded that it was not able to get to a port under its own power. As a consequence, the 78 people on board were transferred to the Australian Customs vessel MV Oceanic Viking. All this was done at the request of the Indonesian government. The Indonesian search and rescue authorities were the lead agency.

None of this meant that the people on board the vessel in distress became Australia’s legal responsibility. These people were not, and never have been, Australian detainees. They are persons rescued at sea, and our duty to them was to transfer them to a place of safety. The nearest place of safety was the Indonesian port of Merak. The Indonesians, however, told Australia that the facilities at Merak were inadequate to receive the people on the vessel and consequently requested that the Oceanic Viking proceed to the detention centre at Tanjung Pinang in the Riau Islands, and this was done. Since the people on the Oceanic Viking were Indonesia’s responsibility, it was not unreasonable that Indonesia decide where they should be disembarked.

It was at this point that the people on the Oceanic Viking announced that they wanted to come to Australia and that they would not disembark at Tanjung Pinang. The Australian government said from the start that this was not acceptable. These people were not immigration detainees; they were persons who had been rescued at sea. They were not in Australian territory, they were not in Australian waters and they were not in Australian custody. These are all critical points of fact which those opposite have consistently ignored and avoided. These are the facts that give testament to the haranguing language used by those opposite, not to uncover a truth but rather to generate an untruth—that is, irrational fear of immigration.

These persons were not in Australian custody, and our only duty to them was to transfer them to a place of safety, which, of course, we had done. It was at this point that the Liberal Party in the Senate began to crow and chortle and boast about what a terrible pickle the government was in. They began to ask a long string of inane questions, to move MPIs and urgency motions every sitting day and to carry on as though this were the funniest thing that had ever happened. ‘What a good joke it is,’ they said. ‘It is a terrible shambles,’ they said. ‘The government has lost control of Australia’s borders,’ they proclaimed.

But there was one thing that the Liberal and National senators did not say and that they have never said. They have never said, and they are unable to say, what they would do in these same circumstances if they had been in government. Senator Fierravanti-Wells, Senator Bernardi and Senator Cash, in all their impassioned harangues on how totally wrong the government’s response was, never once have even given a hint of what they would have done and of what they thought ought to have happened to the people rescued and placed on the Oceanic Viking. Captain No and his rogue crew sailing the political seas are not in the business of providing policy and are not doing the hard work of providing an alternative government but rather are in the business of sloganeering and avoiding a tough, factually based argument.

This, of course, is a feature of the Liberal and National parties in this place: a strategy of cynical exploitation of the fear of immigrants which they hope is lurking out there in the electorate. It is a strategy of diversion of the parliament’s and the public’s attention from all of the other key issues upon which they remain so hopelessly divided, so bereft of policies and so thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Australian people. Theirs is a strategy of trying to milk the maximum possible advantage from the difficult and delicate situation which the Australian government was confronted with while all the time dodging questions about what their policy is, what their policy was or what they would have done.

And now we know who the sinister mastermind behind this policy of evasion is. It is not Senator Fierravanti-Wells, whose role is to be the coalition’s attack dog on immigration issues; it is not Senator Minchin, who as we well know is too preoccupied with sabotaging his leader and leading his crew of rogue parliamentarians; and it is not Senator Abetz, whose political reputation was last seen orbiting Pluto—it is not expected to return to earth for many millennia yet, if ever. He is the Baldrick of Blackadder fame, offering you a cunning plan, but unfortunately his gravitas and wisdom do not quite match his imaginings. No, the mastermind is none other than the author of the Pacific Solution, Philip Ruddock. It was Philip Ruddock who told the Liberal and National parties that the best policy to have on asylum seekers in general and the Oceanic Viking in particular was no policy at all. When Ruddock was asked on 23 October on Sky News what he would do about the Oceanic Viking, he replied, ‘I’ve advised all of my colleagues that that’s the question they shouldn’t answer.’

So here we have the Liberals once again giving the game away. Just as Malcolm Turnbull could not resist boasting to Dr Andrew Charlton at the press gallery ball that he had the goods at last on that nasty Prime Minister in the form of that email which Baldrick had given him, Mr Ruddock just could not resist taking credit for this opposition tactic of not saying what they would do about the Oceanic Viking. I do not think those opposite should be allowed to get away with this evasion.

There were, in fact, only three possible alternative courses of action that Australia could have taken in response to the call for help from the Indonesian authorities concerning the vessel found in the Indonesian rescue zone. The first was to leave them to drown. Now perhaps all of those senators opposite who think we should have left 78 people to drown might have the courage to raise their hands—but none of them will. The second option was to bring them directly to Australia or to Christmas Island. Colin Barnett, the Liberal Premier of Western Australia, wanted us to bring them to Perth. Sharman Stone wanted us to bring them to Christmas Island for processing. Obviously neither Colin Barnett nor Sharman Stone had been properly briefed by Philip Ruddock on the Liberal Party’s strategy that the best policy was to have no policy at all. It is also what the Greens and other so-called refugee advocates wanted us to do. So who amongst those senators opposite wants to argue that we should fall in with the Greens and bring all such people directly to Australia? Again, of course, none of them will. The third alternative was to take them straight back to Sri Lanka, presumably by force and return them to the tender care of the Sri Lankan authorities. Is anyone opposite putting their hand up for that approach? Of course not.

Given these three unacceptable solutions, all of which have been flirted with by those opposite but none of which have been adopted by them, the only course of action open to the Australian government was to exercise the maximum degree of patience and to try and persuade the people aboard the Oceanic Viking to disembark. The Indonesians made it clear that they would not accept the use of force, as was their absolute right given that these events were taking place in Indonesian waters and in an Indonesian port. So the only responsible course was the one that the Rudd Labor government followed: to be patient and to wait until the people on the Oceanic Viking accepted that the sensible thing for them to do was to disembark and have their claims to refugee status processed in Indonesia in accordance with the agreement between Australia and Indonesia under the Bali process for regional cooperation on asylum seekers and people smuggling.

We must deal with the silly assertion made by those opposite that the people found on the Oceanic Viking have been given a ‘special deal’ by the Rudd Labor government. There has been no special deal. If the government had accepted the demands of these people, they would now be at Christmas Island, as Premier Barnett had advocated. But we made it clear that we would not be accepting that demand. All we have said to the people on the Oceanic Viking is that, if they disembark, their claims to refugee status will be processed as quickly as possible. Given that some of these people have already been found to be genuine refugees by the UNHCR, that means that they are eligible for resettlement. Australia will accept its fair share of these people, and we expect that other countries will do likewise, as they have consistently done in the past. Those that have not been processed will now be processed as quickly as possible.

It is important to note that this assessment will be done by the UNHCR and not by Australian officials. Australia does not have the power to offer a deal to anyone in Indonesia, and no such deal was offered. Let us be clear about this. No promise was made to any person on the Oceanic Viking that they would be given refugee status if they did not already have it. No promise was made to any person on the Oceanic Viking that they would be settled in Australia even if they were given refugee status. Let me say that again: no promise was made to any person on the Oceanic Viking that they would be settled in Australia even if they do succeed in achieving refugee status. Those are the facts, and what all of these facts have in common is that they are never mentioned by those opposite.

The other thing that all of these facts have in common is that they demonstrate again and again that those opposite are not actually interested in having a debate about our immigration regime. They are not interested in having a debate about how these people should be treated. What they are interested in doing is using inflammatory language, using terms such as ‘queue jumpers’ and ‘holding the vessel to ransom’—these and other absurd notions. And all of those notions are about building the case that our border protection is weak when it is not, and what none of those inflammatory words does is offer us any insight at all into what those opposite would do had they found themselves in government at this time.

Of course, one can well imagine what the answer to that would be. We were offered an insight by Alexander Downer, who recently, when speaking to ABC Radio National, gave us some insight into the mindset of those opposite. He described as successful the sotto voce policy of towing boats back to Indonesia under the Howard government:

… 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 to where to go, and then left them.

And then left them. He went on to say that they:

… obviously monitored them to make sure the boat was safe but disappeared over the horizon.

That is the strategy that those opposite commend to this place.

The proposition that the Liberal Party ever offered a secure border protection regime to this country is torn to shreds the moment one looks at the record of TPVs. What we see with temporary protection visas is that they were an abject failure as an instrument. Ninety per cent of persons given temporary protection visas under the Howard government were eventually found to be refugees and settled in Australia. So these great instruments of deterrence that those opposite hark back to were in fact a policy failure. When we came to office we found not only that there was a harsh and inhumane regime in this area but that it was expensive and it was ineffective. There was a white elephant on Christmas Island, built in far greater time and for far more money than it was ever supposed to be, and a TPV regime that was completely failing to serve as a deterrent. That is what those opposite cling to.

Notwithstanding that, those opposite voted for our changes and now heartily deny that they ever did so. Those opposite cling to a regulatory regime which completely failed to protect our borders, to serve as a deterrent or, most importantly, to build and nurture the reputation of this country as one which deals humanely with asylum seekers and deals with them in a manner consistent with our international obligations. Where does this leave us? This leaves us in a debate that those opposite have stripped of fact. It leaves us in a debate where those opposite cling to inflammatory language— (Time expired)

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

I am delighted to stand and support the motion. In so doing I make two observations to Senator Feeney whilst he is still in the chamber, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. This is the time in the week when the opposition has the opportunity to place its business before the chamber; this is the time of the week in which the opposition allowed an hour—quite correctly—to honour Harry Evans, not in the business time of government but in the business time of the opposition; and to hear Senator Feeney decry the opposition because of the time it is taking beggars belief. Interestingly and excitingly, it is a shame that Senator Feeney has elected to leave the chamber, because I wish to address the derogatory comments he made towards the Hon. Philip Ruddock. He made comment about the fact—

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

Senator McGauran interjecting—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McGauran, it is actually your senator who is on his feet endeavouring to speak and you are interjecting on him. I want to hear what he has to say and I am sure you do, so please desist.

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

Senator Feeney asked why it was that the coalition would say nothing about what it would do. I investigated this question only to learn that this government flatly refused to give any briefings at all to senior members of the coalition on this matter. So, being new to this place, I inquired as to what the Hon. Philip Ruddock did when in government. I have learned that he invited and took the then shadow minister for population and immigration, Julia Gillard, to the island of Nauru and Manus Island so that she could observe for herself what was going on. How different it is when this government, bereft itself of any solutions, calls upon the opposition and refuses to brief it on what is going on!

There is little wonder: why would he draw attention to Philip Ruddock when we all know there is not a person in this parliament who has spent more time in refugee camps trying to assist the case of refugees? When asked why he introduced the policies he did—and I will come back to this later in my speech—Philip Ruddock said that he realised the only way he could engage and guarantee the safety of these people was to ensure that they did not go to sea in the first place. It is duplicitous for anybody in this chamber to say, as unfortunately our colleague Senator Feeney said, that in some way the coalition was taking pleasure out of the demise of these people and the regrettable circumstances they were in. Nobody in recent times has done more than former Minister Philip Ruddock in this area.

I wish to focus on a number of areas: people smugglers, our relations with our Asian neighbours and the bias in favour of Sri Lankans, with some comments on asylum seekers. Let me tell you a little bit about people smuggling. This is no ad hoc activity. These people are highly trained and highly organised. They are members of criminal gangs, and the beauty of it is that they are wonderful businesspeople, because for very, very low inputs they make enormous profits. Their networks and their parasitising of these poor people who are trying to leave their circumstances are lamentable and regrettable. Consider for a moment how they would get people from Afghanistan or Sri Lanka into Asia and through Asia towards Australia. Do people think this is some ad hoc activity? It is a well-organised logistical exercise. It is cash up front, so it is fantastic—and there is plenty of cash indeed. They must organise road and land transport; they must sometimes organise papers for these people; they must organise accommodation and three meals a day; and, naturally enough, at the other end they must organise the leaking vessels for the one-way voyage. These are good, hard, rogue businessmen. They are good at what they do; they are bad for the asylum seekers who they are exploiting.

But it does not stop there. You should know a little bit about what our people face when they are on vessels, because the people smugglers give the crews instructions on what to do. They give them instructions on how to sabotage the vessel. Our people are trained to do three things if they go on board these vessels: firstly, to have firefighting equipment ready; secondly, to take possession of the wheelhouse; and, thirdly, to take possession of the engine room quickly. I will leave it to the imagination of the group as to why. Our people are trained to have their pockets sewn up so they cannot accept a document. This is how well trained some of the people are.

Unfortunately, earlier this year we saw a fire on a vessel in the Timor Sea. We still do not know the outcome of the coroner’s report. We do know that all those involved have already been fast tracked into Australia long before the facts have been established. But that tragedy, in which I believe five people were killed, could have killed more had the Front Puffin FPSO not been on station in the Timor Sea. These people smugglers are well organised; they are ruthless; they do not care about the fate of the people they put to sea in leaking boats and we must stop them from doing it.

My next point is about our relations with our Asian neighbours, and this is tragic. We saw the best visual image of it on the weekend at the APEC conference in Singapore. We did not see President Yudhoyono say anything; we did not see what he said to our Prime Minister representing our country. What we did see was no eye contact; we saw him turn away from our Prime Minister and seek the company of somebody else. Why did he do that? Those of us who have dealt with Asia, India and the Middle East for many years know the sensitivity of liaising with and the diplomacy between ourselves and our Asian, Indian and Middle East neighbours. They are courteous, they are polite, they do not say what Europeans say and they are deeply offended by what has been said to them—what we refer to as megaphone diplomacy.

For those of you who do not believe it, simply take the statement of Dr Sujatmiko, the senior Indonesian negotiator with the Oceanic Viking through this whole exercise. His statement was that he hoped that Australia would ‘keep its promise to resettle’ those on the Oceanic Viking in Australia. The response by our minister, Senator Evans, was:

There’s no guarantee they will come to Australia, that was never part of the offer.

That is a statement to this Indonesian senior negotiator that he is a liar. They are not liars. Whether or not they agree with our policies—whether they want to bend to Mr Rudd’s policies and directives—is one thing, but we are not going to get cooperation out of them if we treat them in that fashion. We have seen the same in recent times with the Stern Hu exercise with Mr Rudd and the Chinese. He might speak Mandarin, but he does not understand the Chinese. There is no question about that. Our relations with our Asian neighbours have been damaged over this—and they need to be good because, as we know, in the main people coming overland come through Malaysia. An Islamic country welcomes them, but it welcomes them to travel through, not to stay. They then make their way to Indonesia, another country which must be supported and assisted but not through the type of diplomacy that we, regrettably, have seen.

We have continually heard that there are no biases, deals or favours for these Sri Lankans. Let us take the statements of a young Afghani man in only the last few days in the same camp as that which these people now occupy. He gave the journalist a pseudonym ‘for fear of violent reprisals from the Australian trained guards at the centre’. How pathetic! This is his statement:

We’ve been here seven months, and some of the boys have only now been registered (with the UNHCR), and half of the people have not been interviewed, but in less than one week (the Oceanic Viking Sri Lankans) have been interviewed and registration is going on. So everyone is feeling jealous.

Is it any wonder, in fact, that these Sri Lankans are being segregated in that particular camp? He goes on to ask why ‘those already there could not receive the same treatment as the new arrivals’.

Some of the Afghans have been accepted by the UNHCR for more than a month but they are still inside of detention—what will happen to them?

His final request:

I want to request to the Australian government that please if you have a policy that you accept these refugees, so what about us? We are also refugees who want to go to Australia—the only difference is that they were arrested a little nearer to Australia, and we were arrested a little bit farther from Australia.

I would like Senator Evans to explain to that man how it is that no special deal has been struck on behalf of these Sri Lankans. Of course it has. Surely it is better to stand up, say that it has and deal with it accordingly than to stand in this chamber day after day and deny it. It is nonsensical. It is an insult to the Australian people that he would go on in that way.

I make the point about safety, for which Senator Feeney earlier kindly gave me the opportunity. I have made this point two or three times recently. These waters are cyclone prone from this time of the year until Easter. In a previous life I travelled on large ships through those waters between October-November and March-April, and I can tell you that a force 7 gale when you are on a 40,000-tonne ship is not a pleasant experience. I imagine that on one of these small, leaking fishing boats it would be absolutely horrific. It causes me to make the point that if ever there were a time that we had to stop these people smugglers and stop these people being put to sea it is this period of the year between now and Easter time. It is horrific and must be stopped.

I come also to the question of the asylum seekers themselves. There is the whole question of where we need to be devoting attention. We know that, regrettably, here are still two million Afghanis apparently in camps outside Afghanistan, wanting and waiting to get back into Afghanistan. What a shocking statistic—and yet not many years ago there were six million Afghanis in that position. Four million have now been returned to their country. The ultimate objective surely has to be to create conditions in those countries whereby people can return to safety. We look at the statistics associated with the Sri Lankans—a terrible circumstance over the last hundred years. More than 70,000 have been killed; more than a quarter of a million are in government camps. They are absolutely horrific circumstances, but the solution surely lies in reversing that circumstance so that they do not feel compelled to leave.

But you must ask yourself the question. With the proximity of the Middle East, India and Asia to Sri Lanka, the numbers wanting to go to India are very, very low. For those who are risking money and life to come to Australia there has to be a reason why. The reason is, of course, that the people smugglers understand clearly that the rules have changed in Australia. They know that in taxis in Pakistan, they know that on the streets in Asia and we must reverse that situation. We must send a clear message that this is not an acceptable circumstance.

I conclude my comments with reference to the circumstances of Sri Lankans in Indonesian waters. It has escaped the attention of people that there is another vessel with Sri Lankan asylum seekers. They are known as the Merak protesters and, as we know, their spokesman is this ‘Alex’ fellow. Only some time later did we learn that Alex, in fact, has a criminal record from his time in Canada. Is his brother or is his brother not Alex himself? Was he or was he not a people smuggler? We do not know. But that vessel was picked up by the Australian Navy in Indonesian waters, again in response to a distress plea. They are now asking why they are not the subject of the same deal that is being allowed to the Oceanic Viking personnel. It can be best summarised thus: the Howard government had a problem associated with asylum seekers and they found a solution. On the other hand, the Rudd government inherited that solution; they dismantled the solution. They now have a problem not only for asylum seekers but for the government and for the people of Australia. We must stop this trade. I support the motion of Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion on asylum seekers. The Rudd government is committed to protecting Australian borders and it is committed to the safety of the Australian community. It is committed to a system of immigration detention that is more humane and effective than what we have had previously. Let us be very clear: the Rudd government will not turn away people who are clearly in need of help.

Before I go any further, I have to say thank you to the Philip Ruddock fan club on the other side. It seems that my colleague Senator Feeney must have hit a raw nerve. Straightaway up jumped Senator Back to come in and bat for Mr Ruddock. I know Mr Ruddock might need a bit of assistance because of some of his views, but it is amazing that Senator Back could spend so long defending Mr Ruddock.

The opposition are using immigration as a bit of media frenzy and as a scaremongering campaign and I find that abominable. They have taken up most of question time this week, they took up most of question time in the last sitting period and I presume that next week they will take up most of question time again with the issue of immigration. It has become fairly tedious listening to their little tantrums and tirades. I presume that the hype and drama is to generate some media coverage and to take the spotlight off them because they are in complete disarray as a party. I do not think the people of Australia are fooled at all by the tactic.

I have to say in regard to the motion that Senator Evans on numerous occasions has made it very clear—in fact just today through question time when he was answering the continual questioning about it—that there was no special deal. We do have to ask the question—it has been asked before and I will ask it yet again: what would those opposite have had us do in regard to the people who were picked up by the Oceanic Viking? We chose for them to disembark in Indonesia. They wanted to come to Australia. We said that we would go to the nearest port for disembarkation, which was our obligation, having stopped to save these people from drowning. They requested to come to Australia. That did not happen. They were taken to Indonesia. The fact that it might have taken a bit of time for the agreement between the two governments, which has been put in writing and has been publicly available for a week or so for people to see, should not lead to all this hype, drama and tirade that we have been subjected to time after time in the last weeks.

I presume that those on the other side will continue next week because they want to avoid debating the really critical issues. I have not heard much about the economy in the past weeks. I have heard a bit about climate change from those on the other side, none of which has been that entertaining or that factual, but it is typical of those opposite to not let the facts get in the way of a good story. In regard to this issue of immigration that is exactly what they are doing. They seem absolutely focused on the front page of the media and what it can do for them. It is a bit of a race to see who can get on the front page of the media every day.

Senator Evans also made it quite clear through question time today that we have been counselling and talking to those on the boat to enable them to disembark. They eventually chose to come off the boat in Indonesia rather than in Australia, which was where they wanted to go. Let us remember that they wanted to come to Australia but they actually disembarked in Indonesia. For those on the other side to get so hysterical about it, as I said earlier, beggars belief. The Rudd government stands by the decision to save those people from drowning.

As I have said: what would the opposition have done? Until they can answer that, I do not think they have any right to scaremonger and to worry the Australian public about what they claim is a softening of border policies. They are just about falling over each other on the other side to get on the front page of the media. We constantly hear them quoting from the media as though everything the media prints is completely truthful. If that is where their facts are coming from, or their lack of facts, they need to look at the whole process of how they are working.

It is time they started accepting the facts. We have maintained the border protection policies of the Howard government. That is a system of excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing. The Rudd government have been acting in accordance with our international legal obligations and we take these legal obligations very seriously. That is why we responded to the initial request to assist in the search and rescue of the passengers in the first place.

Wherever there are people in trouble you can bet your life that either the opposition will try to get excessive media coverage out of it or they will put their boot in to try to make things harder for everybody concerned. In this case, they have done both. They do not want to let the facts, as I have said, get in the way of a good story. They want to inflame; they want to use their tactics of scaremongering to try and frighten some of the general public.

Situations around the world mean that large numbers of displaced persons are looking for settlement and can be targeted by and fall prey to people smugglers. We do not deny that. According to the UNHCR 2008 global trends report, there were 42 million forcibly displaced persons worldwide at the end of 2008, including 15.2 million refugees. People smuggling is not just an issue for Australia; it is a global and a regional problem. The commitment of our neighbours, through bilateral cooperation and the Bali process on people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime, is critical to addressing this most serious issue.

The Australian government has an orderly and planned migration program and places a high priority on protecting Australia’s borders from irregular maritime rivals by maintaining an effective and visible tactical response program of aerial, land and sea based patrols. The Australian government’s Border Protection Command uses a combination of customs, border protection and defence assets to deliver a coordinated national response to security threats in Australia’s maritime domain. The Australian government remains vigilant and committed to protecting Australia’s borders. No matter what the other side try to imply, what stories they try to spin or what dramas they try to enact here in the chamber, that will not change.

I want to speak quickly about the soft policies alleged by those on the other side. Australia under the Rudd government has one of the toughest and most sophisticated border security regimes in the world. As I said, the Rudd government has maintained the border protection policies of the Howard government: a system of excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing on Christmas Island of all irregular maritime arrivals. The Rudd government has also allocated $654 million in the 2009 budget to substantially increase aerial and maritime surveillance and detection operations and to boost resources to stop people smuggling. What is different, though, is that Labor believes in treating asylum seekers humanely and is committed to meeting Australia’s international obligations under the United Nations refugee convention.

I have mentioned the UNHCR report which confirms the worldwide increase in asylum seekers. As such, Australia will continue to meet its international obligations to refugees forced out of their own countries due to war or fear of persecution. The UNHCR 2008 global trends report shows that there were 42 million forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2008. I am going to keep repeating that because I do not think those on the other side have quite comprehended any of the issues that are taking place in the global society that we live in today. They seem to be very focused on internal issues, and I suppose you would be if you were in a party that was in such complete disarray. They have more positions on any number of issues than I see in my daughter’s ballet class. As far as I am concerned, they are not a cohesive team on the other side, and I will get to some of the comments being made by some people in just a few minutes.

A staggering 44 per cent of all refugees and asylum seekers are children under the age of 18. The UNHCR report confirms that the increase in people seeking asylum in Australia is part of a worldwide trend, driven by insecurity, persecution and conflict. The UNHCR report also shows that asylum claims increased worldwide by 28 per cent in 2008, with a dramatic escalation in the number of asylum seekers lodging claims in countries such as South Africa. I am trying to point out to the other side the issues that are worldwide and to explain to them what is happening worldwide. They have become so focused on this issue that they have lost the plot. I do not know if it is unparliamentary to say ‘lost the plot’ on the issue but, if it is not, that is what I think. They have put so much time and effort into this issue that there have been hardly any questions on the economy, education or health for the last two weeks. As I said, I presume that will run into next week and we will be sitting here all through question time next week listening to the tirades again.

Europe remains the primary destination for asylum seekers, with 333,000 claims registered in 2008, predominantly in France, where there were 35,400; the United Kingdom, where there were 30,500; and Italy, where there were 30,300. The United States received 49,600 new asylum claims, while Canada received 34,800. So the 4,750 people seeking asylum in Australia in 2008 were a relatively small figure in those global terms. The UNHCR report stated that one-third of all refugees were in the Asia-Pacific region as well. We have an obligation as a wealthy and stable country and society to assist in the global solution to the worldwide refugee crisis. We will continue, with the United States and Canada, to play a leading role in providing resettlement opportunities for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The UNHCR has called on those traditional resettlement countries to not resile from our commitment to refugees during the global economic downturn, and we have not. The size and composition of Australia’s humanitarian program is guided by the UNHCR’s world resettlement priorities and the views of the Australian community.

Let us have a look at the background on boat arrivals. There have been boat arrivals to Australia in 25 of the last 33 years. From 1976 to 1981, under the Fraser government, there were 2,059 boat arrivals sparked by the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. From 1999 to 2001, under the Howard government, there were 12,176 boat arrivals, including 5,516 arrivals in 2001 alone. The Taliban regime fell at the end of 2001, and in 2002 a large-scale voluntary return program of Afghans began—the single largest repatriation operation in the UNHCR’s 59-year history. By 2004, more than 3.1 million people had returned home to Afghanistan. The UN Secretary-General noted in his report to the Security Council that:

2008 ended as the most violent year in Afghanistan since 2001.

We all know that the Liberals do not have a position on asylum seekers. We all know that the Liberals are in search of a policy on immigration. When Labor abolished the failed and wasteful Pacific solution, there was no opposition from the coalition and they have since said they will not reintroduce it. Labor have maintained excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing—I will keep repeating this, as I said, because I do not think the message is getting through on the opposite side. We maintained those actions, so the opposition cannot differentiate themselves on that. What we are doing now is what they did. They are saying that it is not right. So they were happy with that for the many years that they were in government but, when it comes to us taking these positions, they do not like it. They are just arguing for argument’s sake. They are just being negative for negativity’s sake. It is all for the sake of getting their faces or their names in the local media.

They cannot have a policy debate because they do not have a policy. Until recently, the best they had been able to come up with was calling for an inquiry. Now they have four dot points. They have four dot points they have taken two years to develop. At that rate, in another six months they might have five dot points, because it has been one dot point every six months. That is an amazing contribution to Australian society from them! The only thing resembling coalition policy is a call for the reintroduction of TPVs—even though TPVs have been tried and have failed. Boat arrivals went up in the years after TPVs were introduced, almost all people granted TPVs ended up remaining in Australia, and TPVs led to more women and children risking their lives on leaky boats. The opposition cannot do better than four dot points because they are divided and confused.

Principled members of the coalition have spoken out against TPVs. The member for Kooyong, the member for McMillan and the member for Pearce have all voiced opposition to TPVs. Senator Troeth told us over the weekend that the Liberal party room was not even consulted on the policy. I do not think that is really news about that side of the parliament. If the opposition are going to be so good at quoting the media then I do not mind throwing a few quotes in as well. Senator Troeth was quoted in the Age as saying:

I’m sad and disappointed at the change of Coalition policy.

It is sad and it is disappointing, but it is not at all surprising.

Coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration—of which I am also a member, as is Senator McEwen, who is in the chamber as well—including the shadow immigration minister, endorsed the Rudd government’s New Directions in Detention policy, a continuation of the reforms begun under Howard in 2005. Coalition members of the JSCM endorsed its call for the abolition of detention debt, yet when legislation to this effect was introduced the coalition opposed it.

While I am talking about the JSCM, the shadow minister also expressed concern about people without work rights and access to Medicare. I was there; I heard it. I know she did. Yet, when the government moved to address these issues by reforming work rights for asylum seekers, what did the coalition do? They moved to disallow the regulations. As I have said, principled coalition members and senators, to their credit, spoke in favour of the government’s changes on each occasion. I do thank them for that.

On Friday, 13 November—I do not think it was such an auspicious day for Mr Turnbull—Mr Turnbull announced his four dot points. There is no policy, there is nothing substantive and they cannot explain anything in any detail. Last week and this week—and, as I said, it probably will be for most, if not all, of next week—the issue for all of question time has been immigration and asylum seekers.

Another thing Senator Troeth said on ABC radio on 13 November was that the visa inflicts mental anguish— (Time expired)

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

Perhaps, Senator Bilyk, the next time someone puts a script full of spin in front of you, you could check the facts before you come into this place and parrot it off. That is really what the government is all about. One only has to look at the comments yesterday and the headlines that were being screamed in the papers yesterday to see that. I want to refer to Greg Sheridan’s quote:

One reason governments don’t tell the truth is when they are trying to avoid a hard decision.

Paul Kelly said:

He—

Rudd—

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

I think it is time that this government stopped treating the Australian public like mugs, because that is precisely what they are doing. They are spinning this to the point where they actually think that the Australian public are going to believe them.

What have we seen this week? We have seen the government try to convince us that a deal is not really a deal, that special circumstances are not really a special deal. There is the old saying: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. There is absolutely no doubt that this government has done a deal to bribe these people off the Oceanic Viking. We have had Minister Evans and his weasel words all week trying to squirm his way around it, but the reality is that it is a deal and there is nothing that the government can say to spin their way out of it.

Let us look at the comments made this morning on the AM program by the Indonesian foreign minister’s most senior official on the ground in Tanjung Pinang, Dr Sujatmiko. His view is that he hopes:

… Australia keep the promise to come to Australia.

What he tells us is that there is an expectation—these people on the Oceanic Viking have an expectation, and the Indonesian government has an expectation, that they are going to come to Australia. Indeed yesterday we had Senator Feeney letting the cat out of the bag by telling us, ‘We were patient and we reached an accommodation.’ I understand that perhaps he might have gone back on that by telling us today that there was no guarantee given. Of course in the end this government has tried very hard.

I want to go to the terms of the offer that was made to these people. Over many years I was a government lawyer and I did my fair share of immigration law. The annual report of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, both last year’s and this year’s annual report, says that we have continued with the service standard of 75 per cent of applications being finalised within 52 weeks. So the standard is a processing time of 52 weeks. That is not the resettlement time. This is where this government is totally and utterly misleading the Australian public.

Let us go and look at the terms of this offer. It says, ‘The procedures will differ.’ Of course they are different for these people on the Oceanic Viking. It says:

… If the 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 disembarked the vessel.

Senator Bilyk was going on about millions of people—well, those millions of people, Senator Bilyk, are going to wait years and years and years to be resettled. But the people on the Oceanic Viking have struck a special deal with Kevin Rudd. They have struck a deal where instead of waiting for years they are going to be resettled within four to six weeks. Go and check the facts before you come into this chamber.

Then of course, for those people who have already registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, it says:

… 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 this vessel.

So forget the years of waiting to be processed. Again people in similar circumstances around the world will wait years and years to be resettled—but not the people on the Oceanic Viking; they are going to be resettled within four to six weeks. Of course there is no deal! Some people have to wait years and years to be resettled, but not the people on the Oceanic Viking.

Then of course we have the third category. The letter of offer says:

If you have not yet registered with UNHCR—Australian officials will assist you with your UNHCR processing.

I have never heard of that in my many years of being involved in this area. So are Australian officials all of a sudden just going to drop everything and help these people with their UNHCR processing? It continues:

If you are found to be a refugee, you will be resettled within 12 weeks from the time you disembark the vessel.

I repeat that other people around the world have to wait years and years to be resettled. But not this group of people. This group of people have been bribed off the vessel and they are going to be resettled in Australia, it is likely. That is the expectation of the Indonesians: that these people are going to come straight on down to Australia. Forget the millions of other people who have been waiting in queues—forget them. But of course this is not a special deal! Waiting only four to six weeks versus years and years to be processed and resettled sounds like a special deal to me.

Of course we have this other farce of the Prime Minister talking about the Border Protection Committee of cabinet, which is supposed to have made this decision. In the budget papers it tells us that this committee consists primarily of members of cabinet. At estimates we were told that there were a whole range of officials that sit on this Border Protection Committee. Today in question time we spoke about those. They include: the National Security Adviser, the head of the Customs and Border Protection Service, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, the head of the Office of National Assessments, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of the AFP and the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. That is what I was told in answer to direct questions in estimates on 28 May this year.

But of course all of a sudden we have the Prime Minister’s staff attending these meetings and we have the Prime Minister’s staff making decisions. I want to know, and the Australian public are entitled to know, which members of the Prime Minister’s staff have suddenly taken to attending this committee or other committees, as Senator Evans told us today. When was the decision made? Who made the decision? It is important that we do know that, and, of course, Minister Evans will not tell us, because if we do know who they are then they would be up for proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

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

Absolutely, Senator Ronaldson says. And we have seen this before where we have had the CMAC, a very interesting occasion where you had the Prime Minister’s staff coming along to meetings and making all sorts of ‘arrangements’.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Arrangements with their mates.

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

Absolutely, arrangements with their mates.

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

Senator Parry interjecting—

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

Absolutely, Senator Parry. And then of course the Prime Minister, in his usual smarty pants way, turns around, when he is asked, ‘Did the Prime Minister approve of the terms of the offer?’, and says, ‘No and no’. We can almost see the smarmy manner in which he told the House of Representatives that. But then he had to come back. He obviously checked and then came back and gave a clarification. We were then told that the Prime Minister’s staff, suddenly, regularly attend these meetings.

When I asked the question in May, that committee had only met twice. We are entitled to know when that committee has met and every time the Prime Minister’s staff attended. In the end, we need to know precisely who made the offers. Who formulated this unique offer, this special deal, which has effectively been a bribe to get these people off the vessel? Because, in the end, what we have seen over—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 6 pm, the time allotted for this debate has expired. The Senate will now proceed to consideration of government documents