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

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

The failure of the Rudd Labor Government’s immigration policy.

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

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

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

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

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. Immigration has always been about order and process. What we are seeing at the moment is an immigration policy which has descended into chaos—a series of ad hoc measures dealing with things as they come up or as they sail into our waters. It is little wonder that today we have in the press one ALP backbencher—who prefers to remain anonymous and not go on the record—saying, ‘We don’t actually know what our policy is.’ Why don’t we know? Because Prime Minister K Rudd does not know what our policy is.

On Saturday evening we had a situation on Christmas Island—a riot, in which, sadly, people were injured. But it is not surprising that this happened, because Christmas Island is now at almost full capacity. At the last estimates hearings we were told that the government was increasing the capacity. We understand that the recreation area is now being used for people to sleep on. We know that there is a Herc coming in with tents and stretchers. Apparently dongas are being flown in from Alice Springs. Quite frankly, the whole thing is now very chaotic. And it is little wonder, with so many different people and these conditions, that it is at breaking point. Sooner or later it was going to get to this point. If we stop the boats arriving, we are not going to have this problem at Christmas Island. We are going to have fewer people there.

We are now going to see this government fast-tracking people off Christmas Island into other detention centres around Australia. Today we heard the minister, in answer to a question, say that the excision status of people who arrive on Christmas Island remains with them. But in estimates it was made clear that in most cases people would be moved towards the end of their processing period, when it was clear that they would be found to be refugees. But with the growing number of people on Christmas Island, we are most likely to see this process hastened and fast-tracked. The question is then: is this going to be at the expense of a compromise of proper security, health and other checks that are so vital in relation to maintaining border security? Whilst the minister gave us these assurances at last estimates, I have to say that I do not, given what has happened in recent weeks, believe that those assurances can be met. The minister has said that this matter will be investigated and potentially people could be charged. The question then becomes: if people are charged, what will be the impact on their application for asylum? I will leave the issue in relation to Christmas Island at that point.

Then we have seen the government’s other farcical situation: when is a special deal not a special deal? In the words of Paul Kelly—and I do not normally cite Paul Kelly—in the Australian on 18 November 2009, ‘Rudd is treating us like mugs.’ Of course he is treating us like mugs! For goodness sake, just admit this is a special deal and that you did everything you possibly could to make sure that these people got off that boat. You made them an extraordinary offer. But you will not admit that. You give us weasel words like ‘non-extraordinary circumstances’! I think it is time the Prime Minister just admitted it. The Australian people can take spin to a certain point, but this is getting way beyond a joke.

Let us start dissecting this so-called special offer, which we are told is a ‘non-extraordinary offer’ and ‘not really a special offer’—although it looks pretty special to me. The offer says that if you are found to be a refugee Australian officials will assist you to be resettled within four to six weeks from the time you disembarked from the vessel. Can I just say that this is extraordinary. In the annual report of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, even the department itself says that processing times are 52 weeks. What we have here is that people are going to be resettled within four to six weeks when normally it would take years and years for people to be resettled. The literature regarding the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is littered with anecdotal evidence of people having to wait years and years to be resettled. There are approximately 19,000 people waiting in Indonesia to be resettled, most of whom have been waiting for years and years, yet these people are being offered resettlement—probably in Australia, but nobody seems to be able to give us a clear answer on this—within four to six weeks. You tell me that that is not a special deal.

If you have already registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 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 that you disembarked—the same situation. There are people who have been waiting for months or years to even be approached by UNHCR to help them with their processing—but not these people. These people, who have held an Australian ship to ransom, are now going to be assisted by Australian officials to jump the queue and to have their situation fast-tracked to get a resettlement outcome of weeks rather than having to wait years.

If you have not been registered with UNHCR, Australian officials will assist with your UNHCR processing. If you are found to be a refugee, you will be resettled within 12 weeks—again, the same situation. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, cannot have it both ways. You cannot come in here and say that it is the responsibility of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to resettle refugees and then, in the same breath, say that we have done a deal with the Indonesian government. There must be a special deal with somebody in UNHCR. Somebody in our government must have given an undertaking. There must be a special agreement somewhere because, for this government to honour its guarantee within such a short time frame and to have got people off that boat, Australia must have agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner to take those people who have been found to be refugees and to fast-track their processing.

The UNHCR has to determine where people are resettled. One has only to look at the body of legislation and the framework of the United Nations resettlement determination procedures. Whilst the asylum seekers themselves may have an opinion about where they want to go, it is really a matter for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I think what has happened here is that the government has told the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we will take them—and that really is what this government has to answer. What are the special deals that have been done to secure this outcome? Indeed, on this point of resettlement, let us not forget that the object of seeking asylum is ultimately to achieve a durable solution. For every one person that is resettled around the world, about 14 are returned to their country of origin. So, again, how does this special deal fit into the framework of what we know to be the usual procedures and the usual practices that are followed in resettling refugees?

The border protection committee of cabinet was established in about April 2009 and, all of a sudden, we are now hearing that the Prime Minister’s staff are attending the meetings. I have made repeated efforts to find out about this and the minister gets quite upset that I keep asking him the same questions. The reason I keep asking him the same questions is that he deliberately avoids answering the questions. The reason, I think, he does not want to answer the questions is that he is deliberately hiding the situation. I think it is incumbent on him to come into this chamber and be upfront with the Australian people, admit the special deal that was entered into and just get on with it rather than continuing with his evasion and weasel-wording to try and get out of this with spin.

I am very concerned about the impact that this offer will have on the broader picture. We have seen the reports of what happened at Christmas Island on Saturday night and we have also seen reports in the press last week about the need for the asylum seekers off the Oceanic Viking to be quarantined from other asylum seekers. That is not surprising. It is not surprising that they would want to be quarantined. I think we are increasingly going to see divisions. This perception of preferential treatment—it is not a perception; it is a reality—for one group of people over and above other groups of people is, naturally, not only going to cause tensions in detention centres in Indonesia but also likely to cause tensions at Christmas Island. When all is said and done, I think the inquiry will show that that is the basis of some of the tensions that we are actually seeing at Christmas Island.

One of the questions that the minister is evading is that of who actually authorised the special deal. It beggars belief that this Prime Minister, who is a person who is immersed in detail, if I can put it that way, comes and says, ‘I knew absolutely nothing about it,’ and then fobs it off and says that it was a committee or, as Minister Evans says, various committees who made this decision. I have absolutely no doubt that the offer made to get the people off the Oceanic Viking was sanctioned and it would be foolish to even contemplate that it was not sanctioned at the highest levels of this government.

But let us look at where that leaves us. Of course, the special deal that has now been done in relation to this group is only going to add greater incentive to the people smugglers. If they know that they can get away with this and they can pressure the Australian government to offer this sort of special deal, I think that they have achieved their objective. Regrettably, this whole sad and sorry affair and this chaos that the government has created have provided a greater impetus to the people smugglers to try to sell the product that they are selling. And let us not forget that they are selling a product. The product is sure, permanent residency in Australia—and, of course, with permanent residency comes family reunion and a whole range of other benefits. For every person who is given permanent residency, there are on average four people who ultimately come in under the family reunion program.

This government continues to deny the pull factors. It is ignoring the comments of the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations, who only recently strongly asserted that pull factors were the main reason for this surge. He said:

If the pull factors are addressed, attempts to enter Australia will cease. The lucky country is a magnet and many will seek to enter it.

Indeed, Jonathan Coleman, the New Zealand immigration minister, has also commented, saying:

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

And it is sending the wrong message. This chaos that has now become this government’s immigration policy is well and truly sending the wrong message—that we are a softer touch.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue to our community and, indeed, the Rudd government’s record on this issue. This matter of public importance debate is a great opportunity to outline the robustness of the government’s immigration policies and to demonstrate, in contrast, how shallow, vacuous, politically driven and confused the opposition’s debate on policy is—and, in fact, always has been.

When it comes to immigration policy and all other major policy areas, the Rudd government has demonstrated policy substance and action by developing immigration policy that is based on evidence and facts; policy that reflects values that are held widely throughout the Australian community—values of compassion and tolerance; and policy that recognises that strong border security and the humane treatment of asylum seekers and others seeking to migrate are not mutually exclusive. This strong policy informs the actions that the government has taken to address the policy failings of the past—failings that belong with the opposition. Our actions have included increasing the protection of our borders, introducing the new directions in detention policy and working to address the outflow of people from other countries—policy and action based on strong evidence and strong values.

While the government has been in the business of getting on with the job, those opposite have been searching and overreaching themselves for any policy on immigration, because their past policies failed our country on a number of measures. Because they are unable to come up with any alternative, the government has taken action to get rid of things like the inefficient and failed so-called Pacific solution. The coalition did not oppose this move and, after the government action to abolish it, they said that they would not reintroduce it. But what would they introduce? We do not really know because, until recently, they did not have a policy. But, as I understand it, there is now a coalition policy on immigration consisting of four dot points. Four points is hardly substance—four points, not based on evidence or strong Australian values of compassion and tolerance; four points based on fear and lack of understanding of the issues.

Amidst this policy vacuum is a call by members of the coalition to reintroduce temporary protection visas. But we know, from real evidence and past experience, that TPVs were a policy failure. TPVs did not result in a decrease in arrivals and they resulted in inconsistent treatment of refugees. TPVs were introduced in October 1999. In 1998 there were 200 arrivals on 17 boats. Following the introduction of TPVs, by late 2001 the number of irregular maritime arrivals had increased to 5½ thousand in that year alone. In the two years after the introduction of TPVs there were 8½ thousand irregular arrivals on 94 boats. Between late 1999 and mid-2007 over 10,000 unauthorised boat arrivals were granted TPVs. By the time TPVs were abolished, nearly 90 per cent of people granted a temporary protection visa had been granted a permanent visa to remain in Australia. Only three per cent of those granted a temporary protection visa departed Australia. TPVs did not allow for family reunions or enable refugees to travel freely. Therefore, they actually encouraged women and children to make the dangerous journey to Australia by boat.

So not only do we have a policy vacuum amongst those opposite on immigration but also we have policy confusion. We have seen coalition members on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, including the shadow immigration minister, endorse the Rudd government’s New Directions in Detention policy. As I have pointed out on other occasions, this new government policy sought, amongst other things, to abolish detention debt, a particularly insidious policy legacy of the previous government. The Labor government rejected the Howard government’s policy of requiring detainees to repay the costs of their detention. We rejected it because it did nothing to offset the costs of detention to taxpayers, nor was it a deterrent. There was no evidence that it was a deterrent—and, as we know, if people are desperate enough to risk detention, they are hardly likely to be dissuaded by the thought of repaying its costs. This situation advantaged no-one—not the taxpaying public nor the new arrivals seeking to settle here. So, when the government moved to abolish that poor policy, it was endorsed by the shadow minister for immigration through the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. But what happened when the legislation to abolish detention debt was introduced by the government? The coalition opposed it; that is what happened. On the one hand they wanted to support the abolition of detention debt and on the other hand they simply rejected it—a clear case of policy confusion on the part of those opposite.

But there is more policy confusion. While on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration the shadow minister expressed concern about people without work rights and access to Medicare. But, when the government moved to address these issues by reforming work rights for asylum seekers, the coalition moved to disallow the regulations. So here we have policy vacuum, policy confusion and, as this motion raises, a policy failure—not from the government but from those opposite. Let me compare and contrast here. There has been substantive policy development and action on the part of the government, which compares with the politically driven, confused nonpolicies of those opposite—vacuous confusion.

Those opposite have also failed to recognise the global nature of this problem. There are 42 million displaced people in the world—42 million people who are fleeing war and conflict, persecution and disaster. Is it any wonder that desperate people should resort to desperate measures to improve the situation? It is a global problem and it has been with us for a long time, as the figures that I outlined on previous boat arrivals demonstrates. This is underscored by the fact that, under the previous government, there were 246 boats carrying more than 13,000 asylum seekers. And now, under the Rudd government, we have seen 47 boats with about 2,000 asylum seekers aboard.

Why does this happen? It happens because of the sorts of things that are happening in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has just emerged from a decades-long civil war, which cost tens of thousands lives, uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans and left an economic divide between north and south, east and west. We are all aware of the recent escalation in conflict in Sri Lanka, and yet the opposition appears to be blind to the tragedy that has unfolded there. Between 2005 and 2008 the number of internally displaced people assisted by the UNHCR in Sri Lanka increased from just over 300,000 to just over 500,000—an increase of 55 per cent. There are currently 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people. These are the factors that contribute to what we are seeing happening on our borders. And it is why the government has invested more resources in border protection, more boats patrolling our waters and has a stronger interception record than the previous government.

It is also significant, I think, in recognition of these factors that Australia is providing more than $35 million in development assistance to Sri Lanka this financial year. That includes $5 million to support the resettlement of internally displaced persons and $2.3 million for the de-mining of former conflict areas. That is a substantial commitment but, when you look at the scale of this tragedy unfolding, and the time it is going to take to put Sri Lanka back together, these push factors are going to continue. Australia has already helped to resettle international displaced persons in north-west Sri Lanka by funding the construction of housing and providing support for basic services and livelihoods. In turn, at home near our borders we are increasing funding for border protection. Only Labor has put a real priority on the protection of our borders. The Howard government spent $289 million running the Nauru and Manus Island offshore processing centres. For the same period, the Howard government’s funding on aerial and surface surveillance by Customs was $25 million less, at $264 million.

In contrast, we have increased sea patrols of our borders by 25 per cent since 2007. As a result, the Rudd government has intercepted 98 per cent of all boats before they reached the mainland. Under the previous government more than one in 10 boats reached the mainland. All irregular maritime arrivals to Australia are placed in mandatory detention for mandatory health, security and identity checks. We know that no-one is granted a visa to Australia, or released into the community, without undergoing a comprehensive security and identity checking process. And those assessments are conducted by ASIO. ASIO conduct security assessments for irregular maritime arrivals. They work closely with the department of immigration and other government agencies to ensure all arrivals are assessed as quickly as possible for indicators of security concern and that all relevant information about an individual is taken into account.

It is for this reason that we are able to process people more speedily. The security risk presented by a person depends on individual circumstances and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Factors including the particular circumstances of each case and the individual’s background, attitudes and activities influence the complexity of cases and can extend the time required to complete assessments. We have seen under the Rudd government a substantial improvement in making speedy assessments of people’s asylum claims.  In contrast, I am appalled that the opposition seems driven to score political points out of human misery. Its motivation on border protection issues is not driven by good policy or recognition of the need to take a humane approach to these issues; rather, it is driven by a willingness that has been proved time and time again to make Australians feel insecure about the desperation of others. Labor will not be dragged into a race to the bottom on immigration policy. We will continue to pursue strong border protection policies underpinned by humane principles.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to be able to participate in this matter of public importance because this is a spectacularly good example of how not to manage Australia’s immigration policy. The Rudd government deserves censure for the way, as a result of the Oceanic Viking incident, it has undermined Australia’s border security regime, it deserves censure for the way it has undermined the foundations of equity upon which Australia’s immigration policy rests, it deserves censure for the way the Prime Minister has fundamentally misrepresented to the parliament and the Australian people the nature of the agreement which ultimately concluded this messy business and it deserves censure for the absolutely disgraceful way in which he, the Prime Minister, has dragged a senior and respected public servant into the middle of this particular mess. Not only did the Prime Minister drag him into the mess but then he used him as a shield for his dissembling of the result. The whole episode has been a series of mistakes in policy making, for which I suspect and I fear Australia will be paying the consequences for a long time to come.

There is another aspect of this matter for which the Prime Minister deserves censure, and that is for the consequences of Australia’s important bilateral relationship with Indonesia. It is common ground between the opposition and the government that we need Indonesian cooperation if we are to successfully contain, deter or restrict the activities of people smugglers and if we are going to have any success in trying to end the scourge which affects so many people in our own region. There now has to be a serious question mark over whether or not we can expect that cooperation, which we so vitally need, with Indonesia in the future. The regrettable thing about this whole incident and how it affects our relations with Indonesia is that this is part of a pattern of behaviour with many of our important bilateral relationships around the Asia-Pacific region.

When the Rudd government came to office in November 2007 there was a high expectation amongst commentators, and indeed among some of my own colleagues in academe, who thought that the arrival of the Rudd government would herald a new era in Australia’s relations with Indonesia. There was an argument and, in my view, a completely unsustainable proposition that the Howard government had mismanaged Australia’s relations with countries of Asia. Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly in light of what has happened in the last two years. The high expectations centred around the idea that Mr Rudd in particular had apparently a kind of unique understanding of Australia’s relations with Asia. He was rather like the 21st century equivalent of Lawrence of Arabia—Kevin of Asia, the man who was more prepared than any other to manage Australia’s relationship with Asia, the man who was more fully in tune with the rhythms of Asian societies with their politics, with their strategic interests and with the nature of Asian societies. No man and no prime minister in Australia’s history, it was argued, had a deeper comprehension of the Asian mind than Kevin Rudd when he came to office. As a result of all of these understandings, this comprehension and this unique ability that the Prime Minister was supposedly bringing to office, he would manage this relationship very well.

Of course, what happened immediately was that our bilateral relationship with Japan was in trouble. Our bilateral relationship with China was in trouble. Our bilateral relationship with India is in trouble. From my perspective I actually thought, ‘Perhaps the Indonesian relationship has escaped this mayhem; perhaps the bilateral relationship which we handed over in such good form to the Rudd government in November 2007 would escape the chaos which had been caused elsewhere around the region.’ It was not to be. A former Labor Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans, recognised—surprisingly, I must say, for a Labor foreign minister—that the management of Australia’s relationship with Indonesia depended on a large number of things. One of the things it depended on was what he called ballast: the capacity to keep relations in good repair over a period of time. Regrettably, that is what the Labor government has failed to do during its two short years in office. It has been delinquent. The Prime Minister in particular has been delinquent. He has made a few trips to Indonesia during his period in office, but in none of them he has neither invested any serious time in trying to manage this relationship successfully nor understood the proposition which most prime ministers have understood in relation to Indonesia, which is that megaphone diplomacy does not work. The best way for Australia to sustain its good, cooperative relationship with Asia is essentially through quiet diplomacy.

There is a default position in relation to Labor foreign policy—it goes back to Dr Evatt, immediately after the Second World War—and that is megaphone diplomacy. That is what the Labor government seems to think works in terms of our relationship with Asia. It has been disproved time and time again, as it has been disproved on this particular occasion. The Rudd government, from the very beginning, mismanaged this relationship. The Prime Minister, having asked the Indonesians to render some assistance in relation to the Oceanic Viking and in relation to other vessels in the area, then engaged in an activity in which he is well practiced—ringing the Prime Minister of Indonesia and then leaking the contents of that telephone conversation for his own interests. He was undermining the security of that conversation to try and dig himself out of a hole that he created.

And the situation continued to go on: failing to be frank and candid in relation to the matter; casting aspersions on the nature of the agreement that was reached with the Indonesians—for whom there is no fault in this matter, so far as I am concerned—and causing embarrassment to Indonesian officials and the Indonesian government in relation to the nature of facilities et cetera. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I totally reject the proposition that the Rudd government has failed on immigration policy. We need to put the coalition’s assertions in context. We need to understand the politics of what the coalition are trying to do here and we need to expose why immigration and asylum seekers have been the focus of the coalition over the last few weeks. What is happening is that the coalition are trying to make up for their own incapacities and their own failures. This is a vain, futile and desperate attempt to divert attention from their failures, their weaknesses and the disintegration of the colation forces in this country as an effective opposition.

The coalition have demonstrated a clear failure of policy. There is a failure of leadership in the coalition. The member for Wentworth, the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, is under constant siege from many of the opposition senators sitting across this chamber. And that has meant that his leadership is a failed leadership—a leadership that is delivering nothing for this country, because we have a coalition that is no more than a disorganised rabble.

There is a failure of ideas. There are no ideas coming from the opposition as to what is required to develop a proper future for this country. There is a failure of compassion when it comes to the issue of refugees. There is a failure to properly analyse the issues that are involved in refugees seeking asylum within Australia. And on this basis we have a coalition that is failing the nation. They have a weak leadership, they are divided and disorganised, they are at each other’s throats and they are relying on a fear and smear campaign.

They have no policies and no ideas; they simply rely on smear and fear. And we see the smear and fear campaign in their approach to climate change. It is a totally disorganised and divided opposition on climate change. They have no policy and no ideas on industrial relations, where they meekly gave up on the jewel in the crown of the previous government: Work Choices. When you are weak you fail and you end up with policies like Work Choices. On the issue of refugees, we had children overboard and children behind razor wire. As a government, we are not going to accept that proposition.

On health insurance, again, the opposition rely on smear and fear. They argue that the industry would collapse if you gave low-paid workers a fair go on health insurance. On the economic stimulus package the fear campaign is on government debt, when we have the lowest debt of all the major advanced countries. What was the opposition’s position on the global financial crisis? It was to wait and see: to do nothing. And when the Labor government acted on that issue we were the only advanced economy to register positive economic growth during that financial crisis. We have the second lowest unemployment rate of major advanced economies. We had the lowest budget deficit of major advanced economies. And, as I said, we have the lowest debt of advanced economies—13.8 per cent of GDP by 2013-14. Ours is the only advanced economy not to go into recession, and without the stimulus package the government introduced, one million more workers would have been unemployed.

Yet what does the opposition do? The opposition, with no policy and no ideas, resorts to what we have seen coming out of Senator Ronaldson’s office, an email headlined, ‘Digging dirt’. It calls on media advisers in the coalition to concentrate on quirky stories which draw the attention of journalists rather than policy discussions. ‘Quirky stories’: that is what we have from the opposition. Quirky stories, but no policy; quirky stories, but no ideas. What we saw was this from Senator Ronaldson’s office:

You don’t get news stories by trying to change perceptions, you get them by reinforcing stereotypes.

That is what the email from Peter Phelps, media adviser to Senator Michael Ronaldson, said.

Reinforcing stereotypes is what the coalition is very good at: stereotypes of refugees, stereotypes of trade unionists and stereotypes of the poor in this country. That is the form of the opposition. They go on to say:

Stories worth pursuing should cover: Fat cat public servants not caring about taxpayers, pollies with snouts in the trough, special interest groups getting undeserved handouts from tax taken from hard-working Aussies, a favoured pro-Labor contractor who seems to be getting all the work for a particular job etc.

This is what we are seeing in relation to immigration and refugees. The argument is that they should look for a quirky story and not bother about policy. Worry about the truth or worry if it is about trying to stereotype refugees or asylum seekers? They are being told to do the Ronaldson job, which is to stereotype refugees—look for the quirky story and do not develop proper policy. That is what the opposition is about.

Labor are determined to expose the hypocrisy of the coalition regarding these issues. We will continue to expose the weakness of this opposition, who do not have any ideas or policy. We will continue to expose the divisions within the opposition. This is an opposition that is not ready to be a real alternative government in this country. They have no compassion, no ideas and no economic policies. They want to smear and to use fear. That is the approach from the opposition in this country. We will expose the smear and fear.

There is a debate within the coalition on this issue of asylum seekers and immigration. There are two arguments being made. These arguments were clearly identified in the Australian when Kevin Andrews, on 16 October, published an opinion piece in which he said:

Hardly a week goes by without another boatload of people arriving in Australian waters ... 1800 people have unlawfully been smuggled to Australia in the past 12 months.

Let us have a look at the Howard government’s record in similar circumstances to those that this government is facing.

Severe social dislocation and wars taking place in some of our neighbours. In Iraq we had the war and in Afghanistan we had the Taliban insurgency. During the period of 1999 to 2001, 12,000 refugees sought help from the Australian government; 12,000 came to the shores of this country. Yet Kevin Andrews simply calls this mass illegal immigration. Kevin Andrews talks about an open door policy towards people smugglers. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no open door policy for people smugglers. Anyone who knows anything about what is happening knows that the Labor government has established a dedicated border protection committee of cabinet to deal with these issues. We have created a single point of accountability for matters relating to the prevention of maritime people smuggling. We have continued regional engagement and cooperation, including reinvigorating the Bali process at ministerial level. We have increased maritime surveillance and patrolling by Border Protection Command. We have successfully prosecuted people smugglers and we have successfully extradited alleged people smugglers.

Compare that to the rhetoric that you have heard from the opposition today, both in question time and in this debate before the chamber. There is no substance to it; there is no policy. It is all about smear and fear. That is the position that this coalition adopts. There is absolutely no way that you could argue that the Labor government does not have strong border security provisions and is not dealing with the issue of illegal immigration seriously.

The debate that is going on within the coalition is epitomised by that of Petro Georgiou, who in a response to the Kevin Andrews opinion piece said this:

Unless we are very careful, we are about to engage in a corrosive debate about people seeking refuge in our country. The portents are there. Political skirmishing is intensifying about who is tough, tougher or toughest on border protection. The term ‘illegal immigrant’ is being bandied about. Refugees are being labelled ‘back-door’ immigrants. Anecdotes about asylum seekers not looking genuine are being recounted. Unsubstantiated assertions about the number in asylum seeker ‘‘pipelines’’ are being given currency.

He goes on:

Uninvited refugees may offend a sense of order, but escaping persecution is not always an orderly business. The circumstances under which asylum seekers travel and arrive can unsettle societies that are used to order and control, and can obscure a sense of perspective.

This Liberal backbencher finishes up by saying:

The current bout of chest thumping, of assertions of toughness and accusations of weakness undermine all this. Responsible leadership should not be about using vulnerable people as a political football. The arrival of a small number of people fleeing persecution requires an evidence-based and humane response, not a macho slanging match. We have been there before. It was a dark chapter in our history. We should not turn the page back to it.

When was this dark chapter in history? It was under the Howard government. I think we would do well to look at what Petro Georgiou is saying, because you see the results of what is happening in the UK when this debate gets used as smear and fear by political parties. You see the rise of the British National Party who want to send every immigrant home, who want to use immigration as a fear campaign against working-class people within the UK. That is what you are opening up. That is what the member for Kooyong is actually indicating. (Time expired)

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this matter of public importance to speak on the failure of the Rudd Labor government’s immigration policy. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I would like to comment on—what is his name?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

His name is Senator Cameron.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to comment on Senator Cameron’s comment about the Labor government’s strong immigration—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you cannot get my name right, how are you going to get any policy right?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payne interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a pathetic performance.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is offensive.

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

Order! Senator Adams, please continue.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would like to comment on Senator Cameron’s comment that the Rudd Labor government has a strong policy. I wonder where the Rudd Labor government would be if the Christmas Island detention facility had not been expanded. The former Howard coalition government fixed the problem and, with its strong border protection measures, made sure that there was a place where illegal immigrants could come and be properly processed. At that stage, Labor labelled it a ‘white elephant’. Do Labor senators still call that facility a white elephant? As a result of Labor’s failing policy, the Christmas Island detention centre is now almost overflowing. Unfortunately, there were riots there last Saturday night. I feel that this is very sad and I think that the Rudd Labor government should be doing a lot more than it is to prevent a recurrence of this incident.

Really, the government’s border protection policy is in complete chaos. It clearly has no solution to the influx of boats bringing people illegally into Australian territory. The former Howard coalition government fixed this problem. Labor then dismantled the policies and the boats started arriving in our waters again. It is Labor’s systematic softening of what was a very strong and successful border protection policy that has resulted in this sharp increase in people smuggling to Australia. As I said, the riots going on inside a detention centre over the weekend are very disturbing, and I do feel very sorry for the staff that are having to try to cope with the situation.

I wonder just what the Rudd government is going to do. There has been a record of violence and threats of violence associated with illegal boat arrivals in the blackmailing tactics of trying to get entry to Australia on boats. The Oceanic Viking episode of the past month was a complete debacle and an illustration of bad border protection policy and its processes. The government was effectively held to ransom, and the only way out of the mess it had created was to offer a special deal to entice the people off the boat. The Prime Minister was at pains to say there was no special deal done to get the people off the boat, but clearly there was, and even the media are saying that it is laughable to suggest otherwise. Day after day in this place, Senator Evans has been asked, ‘What was the special deal?’ I quote from the Sunday Territorian, where Senator Evans said:

They will be offered resettlement in resettlement countries. There’s no guarantee they will come to Australia, that was never part of the offer.

So now we have a deal, an offer and a message which says: ‘You can come to Australia. The gate is open. We will certainly make sure that everything is done to accommodate you.’ To get people off the boat, there must have been some offer made. What message does this send? The message spreads immediately. These people are very well organised, using mobile phones and the internet to spread the message immediately from the boats as to how they are getting on and whether they are making progress in getting to Australia or Christmas Island. Australia’s weakened border protection policies are well known and the boats, unfortunately, will continue to come until the policies are properly strengthened again.

As a Western Australian senator, it really concerns me that, as these boats tend to come further south, they are going to be coming into Western Australian waters. What is going to happen if they are not seen and they get to shore? We could end up with all sorts of different diseases, and of course foot and mouth is probably the most frightening of the lot. Being a farmer, I certainly would not like to see that. The Rudd Labor government has to do something to strengthen border protection; otherwise, Western Australia is certainly going to suffer.

My other concern is the debacle of the Oceanic Viking, sitting idle in an Indonesian port while it should be down in the Southern Ocean. As we have heard in the media, our valuable Patagonian toothfish stocks have been raided. A very long driftnet captured some 29 tonnes of fish. The Oceanic Viking was built for the icy, rough conditions of the Southern Ocean, not to sit off a port in Indonesia with a number of illegal immigrants on it. Going to the expense of the whole saga, it has cost the Australian taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money each day to have the Oceanic Viking sit idle—valuable tax dollars which should have been used on better border measures.

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

Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded.