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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked today.

Since Labor abolished the Howard government's Pacific solution we have had 12,000 people come on 241 boats, and not one single one of them has been processed offshore.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every single boat that comes now is yours. Start your engines.

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

Order!

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

It really is interesting. We have Senator Conroy barking from the other side. For those who can see him from here, he seems a little blurry on the outside because he is, like most members of this government, a virtual minister. He is a virtual minister who is part of a virtual government that has virtual policies. The problem, as Senator Conroy escapes out of his virtual door, is that if you have virtual policies and you do not have a consistent approach to these issues then of course you end up with a complete mess, which is what our border protection is at the moment.

We have had a number of significant changes in policy, and it is really useful to have a look at some of the Prime Minister's statements. I can recall the time when she actually supported the turning back of boats:

The navy has turned back four boats to Indonesia. They were in sea-worthy shape and arrived in Indonesia. It has made a very big difference to people-smuggling that that happened.

She went on to say that 'turning the boats back not only has made a significant difference' but also 'fits in with our policy'. More recently, in 2010, she said:

I speak of the claim often made by opposition politicians that they will, and I quote: 'turn the boats back'. This needs to be seen for what it is. It's a shallow slogan.

Of course, that was all a bit of a mishmash, and somebody might have mentioned that to the Prime Minister. Now she has come back to 'virtually' turning back the boats:

They believe they are coming to Australia, but they end up somewhere else. It is a virtual turnaround of boats.

Again, this is classically in the line of developing a virtual policy from virtual governments.

The next process was temporary protection visas. In 2002, the now Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said:

The proposal in this document—Labor's policy—is that an unauthorised arrival who does not have a genuine refugee claim would in the first instance get a short temporary protection visa.

That's right: today's Prime Minister said in 2002 that her policy was temporary protection visas. But of course later, in an address to the Sydney Institute in 2010, Chris Evans said:

The Rudd government is proud of its reforms in abolishing temporary protection visas, closing the so-called Pacific Solution.

Where are they on this? They are absolutely everywhere, and this is the problem with having a virtual policy. It is a bit like watching a very old television set that is a bit broken and does not even stay on the same channel. You have a policy that goes from one channel to the other and back again, and all the channels are a little bit fuzzy.

We have been hearing recently about the so-called Malaysia solution, which of course followed the Timor solution. 'Solution' is a terrible word to throw around during such a debacle. Again, at a time when Prime Minister Gillard said that she would never go to a country that has not signed the refugee convention, in 2010, she said:

In terms of my plan for a regional framework and a regional processing centre, we want to deal with the countries that are signatory to the refugee convention.

She said that absolutely categorically. You could not say that was out of context. They are the people she wants to deal with. She went on later in 2010 to talk about her policy—and she said 'my policy', not a virtual policy—as follows:

The policy that I have announced is I want to see a regional processing centre that is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees, and East Timor is a signatory.

She then went on to say, a little later, on 6PR:

I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

From the UNHCR website, if she was not familiar with it, we could have put this to the Prime Minister:

Malaysia is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its Protocol.…

By law, refugees are … vulnerable to arrest for immigration offences and may be subject to detention, prosecution, whipping and deportation.

One would think that was absolutely clear.

This is the problem when we have a virtual government with virtual ministers and virtual processes: at the end of the day, we are going to end up with a virtual border. Let me tell you: real ships with real people-smugglers ignore virtual borders, which is why this public should reject— (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In taking note of the answers given by Senator Carr and reflecting on the comments Senator Scullion has just contributed to this debate, I cannot help but pause and reflect on this 'virtual policy' characterisation, because it is a very selective policy characterisation. I would like to remind senators, and indeed Australians, of who made the most significant change with respect to asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. Of course, that was Mr John Howard, in caretaker mode in the lead-up to the election on which Senator Scullion reflects.

The coalition had several policy changes after that period, but let us remember the circumstances of the first. The first was a deliberate decision by this coalition to demonise and politicise this debate and demonise asylum seekers. I will, in a moment, reflect on several other examples. But I want to remind the Senate that the most important point here is that it is very clear that the government's intention is to act consistently with our refugee convention obligations—unlike the former coalition government. It is very difficult to characterise what occurred on Nauru as consistent at all. The coalition claims that it delivered effective border protection, but let us remember another issue as we hear all this moralising. This is the principle that you cannot try and achieve deterrence, or deal with people-smugglers, without mistreating people or persecuting people. There are serious moral issues with that approach. This is the issue that dogged a former coalition minister when the coalition introduced this approach to try and deal with deterrence. I should run through the aspects of that approach quickly. Temporary protection visas: what that was really about was harming and mistreating the people who were stuck in Australia under those visas. I remember many examples during those years of people highlighting the persecution and the effect of TPVs. That is why we abolished them. I remember people drowning when left in the water or disembarking boats that had been turned back to Indonesia. I remember a Human Rights Watch report that highlighted that safety was not necessarily being adhered to in those arrangements.

But Nauru is possibly the best example. I am proud that this government released those people who had been left on Nauru for many, many years, rotting. We know the mental health effects of the coalition's approach in Nauru. But what we also know is that our arrangements in Malaysia are very different to what the former government set up in Nauru. The Malaysia agreement is about promoting regional processing of asylum claims and resettlement whilst treating people with dignity. It is about avoiding incarceration. This did not apply in Nauru. It is about providing access to appropriate housing, health care, education and employment. This did not happen in Nauru. It is about the participation of the UNHCR. This did not happen in Nauru. Instead, we have the coalition denigrating Malaysia.

I came across a young boy last week who is studying in Australia. He was deeply troubled with the way this debate is demonising his home country. He is concerned that this coalition is using Malaysia as a scapegoat, as it tries to continue to politicise the issue and demonise asylum seekers. The Malaysian government has made it clear that it is addressing its standing on human rights issues. I spent about a year and a half in my youth living in Malaysia. I did not see evidence of the sorts of things that Senator Cash was raising in question time today. No doubt there are circumstances where some inappropriate behaviour occurs. That can sometimes occur in any country, including Australia—we heard in question time today the example of Cornelia Rau. So I do not think we have the luxury of the approach the coalition is taking in this debate. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers given by Senator Carr to questions asked by Senators Abetz, Brandis and Cash. Senator Carr, with his usual bumbling sort of attitude, comes in here today and there is this sort of serial amnesia that the government now suffers from, conveniently forgetting—this is their modus operandi—what they promise before elections and what they do after elections. He was asked a question deliberately about what Kevin Rudd had said before the 2007 election. Minister Carr just conveniently wants to airbrush that out of history. But I would like to remind him of the sorts of promises that they made to the Australian public to con them into voting for them. The public did vote for them, and the Labor Party promised that they would do something. Back in 2007 they did not keep their promises, just as Prime Minister Gillard has not kept her promise about the carbon tax, but we will not go there today.

An article in the Australianof 23 November 2008 was headed, 'Kevin Rudd has taken a tough line on border security'. It said:

Mr Rudd said Labor would take asylum-seekers who had been rescued from leaky boats to Christmas Island, would turn back seaworthy vessels containing such people on the high seas, and would not lift the current intake of African refugees.

"You'd turn them back," he said …

He then mentioned an 'orderly immigration system' enforced by deterrence. The article continued:

You cannot have anything that is orderly if you allow people who do not have a lawful visa in this country to roam free," he said. "That's why you need a detention system. I know that's politically contentious, but one follows from the other.

"Deterrence is effective through the detention system but also your preparedness to take appropriate action as the vessels approach Australian waters on the high seas."

And, might I remind those on the opposite side, it was the Australian Labor Party that introduced mandatory detention into this country. Why do I know? Because as a lawyer with the Australian Government Solicitor's office I did my fair share of immigration work. So don't you come into this place, Senator Collins, and moralise about the coalition. You look back at your own history in relation to immigration matters. You look back at your first reading speeches and at your conduct on immigration over those years, and don't come into this place and moralise about the coalition.

Yes, the coalition, through the years, did stop the boats. Yes, we did have an orderly immigration process. And you ask those millions of people who have come to this country, who came in through the front door, how they feel about what is going on, about what has now become the chaos, the mess, the debacle that is this government's immigration and border protection system. You ask them about what happened after August 2008, under then Minister Evans. He comes in here pontificating and trying to dictate to us. He systematically started the dismantling of this system. He sat there in estimates and detailed a program change here, a program change there—no wonder the people smugglers rubbed their hands together: because they knew that they were well and truly back in business. What have the government done? They have effectively dismantled it, bit by bit. And what have we now seen? We have seen a cost blow-out of $3 billion. When the coalition were in government, it was a program that cost less than $100 million. That was under the Howard government. Just over three years ago, under the Rudd government, it cost more than $1 billion. You have had cost blow-outs.

I say to those opposite: you talk about people being in detention. That is the object of a temporary protection visa, because ultimately you have to give assurances to the Australian people that the people are who they say they are, and that is why it is vitally important that you have proper security. That is not a guarantee that I think this government can give the Australian public. (Time expired)

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we have heard today in the commentary from the opposition and others in the coalition cheap political lines like 'virtual' and so on. Back before the last election, in 2010, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, used the same 'virtual' statements and cheap political statements like, 'We will stop the boats.' Close to the time of those sorts of comments and that campaign by the opposition starting, I had the opportunity of actually being on a boat. I was up there on the HMAS Bathurst, on a parliamentary Defence program. In fact, there was an opposition member from the House of Representatives, the member for Dickson, asking the same question of our Defence personnel: 'What will happen if we stop the boats?' Anyone could have worked out what the answer would be. The Defence personnel turned around and said: 'Well, if we stop the boats there will be mayhem. There will be refugees smashing holes into the hull, smashing the engine, doing anything—anything possible to be rescued.' And that is the issue with making those statements. That is the issue with having the policy of turning the boats around. They are going to turn them around to Indonesia, are they?

We have built a healthy relationship with the Indonesian government. I go back to about 18 months ago when the President of Indonesia came into this house and there was a joint sitting over there. He spoke about the changes that they are making to prosecute people smugglers. This is an example of the changes that have been occurring that the good relationship between the Australian government and the Indonesian government fosters. Yet, if we go sending boats back to Indonesia as the opposition proposes, no doubt that good, genuine relationship will dissipate forthwith. That is a main reason why we cannot go down a path of entertaining that sort of proposition.

If we go to the Nauru solution, which the opposition appear to be favouring—it appears to be their only opportunity of creating a solution to the refugee issues that we have in this country—history tells us that, of those refugees who went to Nauru, who in many cases were put in camps and allowed to rot in the sun in that terrible position, 95 per cent of them ended up in Australia or New Zealand. So we know as a result of history that that solution will not work.

The Malaysian outcome or agreement that we have been able to negotiate is the only position that we are able to entertain. It is a position that the opposition should be accepting with both hands because it provides a balance. It provides a balance of at least another 4,000 genuine refugees to come to our country, and I think that is a good move. It provides a balance where a future 4,000 refugees will come to this country to call Australia home. We cannot afford to allow this posturing and these political stunts of denying the opportunity for people like that to come to our country.

The UNHCR have also made it clear that the Nauru solution does not work. They have condemned it by saying it is just a dumping ground and a problem in a small Pacific island. When you go back and do your research on what occurred as a result of the Nauru Pacific island solution, you will ascertain that that is the case. That is what happened to those people.

I want to focus in closing on our good, hardworking Defence men and women who are involved in the Border Protection Command. I will be up there on Monday next week—as you know, Deputy President—as Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and we will be meeting with them once again, as I did last year. I am sure they will agree with the committee—no doubt this subject might arise—that we cannot deny their health and safety in situations where there is trouble on the high seas. If we have policies like 'We will turn the boats back' or 'We will stop the boats,' we know the dangerous situation that those good men and women will be put in on the high seas as a result. That is why we cannot afford to allow the opposition to continue down the path of believing that that is the right alternative in dealing with our refugee problems. (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am always amazed when I hear government senators get up and try and defend the indefensible. The fact is that history will record Labor's approach to asylum seekers coming to Australia over the past 10 years as one of the most hypocritical, most inconsistent and most politically opportunistic gaggle of positions on a policy issue that has ever been seen in this country. Indeed, I will not be surprised if future political science courses devote a large chunk of their classes to the flip-flopping changes in position that the Labor Party has taken on this particular issue over the last 10 years.

Senator Collins spent most of her speech attacking the coalition on our policy, saying that we deliberately sought to demonise asylum seekers and that it was we who started that. That is not at all true. The demonising started with Labor when the boats started coming in the late 1990s. I believe, in fact, that it may even have been the now Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, who started that demonising, by attacking the Howard government over the boats that were coming and claiming that Labor would turn them back. Our approach, of course—

Senator Wong interjecting—

That is a separate issue. Our approach was to fix the problem, so we put in place a suite of measures that were designed to actually stop the boats from coming and ensure that people had no incentive to hop on a leaky boat, risking their lives and the lives of their families by crossing the open seas on a journey to a country they had no surety they would ever reach.

Senator Collins also raised temporary protection visas, but she made no case against them whatsoever. She just damned them openly without explaining at all why she thought there was a problem with them or why they did not work. I have yet to hear from a senator on that side of the chamber any information at all about why temporary protection visas are not a valid approach to take in tackling this issue.

In relation to Nauru, Senator Collins said that arrangements in Malaysia were very different. The arrangements in Malaysia are very different. They will be very different, particularly for those people who are sent there compared with those who were sent to Nauru or who could be sent to Nauru. Those who end up in Malaysia will be subject to Malaysian justice. They will be subject to their rules, their laws and their ways of dealing with asylum seekers when they reach there. The fact is that Malaysia has laws that allow asylum seekers to be physically punished. There are nowhere near the controls that Australia had over their treatment when people in similar positions were sent to Nauru or to Papua New Guinea—control that was exercised directly at that time.

Senator Furner talked about the failings of turning around the boats, as if this were the crux of our policy. Indeed, he focused on the fact that turning around boats came with some risks. Indeed it does, but that is not the crux of our policy. The mainstays of our program have been proven to work—just look at the numbers. You just have to look at how many people were coming in the early 2000s. Yet two or three years later, after we had put in place our measures, they had slowed to a trickle and almost to a stop. The crux of our program is offshore processing on Nauru and in other nations that have signed up to the UNHCR convention, and the temporary protection visas. Turning around boats is something that we would do only on those very rare occasions when it is both safe and possible to do so. By definition, if it is safe and possible to do so, those issues raised by Senator Furner are irrelevant.

Labor's policies over this have flip-flopped, as I mentioned, all over the place over the last 10 years. They have gone from setting up onshore detention, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells mentioned—in fact the Keating government was the first government to set up mandatory detention—to attacking the former Howard government over the problem in the late 1990s. As I mentioned, Prime Minister Gillard played a key role in attacking us in regard to boats that were arriving and our lack of action over it. She told us how they would stop the boats and then totally opposed the measures which the Howard government implemented to do just that and which, contrary to Minister Carr's claims today, totally and demonstrably worked by turning the annual numbers around so absolutely that, by the time this government took over in 2007, there were only a handful of people left in detention and the boats had almost completely stopped arriving.

So what did they do then? Having achieved the treasury bench they wound back all measures implemented during the Howard years. It worked so well, with the consequence that we have now seen over 12,000 illegal arrivals and over 241 boats. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.