Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the issues of immigration and refugees. Refugee Week is being celebrated right around the world this week and tomorrow is World Refugee Day, which is supported and promoted by the United Nations. The theme for Refugee Week this year is Restoring Hope. It is very pertinent to think about what that means for those who arrive here in Australia looking for the hope to rebuild their lives, the hope of safety and the hope that finally their children will be able to start learning, as they settle into a new country and start to rebuild their lives together as a family.

When Australia signed up to the refugee convention some 60 years ago, we did so very proudly. In fact, Australia was one of the leading nations in the drafting of this convention; we led the debates on the international stage and we drafted the provisions side by side with other nations who wanted to see this important protection acknowledged in international law. We drafted the words for this convention—we drafted the rules that countries would abide by, because there was a consensus that never again should vulnerable people who are fleeing persecution be turned away at the borders of countries that could offer them sanctuary. Of course, this was a reflection on what had happened to thousands of refugees who had fled Germany and Europe during World War II. The consensus of nations signing the convention was that there needed to be a set of rules that signatory countries would abide by and would hold each other accountable to—so that they would stand up and say: 'Where somebody is in need, we will give them that protection. We will ensure that they are given safety, so that we do not have to see unnecessary human suffering.' Australia has much to be proud of: not only how we led that debate on the international stage some 60 years ago but also how we have implemented our commitment to that protection over the decades.

Unfortunately, we have less to be proud of in recent times. Even just this week—despite the international promotion, support and celebration of the contributions that refugees have made in newfound homes and lands through the World Refugee Day celebrations—we have seen commentary here in Australia that Australia should no longer abide by the refugee convention. Thankfully, I do not believe this is a view that is held or promoted by very many. But there are other things here in Australia, in government policy, that have not been part of that proud tradition of how our country has engaged, protected and supported refugees. We have more children than ever before locked in immigration detention, and their only reason for being here in Australia is that they had to flee persecution, torture or brutality, at the hands of repressive regimes. These children have committed no crimes; they are here asking for our help and for sanctuary. Yet almost 2,000 children remain in immigration detention today in Australia. We are the only country which detains refugee children indefinitely. We are the only country that has a legislated policy that is in direct conflict with our obligations under the refugee convention as to how we treat children.

After what has been a toxic debate over immigration and refugees in this country for over a decade, we now see a suite of policies that are inflicting more pain and suffering on people who have fled some of the world's most brutal regimes—policies such as the government's no-advantage rule, which was supported both in this place and in the other place less than 12 months ago, and supported by the coalition as well as the government. After the Houston panel handed down their report in August last year, we were told—the Australian public, senators in this place, members in the other place—that if we wanted to stop people coming to Australia by boat, we had to implement what is called the no-advantage rule. The Houston report outlined this as the key plank of the policy of stopping people coming here to Australia by dangerous boat journeys, and that it would do more to help refugees than to hinder the support of them. Well, that has unfortunately been proven to be an utter failure. Not only has the no-advantage rule failed to stop people coming by boat, it has failed to care for them as well. It has failed to stop people's lives being lost at sea. It has not offered the protection that we know, from right down in our history pages, is so important among the reasons why we are signatories to the refugee convention the first place. It has not made children safer, it has not offered them sanctuary; what this no-advantage rule is doing, however, is stripping much of the hope that refugees had when they arrived here in Australia. It continues to strip them of that hope. We have thousands of refugees living in the Australian community who are not able to work under this no-advantage rule. They have been pushed into poverty, because they are not allowed to work and only after a certain amount of time do they get any financial support. We now see families of refugees being pushed into these circumstances.

It is not just cruel politics, it is actually dumb politics. We know overwhelmingly that the numbers of people who are coming here to Australia—and we can lose perspective here—are greater than they have been before, but they are tiny in comparison to the numbers of people fleeing over borders in other parts of the world. Yet these people are overwhelmingly found to be in need of protection. They will end up becoming Australian citizens, and yet we have made them suffer even more through this no-advantage rule and no-advantage policy. People who are more than willing and able to be productive members of our community—and to give their skills, their time and their dedication—are being stripped of the opportunity to do that.

The Houston report needs to be called for what it is: it is a sham. It has been a sham and it has been a failure. It is time that the authors of that report explained why this report has not delivered what they said it would, based on that key plank of the no-advantage rule. There has been a lot of debate. As we know, this toxic debate about immigration and refugees does nothing to help build us up as a nation. In fact, it tears at the very fabric of our communities. I would argue that the rhetoric around refugees and asylum seekers—particularly in the last 12 months, but increasingly as we get towards an election—is becoming nastier, dirtier and even more dangerous.

Dog-whistle politics is what we have in relation to this issue. We have seen it before. We saw it when John Howard—the former prime minister—was desperate to win the 2001 election. We saw how he used the issues of refugees and played politics with the lives of people who had already suffered so much and had committed no crime, other than to try to flee brutality and torture. In 2001, John Howard used the lives of refugees to win an election. Here, in 2013, we see history repeating itself. Dog-whistle politics may win votes from some quarters, but it actually demeans us all. It tears at the very fabric of our nation, which has had a proud history of migration.

We are a multicultural country, and I believe it is one of the things that makes our country the luckiest place to live on earth. We have generosity that is shared amongst neighbours and has been fostered by learning of each other's experiences, cultures and values. Dog-whistle politics drives a spear through that generosity, that goodwill and that basic Australian value of giving each other a fair go.

Three years ago, when Julia Gillard took over the leadership of the Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd warned that there would be a lurch to the right on refugee policy. Sadly, that is exactly what we have seen. Julia Gillard and the Labor Party have shown no courage and have not stood up to Tony Abbott's fearmongering on refugees. They are locked in a race to the bottom on immigration policy.

The question that lingers in my mind is: if there were a leadership change in the Labor Party, what would happen? Would Kevin Rudd lift the work ban that currently exists on refugees? Would Kevin Rudd say that it was time that the Labor Party returned to a humane policy that treated refugees as people, not as political footballs? I do not know the answers to those questions, but what I do know is that, as we get closer to election day, we need more voices from this place to stand up and call out the demeaning, nasty and cruel beating up on a minority group for no fault of their own, except that they have fled a brutal regime. We should be standing up for what Australia is known as—as the caring and lucky country. Refugees are here to make our country great.