Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, it is always important to find things in these discussions on which we can agree. It has been difficult, but I think we can come to a cross-party agreement that there is a genuine need to wipe out the scourge of people-smuggling across our planet. That is something we can agree on, and that is about it really for the points of agreement. It is really important that we understand that, and certainly the Rudd government has consistently said that. Before our election, during the campaign for the last election, we talked about the need to keep our country safe; we talked about the need for effective border security. But we also talked about the need to take up most righteously our international obligations and to ensure that we as a country get the balance right between compassion and concern for those people in our part of the globe who are seeking asylum, and the need to have border security.

Consistently in the contributions we have heard from across the chamber, it is very rare that we have heard the term ‘asylum seeker’ used. It is an understanding across all nations, and particularly in unity with the United Nations refugee organisation, that we understand that across our globe there is a need for people who are facing war and terror in their own countries to seek asylum elsewhere. Australia is part of the Asia-Pacific region. There is no argument about that across the chamber either, so I should be pleased; there are two things we agree on. But we made clear in our pre-election promise that we would work effectively within the UN process; we would understand what our obligations were as a country and that we would ensure that we would make our borders secure; we would ensure that people seeking asylum would receive their rights to be treated with compassion and by the law; and that most assuredly we would ensure that, to the best of our ability, no further boats would be lost on the oceans and that we would maintain that scrutiny of our neighbourhood in that process. That is the basis of our whole policy.

It seems to me quite disappointing that once again, with an election looming, which certainly colours the passion around some of the debating issues we have heard, there is an attempt to demonise those people who most need consideration—that is, the people who are seeking asylum. We should be demonising those who are trying to make a profit and trying to make a gain out of those people, and that reflects in the policy that the Rudd government has taken forward not just within Australia but across the international debates around the scourge of people-smuggling as to the need for tough penalties for people who are found to have broken that law and also for effective policing across many nations not just in the local Pacific and Asian areas but across international communities. We look at trying to break the networks that have arisen to take those people who are most in need, to use them and to try to make money out of them through people-smuggling. That is one element of our policy: to ensure that the issues around people-smuggling are criminalised, that there is swift action taken, that anyone who is found to be breaching those laws is brought to justice, both within Australia and internationally, where the AFP can be involved. I do not think that anyone can argue that that is not the process.

The other side is to ensure that Australia’s borders are as safe as they can be, and certainly we have heard from some other speakers in this debate about the budget allocations that have been made to ensure that we have more scrutiny of the seas around Australia, so that we ensure that through our coastguard and through other elements, such as our Navy and using those people who are working on the international aspects of security, we are scrutinising the known routes that are taken by the people who tend to use boats as their means of transport. Consistently this debate seems to focus on people using boats, although we all know that looking at border security is much more than that and we have to ensure that all ways of coming to Australia receive effective scrutiny. And that has also been a process we have used in Australia through the Australian Federal Police and the various parts of airline security as well as working with the legal system through the Attorney-General’s Department. So we have those aspects covered as well.

But if you are looking at the people who are using the horrors of the boats to come across the seas, in this place we have heard particularly confronting evidence about the dangers that people are exposed to when they use that method. I remember former Senator Linda Kirk, when she was in this place, talking many times about her knowledge gained through her work in South Australia providing support to asylum seekers. There were the individual stories of people who had, through sheer desperation, been forced for various reasons to seek their chance for asylum by getting onto the boats and using that system—and certainly when we are approaching debate on that system we have to be sure that we differentiate between those people who are making profit, the people smugglers, and those people who are genuinely seeking asylum.

The process that the Australian government has in place is very clear, and we have received some criticism from people who think we are being way too tough in our maintenance of a very strong mandatory detention program. Of course it is different to that which was used by the previous government. The way it saw mandatory detention is considerably different to the way the Rudd government sees it. The Rudd government is particularly clear that it sees that everybody who comes into this country without the due process of seeking visas, so coming into this country that way, is subject to a form of detention as they receive identity and health checks to ensure that they are understood to fit the laws of our country. We also work with the UNHCR particularly carefully to ensure that people are clearly defined on their needs to fit the definition of asylum seeker, and that will continue to be the basis of the policy.

We have heard the minister clarify, after being asked the same question on many occasions in this place and in a range of different ways, what our policy is. People who are coming to this country need to be subject to health and security checks to determine that they are real refugees, that they are genuine people fleeing terror and conflict and that they are seeking a new life in safety. What we found, through the process on Christmas Island, was that the vast majority of people who, through the horrors of people-smuggling, ended up on Christmas Island and found their way to this country under the previous government and under this government did meet the requirements of that policy. When their identities were clarified, when they had the benefit of health checks and when they were interviewed to find out what their reasons were for seeking asylum, the vast majority of people were determined to be true refugees under international law.

That little point seems to be somehow lost in the argument. When people are so quick to attack the policies of the government they forget that the people who are in the middle of this discussion are actually those who are requiring our support and compassion because they are genuine refugees. They have had to flee circumstances that I do not think anyone in this room can genuinely understand. For a whole range of reasons, they have been forced by their circumstances to flee.

I got quite confused for a while when I kept hearing about pushing and pulling. Nonetheless, ‘push factor’ seems to be a particularly sanitised term to describe areas that are caught up in horrific struggles and postwar situations, particularly in our region. The vast majority of people seeking asylum in this country in the last two years have come from Afghanistan, and no-one can argue about the warlike situation in Afghanistan. The fact that our own troops are there indicates that there is a warlike situation. The people who sought asylum and went through the processes of assessment told us clearly about their circumstances and talked about horrific discrimination, war and horror where their families were divided and where they felt unsafe. Under those circumstances, they were drawn to taking amazing risks. On that basis we should be able to consider the issues that they have told us about and to work through the process with respect.

Most importantly, we need to ensure that we have clear policies on security, and the government has spread out through its budget processes the increased security measures it is taking. There is the expanded process for Christmas Island so that there is accommodation for more people. The minister has already presented a plan for the future of the facility at Christmas Island should there be too many people on the island. There has been nothing hidden. It has been clear. It has been strong. What it has had is a degree of realism that was not shared in previous governments. It acknowledges the role of the people, ensures their rights are maintained throughout this whole debate and makes sure that people’s terror and people’s pain are not translated into easy political lines. Too often that is lost in the debate. We lose the circumstances of those people about whom we are speaking. That is not something that the Rudd government will do.

We will continue with our determination to accept our responsibilities as a government and to accept our responsibilities in the international arena to ensure that people who are seeking asylum receive respect while their circumstances are clearly checked. For anyone trying to enter this country for other purposes and who are not genuine refugees, the process of deportation will continue. We had, in the last two years, a number of people returned to their places of birth or to other areas where they were able to be located.

Nonetheless, there is a plan, despite the strident accusations from those on the other side, and a commitment from this government to continue, without being diverted by having numbers thrown across the chamber and allegations made, to be part of the international community working effectively on a worldwide issue, which, sadly, is an international problem and one where we each have to play our role.