Kay Elson (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. It is a bill that without doubt strengthens our government’s positive and successful border protection policies. In effect, this bill will treat unauthorised arrivals who enter the Australian mainland by sea, or by air after attempting to enter by sea, the same as unauthorised entrants to excised offshore places. This surely makes good sense. It means that all illegal entrants will be treated in the same way whether they happen to make it to the mainland or to an offshore island. It is a very positive outcome whereby in recent years we have managed to dramatically decrease the number of illegal entrants to our shores. In fact in 2001-02 there were just 1,277 illegal arrivals on seven boats. The following year—the year after our strong border protection measures were introduced—there was not one unauthorised arrival by boat. In 2003-04 there was just one boat carrying 53 people.

Of course the case of 43 West Papuans who arrived at Cape York in January this year has received much media attention. I do not believe that this legislation is any sort of knee-jerk reaction to that particular situation, as many in the media and on the other side have tried to assert. I do not believe that at all. Rather I think that case exposed an inequity and a loophole in the current system which this legislation will close. Personally I think any regulation that makes it tougher for people to enter our borders illegally should be strongly supported. I know that the vast majority of people in my electorate of Forde certainly support and appreciate the tough stand that the government has taken on this particular issue.

I want to make a distinction here today in this debate. Decreasing the level of arrivals of illegal entrants to our shores does not in any way mean we are diminishing our responsibility as global citizens to take our share of genuine refugees. This is where the critics of the government’s tough border protection measures get it all wrong. In 2004-05 a total of 13,178 visas were granted under our humanitarian program. This included a 50 per cent increase in the number of allocated refugee places. So it was a 50 per cent increase in the number of refugees that we accepted as a nation.

Having recently visited a refugee camp at Kakuma in Kenya, on the Sudanese border, I know what circumstances these unfortunate people face. I know the huge impact it has when they are given the news that they have been accepted for migration to Australia. These are people living in dire conditions. Many of them wait for a number of years before being accepted by another country. They cannot afford to travel through various nations. They cannot afford to pay people smugglers to get them where they ultimately want to end up. They are genuine and they are working through the international framework that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has put in place. These are the people who rightly ought to be the focus of our humanitarian program.

Why should anyone who happens to be able to get illegal passage to our mainland or to an excised island be subject to less stringent guidelines? Why should they have access to more legal channels of appeal? Why shouldn’t they be processed in accordance with the UNHCR? The fact is that our streamlining of the system in Australia has made it fairer for genuine refugees around the world. It is precisely because of the strong measures we introduced in September 2001, particularly in relation to offshore processing, that we were able to afford to increase our refugee intake by 50 per cent last year. That is surely a worthy humanitarian outcome. Those who decry our strong approach ought to be taking a look at the bigger picture. They ought to be looking at the conditions in which people are living in places like Kenya. I am sure very few of those who like to portray our government as heartless have ever visited a genuine refugee camp. I heard the member for Brand inviting government members to ‘come on over and support Labor on this bill’. I invite him to go on over to the refugee camps in Africa and see the conditions they live in there. They are absolutely appalling. They live in these conditions while they are waiting to come on over to Australia, but they are pushed further down the queue each time queuejumpers in Australia arrive on our shores illegally.

The other positive thing about those who are processed offshore is that on Nauru or in Papua New Guinea they are not subject to mandatory detention as they are on the mainland or on Christmas Island. Surely that has to be a positive outcome. The same people who object so strongly to mandatory detention are the ones who complain bitterly about our offshore processing, but the fact is that offshore processing means that people are not subject to mandatory detention. Isn’t that exactly what they want?

I also want to note in today’s debate the changes that were made to this legislation on 21 June to help address the concerns that some of my colleagues had about the original legislation. For the record, I did not share their concern and I was happy to support the original proposal. But I note that the changes include a five-year sunset clause, a review process and the inclusion of a provision to affirm the principle that minors will be detained only as a measure of last resort. These measures do no significantly alter the original legislation, and I am pleased that they have allayed some of the concerns that people may have had. In this context, I reiterate that the government does not take these steps lightly. Contrary to what some people might think, we are a compassionate government and we do believe that detaining minors should always be a measure of last resort.

This is a complex issue. The nature of ‘illegal entry’ means that many people arrive without any documentation and it is totally appropriate that we thoroughly ascertain the suitability of anyone entering this country. To do otherwise would pose a potential security risk to our nation in these uncertain times. It should also be remembered that people who enter our nation illegally, even those claiming refugee status, are breaking the law. It is totally appropriate that they are dealt with in a manner of our choosing, consistent with community standards and expectations. As I said before, the vast majority of people in my electorate support the strong and successful border protection policies that our government have put in place.

This legislation further strengthens our border protection and national security. As we see it, illegal entrants to either the mainland or an excised area are now rightly processed under the same international regime as those unfortunate people seeking asylum in refugee camps in Africa. Why should someone who can afford to pay a people smuggler or have the opportunity to make the decision to attempt to enter Australia illegally have access to the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal or the Australian courts when a Sudanese refugee, waiting in a refugee camp for many years and desperately wanting to come to Australia, does not have access to these bodies? Where is the injustice in treating these individuals in the same manner under the UNHCR guidelines?

The truth is that Australia, an island nation, must be vigilant in this matter. We simply cannot afford to be seen as a soft target in any way. The majority of Australians support the strong stance the government has taken on this issue. They recognise that the Australian ideal of a ‘fair go’ is undermined when people can queue jump or try backdoor measures to get what they want. Australians also know that, in this day and age, border security is more important than ever and illegal entrants have to be strictly dealt with, especially as many do not have any identification papers.

I do not wish to take up an inordinate amount of time in today’s debate. To me, this legislation makes sense and is entirely equitable. As I said at the outset, I am sure members opposite will deride this bill as a knee-jerk reaction to West Papuans seeking asylum. That merely highlighted the inequity in the way claims are processed on the mainland versus on excised islands. This bill closes the loophole. It makes our successful border protection policies even more effective as a deterrent to people smugglers. I am pleased to support this legislation.

See this speech in context