Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I think it would be useful for the honourable members opposite to actually listen to some figures. The first claim is that it was their immigration policy, the Pacific solution, which had children behind razor wire, that caused a reduction in asylum seekers coming to our shores. That is their first claim. The second claim is that it is this government’s approach to immigration policy that has caused the increase in asylum seekers coming to Australian shores—leaving aside the fact that, when we changed temporary protection visas, those opposite did not vote against it; leaving aside the fact that, when we said we were abolishing the Pacific solution, the shadow minister for immigration said she supported that course of policy action; leaving aside the fact that, when we said we were going to remove children from behind razor wire, they embraced that as a policy solution as well. Let us leave aside those minor technical details and go to the two core claims.

The first claim is that Liberal immigration policy was the cause of the decrease in boat arrivals in Australia in the period following 2001—particularly in 1999, when temporary protection visas were introduced. Because of that, those opposite claim, there were significant reductions in the arrival of boatpeople from Afghanistan, from Iraq and also from Sri Lanka. That is the essence of their claim. The Liberal Party claims that this data is unquestionable and completely definitive proof that it was their policy that led to a reduction in asylum claims. But here is the unfortunate statistical fact: over the same period of time the reduction in the numbers of Afghans, Sri Lankans and Iraqis claiming asylum around the world also dropped—and by significant orders of magnitude. Around the world, between 2001 and 2003, Afghan asylum applications dropped from 52,000 to 14,000—that is around the world. Iraqis claiming asylum around the world dropped from 52,000 to 27,000. For Sri Lankans, that number dropped around the world from 14,500 to 5,600.

The reduction in asylum claims by Afghans, Iraqis and Sri Lankans, of which the Liberal Party is so proud in their belief that that was actually a direct cause of their policy, is in fact a global reality happening in every country around the world at about the same time. This was not Australian government policy at work at the time; it was because of the global reduction caused by local events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sri Lankan, and the global response to it.

Let us go to claim No. 2 advanced by those opposite. The second core claim of the Liberal immigration debate—the fear campaign currently being launched—is that it was the introduction of the government’s immigration policy that led to an increase in asylum seekers arriving on our shores. Again, the script goes like this: because of these government changes we saw an increase in the number of Afghans arriving in Australia from 31 in 2005 to 52 in 2008 and the number of Sri Lankans increasing from 320 to 417 over the same period. Unfortunately for the Liberal Party, over the same period the number of Afghans claiming asylum around the world increased in the same period approximately from 7,700 to 18,000. The number of Sri Lankans applying for asylum around the world increased from 5,600 to 9,600. The increase in asylum claims by Afghans and Sri Lankans, which the Liberal Party is, shall we say, claiming to have been due to a change of government policy here in Australia, has been reflected around the world.

See this speech in context