Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I support the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country but I also support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Cook. I want first to put a proposition about my own level of engagement in these issues. In the whole of my time in public life I have always taken a passionate interest in the plight of refugees—people who are victims of torture, people who are persecuted, people who have to flee. The difficulty has always been that there are many more people in those circumstances than we are able to help or the rest of the world is able to help. When you see that 10 million people have been found to be refugees and 40 million people have been displaced, the enormity of the problem can be understood.

I have sometimes joked that, given the accommodation that has been provided to people smugglers, to choose who should be helped and given access to Australia perhaps the government should go to refugee camps like Kakuma in Africa, where there are 90,000 people, and say, 'If you pay the government $10,000, we will give you a place'. People look at me in absolute horror for suggesting that the way in which someone obtained a place was that the government charged them $10,000. It has always seemed to me that, if it was so ridiculous for a government to do that, why would you accommodate it with policies that have brought large numbers of people to Australia?

I have been fascinated by the words uttered by ministers—that this is a matter in which we need to work together; that this is a matter where the politics is over; that this is a matter that, in the words of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, is above politics. There were some people on the other side who had no trouble in pursuing politics, suggesting that I have no interest in the plight of genuine refugees in need of help and characterising in a particular way the measures implemented by the former government, which brought the smuggling effectively to an end and enabled us to concentrate on those who needed help most. This government thinks it is now beyond politics yet its measures to unwind the policies that worked have brought about the horrific circumstance we now face.

In the minister's statement, he refers to advice from his department which says:

In the year to 8 September 2012, there have been 135 boats carrying 8,851 passengers. The number of passengers who arrived in the first seven months of 2012 (7,120) exceeded the number who arrived in total in each of 2011 and 2010.

The enormity of that problem was not created by the opposition. The enormity of the problem we face—the loss of life we have suffered—has been brought about because the policies which had been working were changed.

I welcome the fact that this one aspect—the designation of Nauru as a regional processing country—is being pursued. I welcome the fact that the Manus Island option will be pursued. But I have always seen this as an issue towards which, if you are going to have effective policies in place, you need to use every weapon in your armoury. It is not a menu you can pick and choose from. You have to be totally realistic about what you are doing. If you are determined to close down people-smuggling, you have to tell it as it is. This government still wants to use words which suggest they are not serious.

Let me just deal with the matters before us. At the moment, we have a report which the government says it has accepted—it is going to implement all the measures which have been suggested. But we are still only dealing with offshore processing at this point in time. The report suggests more needs to be done. The only other matter the Minister for Home Affairs wanted to mention was an increase in the size of the refugee program.

Nobody seems to have focused on other aspects of the advice. I will mention just two of them. The advice to the government was quite clear:

Australian policy settings do influence the flows of irregular migration to Australia. Those settings need to address the factors ‘pushing’ as well as ‘pulling …

The government's expert panel also makes it very clear:

The single most important priority in preventing people from risking their lives on dangerous maritime voyages is to recalibrate Australian policy settings to achieve an outcome that asylum seekers will not be advantaged if they pay people smugglers to attempt dangerous irregular entry into Australia instead of pursuing regular migration pathways and international protection …

It goes on to talk about some of the other incentives that exist. It says:

Incentives to use regular migration and protection pathways need to be complemented by policy measures that send a coherent and unambiguously clear message that disincentives to irregular maritime migration to Australia will be immediate and real.

I hear the words coming from the government about people being sent offshore for processing. I do not hear them saying unambiguously that the no-disadvantage test will apply. I hear weasel words which suggest that, if you have arrived in Australia on a boat, you 'might be' sent to Nauru—I think the words they use are 'should be' sent to Nauru—but I never hear the words 'will be' sent to Nauru. I understand why that is the case. The government is now trying to deal with numbers which exceed even the capacity of Nauru and Manus Island—numbers beyond what those places can take. That is why they are using the weasel words. We are not creating the perception that Australia is closing its borders.

There are other options the government can pursue. Their own expert panel looked at these. The government say, 'The panel did not recommend TPVs.' The government tells us that they do not want to go down the route of TPVs—denying permanent residence to people who are found to be refugees. If they happen to get to Nauru or Manus Island and are processed and found to be refugees, they are then brought to Australia for resettlement. But the government's panel, in paragraph xx on page 13, said:

Other measures to discourage dangerous and irregular maritime voyages to Australia should include changes to family reunion arrangements as they relate to IMAs in Australia, a more effective focus on the return of failed asylum seekers to their home country and more sustained strategies for the disruption of people smuggling operations both in Australia and abroad.

What they were saying, in talking about 'eliminating the advantages of family reunion', was: 'Use TPVs'. Maybe they did not say it in the same words, but it was quite clear and unambiguous. Yet the government would have you believe that this report did not recommend implementing all the Howard measures.

The second aspect of the report I will mention, which I found particularly interesting, was the panel's view on turning back vessels. On page 53, paragraph 3.77, the report says:

Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures, but only in circumstances where a range of operational, safety of life, diplomatic and legal conditions are met …

That is the advice that this government has received, yet it would have you believe that we should not work to restore turning back boats.

If the government were serious about this issue, if they wanted to get the politics out of it and put in place measures that actually work and are known to work, they would support the amendment moved by the member for Cook. That is how you get the politics out of it and make it clear and unambiguous. Even the government's own Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers—sure, using a few weasel words so it did not look like they were putting it too much in the government's face—made it clear you have to get the migration benefits out; that is essentially TPVs by another name. As for turning back vessels, they say it is possible, yet the government suggest that it is not.

As I said, the problem the government have in their approach to this matter is that they have effectively walked away from cooperation with our neighbours, because they are not seen as being serious about people-smuggling. I found an item in the Northern Territory News, and it was probably in other newspapers, on 9 August this year that was a message from Jakarta, from a senior Indonesian MP, Mahfudz Siddiq. He is quoted as saying, in relation to unauthorised arrivals:

… the apparent lack of a working policy is sending a message that Australia's borders are open.

He went on to say:

'Indonesia is being dragged into the problem, significantly impacted, and it's quite worrying …'

and:

'… Australia must have a strict and clear policy that explains whether they're still open or not.'

The Indonesians do not want people going there, seeking to access Australia unlawfully. They want Australia to be serious about these matters. They were distressed when the Howard measures that worked were unwound, for political reasons, by this government. They made that clear when they said things like, 'What are you doing about the sugar? Why do you expect us to help you when you're not helping yourself?'—in other words, 'What are you, Australia, doing about the incentives that you have put into the system to bring people on boats, on dangerous voyages, to Australia?'

So we are still in the situation where the government thinks it is choosing from a menu: 'We'll take one measure. We'll open Nauru. Hope it works.' Let me say very clearly that I think the task is bigger and harder than the task the Howard government faced. The prospect of the Nauru arrangement alone working is, in my judgement, quite remote. All the measures that we in government used need to be brought to bear, and quickly, on these matters to bring them under control. The sooner the government comes to the realisation you can get the politics out of it by adopting the measures that we have argued for—in other words, accept the amendment—the better.

See this speech in context