House debates

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Matters of Public Importance

Border Protection

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The chaos caused by the failure of the Government’s border protection policies

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

3:51 pm

Photo of Malcolm TurnbullMalcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

Today, and for the past 10 days, our nation has been watching the distressing, disturbing outcome of a colossal policy failure by the Rudd government. It is a fundamental responsibility of any government to secure and protect Australia’s borders and in particular to eliminate entirely, as far as possible, people-smuggling and the unauthorised maritime arrivals of their asylum-seeking passengers.

Another fundamental responsibility is to honour fully our international obligations and our long and distinguished traditions as a nation generous to those who seek refuge from war and persecution. Achieving these two objectives simultaneously is a critical test for any government. This government is failing that test abysmally. Its border protection policies have descended into chaos. Today, 78 asylum seekers sit aboard an Australian Customs vessel, the Oceanic Viking, in waters off the Indonesian island of Bintan, their fate uncertain.

This sorry saga is emblematic of a policy debacle for which the Prime Minister and this government are refusing to accept responsibility. Not one question about the Oceanic Viking has been answered other than with a contemptuous, savage and sneering attack on the opposition. The truth is that this debacle is a disaster entirely of the government’s own making. Against the advice of the Australian Federal Police, against the advice of the opposition, against warnings from the Indonesian Police and the International Organisation for Migration about the consequences of changes to Australia’s immigration rules, this government chose deliberately to unpick the fabric of the coalition’s strong border protection policy—a policy that had worked. The outcome is now there for all to see.

Labor’s policies have undermined the strength and integrity of our border protection. They have had the effect of outsourcing Australia’s generous refugee program to people smugglers. They have placed unacceptable stresses on our Navy personnel and Customs officers as they attempt to do their job and stop this illegal trade. They have had the effect of relegating further back in the queue thousands of deserving people waiting to have their claims for asylum processed in the normal, legal and appropriate way. Labor’s policies are imposing intense pressures on our friends in Indonesia, concerned that they have come to be seen in the words of the provincial governor Abdullah as ‘a dumping ground for asylum seekers’.

How did it all come to this? From June through to August last year this government chose deliberately and with much fanfare to adopt a new policy approach—a softly, softly approach to Australia’s border protection regime. This had the effect of unwinding a cluster of policy measures put in place over many years by the previous government to stem the flow of unauthorised arrivals to Australia. These policies had been controversial; they had been, from time to time, amended and refined—but they had also been effective. But Labor decided the time had come to put its own stamp on immigration policy. The policy changes included the abolition of temporary protection visas, the relaxation of immigration detention policy, the abolition of detention debt, the abolition of the 45-day rule, and the relaxation of the citizenship test.

The government said this would make Australia’s treatment of refugees more humane and more generous. But they also said that none of these changes would have any effect or impact whatsoever on the flow of asylum seekers. Indeed, they said they could abolish the Howard government’s policies but maintain the Howard government’s record of no boats. In short, the government believed it could have its cake and eat it too. Instead, the clear message sent out to the world was that the border protection policies of the Howard era had been weakened. That message—that perception—was heard loud and clear, mostly by the racketeers and criminals who make huge profits by encouraging vulnerable people to take to the oceans in unseaworthy vessels in the hope of being rescued and then taken to Australia.

We in the opposition were warning the government a year ago that they risked reaping a bitter harvest with these reckless and ill-considered changes to our border protection policies. On 17 November last year, the member for Murray, as shadow minister for immigration, issued a media statement on the interception of a fifth boat since Labor’s policy changes, warning:

… the people smugglers are back in business taking advantage of those with the cash and the contacts, who are willing to risk all in a sea dash to the nearest landing place in Australia.

On 1 December in this House she asked the following question to the Prime Minister:

I refer the Prime Minister to the recent surge in the number of boat people attempting to reach Australia and the statement by the chief of mission in Indonesia of the International Organisation for Migration, Mr Steve Cook: ‘People smugglers have clearly noted that there has been a change in policy and they’re testing the envelope.’

The member for Murray then asked the Prime Minister:

… isn’t the government giving a green light to people smugglers?

This, I remind the House, was 1 December last year. The opposition’s questions at the time cited not only the concerns of the International Organisation for Migration but also the warning from Mr Paulus Purwoko, the deputy chief of criminal investigation for the Indonesian National Police. In November Mr Purwoko said attempted boat crossings to Australia were increasing significantly, causing Indonesia grave concern. These were genuine concerns raised by serious people focussed on the task at hand.

So how did the government respond? Consistent with his demeanour throughout this spectacular policy failure, the Prime Minister treated all warnings contemptuously. Rather than addressing seriously and earnestly the policy issues raised by the opposition, he resorted, as he has done every day this week and last week, to mockery and scorn, seeking to ridicule all who dared to hold him to account for his policy failings. He responded to the member for Murray as follows:

In 2008 there have been four boats with 48 passengers. In 2007 there were five boats with 148 passengers. If this year we have had a surge, that was a deluge.

Does anyone in the House need reminding of what has happened since the Prime Minister responded so dismissively to the questions we asked of him around this same time last year? Since 1 December, 41 boats have arrived carrying 2,012 people. As I said earlier, that makes a grand total of 45 unauthorised boat arrivals since Labor changed Australia’s border protection policies with well over 2,000 asylum seekers having reached our shores. A deluge indeed, in the words of the Prime Minister himself. Looking back on those remarks by the Prime Minister almost a year ago, we are reminded of the notorious one-liner delivered by the former British Labour Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, back in 1979. Flying back from a trip to the Caribbean, he returned to a nation reeling from strike action across all the major industries during Britain’s so-called ‘winter of discontent’. Asked at the airport what he intended to do to end the crisis, Mr Callaghan answered, ‘Crisis? What crisis?’ The British never forgave Jim Callaghan the smug complacency evident in that one remark.

Today this Prime Minister should be taking heed of that lesson. He must abandon immediately his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the failings of policy that have led to this sorry state of affairs. The Prime Minister has insisted throughout that the policy changes he effected will have no impact on the number of unauthorised arrivals—no impact whatsoever. Pull factors are irrelevant, according to the Prime Minister. He asks us to believe it is just a complete coincidence that within months of the policies introduced by him the trickle of asylum seekers became a steady stream and now, in his own words, ‘a deluge’. The numbers speak for themselves. Yet the Prime Minster remains in denial. His government remains in denial.

Rather than confront his own failings, the Prime Minister seeks refuge in misrepresentation and spin. He would much rather hold the opposition to account for the government’s failings, and his appetite for moral posturing knows no bounds. He says he will not accept criticism or scrutiny from those who put children behind bars. What the Prime Minister never acknowledges is that it was the Keating Labor government that introduced mandatory detention for unlawful asylum seekers, including women and children, in 1992. In this selective airbrushing of history, he also fails to acknowledge it was the Howard government in 2005 that amended the laws to provide for families and children to be removed from detention. I remind the Prime Minister of this as Australians watch the television footage of the conditions at the Tanjung Pinang detention centre on Bintan Island. I remind him of this as Australians see on their televisions the images of the razor wire. I remind him of this as we ponder the fate of those aboard the Oceanic Viking, five children and an elderly woman among them. I remind him of who is ultimately responsible for this outcome. Those 78 asylum seekers have been on that vessel for 10 days. This is a debacle. More than that, it is a disgrace.

Yet now all of a sudden the Prime Minister’s memory fails him. All of a sudden he does not remember the detail of the negotiations about how and why that vessel sailed for Indonesia, why it could not dock at the port of Merak, who decided it should be redirected to Bintan Island, and who decided that those 78 passengers should be transferred to the Tanjung Pinang detention centre. He does not know, as we have seen in the House today, how many people there are actually on the boat. He was not able to find out in the course of question time how many Customs officials and sailors are on the boat. He does not know that. He is not interested. He professes no interest or concern whatsoever in the welfare of the Customs officials, the crew or the asylum seekers. When given the opportunity to do so, he declined to answer the question.

Further to that, it has become quite apparent in his numerous nonanswers to our many questions about this that, as far we can see, the only involvement he has had himself as Prime Minster in this whole sorry affair that has captured the attention and concern of the entire nation is one conversation with the President of Indonesia. Beyond that he professes to have had no involvement at all and is unable to recall or account for the Australian officials and departments that are involved. This is just appalling obfuscation by the Prime Minster, the most notorious control freak we have seen in that office. The idea that he has no involvement with this other than a discussion with the Indonesian President is absurd. He is simply seeking to wash his hands of all responsibility for a fiasco entirely of his own making.

It is time for the Prime Minister to face up to the facts. He cannot escape responsibility for the people aboard that Customs vessel. He cannot refuse to answer for how his policies have led to this outcome. He says his policies are tough and humane. ‘Tough but humane’ is just another one of the phoney formulas dreamed up by the Winston Smith wannabes in his office to create an impression that the government’s border protection policies are something that they are not. In fact, this government’s policies are neither tough nor humane. They are dysfunctional. They do not work. They fail to achieve the object of the policy, which is to stop the people-smuggling. They have failed and they will continue to fail. Australians know that because they see with their own eyes how these policies are unravelling as each and every day passes.

Yet the Prime Minster arrogantly believes that, if he refuses to listen to this chorus of dissent, the issue will somehow go away, that Indonesia will solve the problem for him, that someone somewhere will take responsibility for him and that he will not have to take responsibility for his own actions. Australians want to see these issues addressed honestly and competently. They want this tragic farce to end. They do not want our generous humanitarian immigration program outsourced to criminal syndicates running people-smuggling rackets, and they do not want to see a Prime Minister seeking to evade any scrutiny over the Oceanic Viking debacle by attaching a confidentiality clause to his own role in the negotiations. They want to see this government, this Prime Minster, recognise the error of his ways and for once take the action needed to make our borders once again strong and secure.

4:05 pm

Photo of Stephen SmithStephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

As the Australian public well knows, boats carrying asylum seekers have been coming to Australia for many years—for 20 to 30 years, in my own memory. Of course the first ones that I personally remember are those that came in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. This was an issue that the Fraser government and subsequently the Hawke government had to deal with. So boats have been coming to Australia for many years, and governments of both political persuasions have had to deal with these issues. What do we see now? We see now very considerable numbers of displaced persons coming to our region as a result of military or civil conflict. We have seen in recent times, in the most recent period, people come to Australia or seek to come to Australia from Iraq; Iran; more recently, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area; and, most recently, Sri Lanka as a result of the military and civil conflict there, the civil war there. These are described quite sensibly as push factors, factors that drive people away from their homes, factors that we now see cause 40 million people in the world to be displaced and about a third of those potentially in or coming to our region.

So, how do we as a government grapple with those issues? The first thing the government did was to enhance our border protection and Customs protection arrangements. In the last budget, for example, over $450 million was expended to increase our maritime surveillance and to increase our aerial surveillance. This is a very important policy to effect because, as a maritime country and continent, we need to ensure that we protect our borders as much as we can. So we added to the border protection, the border security and the Customs protection and security arrangements effected by our predecessors. We added to those quite substantially. We have seen that with the additional maritime aerial surveillance activities.

The second thing that we did, which was very important, was to understand that, fundamentally, if you want to deal with this issue you can only deal with this issue appropriately and effectively by acting in conjunction with your neighbours—by acting in our region, with our friends and partners in the region. The government reinstituted the Bali process, which is the regional institution effected in the early 2000s to be the regional institution which deals with people-smuggling, people movement and human-trafficking issues. The former Indonesian foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda, and I convened the first ministerial-level meeting of the Bali process in three or four years. We did that in the course of this year. That was well attended and well supported in our region because it was not just Australia who had a difficulty or a problem with, for example, asylum seekers coming from Afghanistan or from the Afghanistan-Pakistan area. Indonesia had difficulties caused by the movement of Rohingya people from Myanmar, or Burma, or from Bangladesh. There are different problems created for different countries. The only way we can deal with this is by the so-called transit countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, to a lesser extent Singapore and to some extent Thailand, and the source countries, including now Sri Lanka, acting together. Only then can we seek to manage this issue and this problem.

The third thing that the government did was to say to our good friend and neighbour Indonesia that we need to enhance what we have been doing. There has been very good cooperation between Australia and Indonesia on this issue, not just in the course of this government’s time in office but in the course of our predecessor’s time in office. That assistance has included not just assistance to Indonesia—information sharing, intelligence sharing; assistance on detention facilities; assistance on processing, on settlement and on resettlement; and assistance to the two relevant international institutions, the International Organisation for Migration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That has been ongoing in Indonesia for a number of years, supported by governments of both political persuasions. But we said to Indonesia: given the increased difficulties that we face, given the heightened challenge that we face, in particular most recently from the aftermath of the civil conflict in Sri Lanka, we need to heighten our cooperation. In that respect you have seen not just me having discussions with my counterpart, and officials from a range of agencies having discussions with their counterparts, but the Prime Minister and President Yudhoyono having conversations to agree to enhance our cooperation. We are very hopeful that officials will be in a position to report progress to the Prime Minister and to the President of those enhanced and heightened cooperation arrangements at the APEC meeting in Singapore in the middle of November. When it comes to our relationship with Indonesia this is done not just under the structure of the Bali process but also, importantly, between Australia and Indonesia, as part of the Lombok treaty brought into effect by Hassan Wirajuda and me when we signed it in Perth in February 2008.

When it came to office the government also had a very strong view that it was possible to do these things so far as border protection was concerned but at the same time to deal with people who came to Australia’s territories and claimed asylum in a dignified and civilised manner—to treat those people in a way which, without equivocation, discharged our international legal and humanitarian obligations consistent with the refugee convention. That could be done in a civilised and dignified way and we did not have to go through the dark period that we went through in the course of the Howard government’s time in office, when our international reputation was shredded, when the community was divided and when a very dark period in our history left a stain on the reputation of Australia internationally. As a consequence of that we said that temporary protection visas should be abolished; the so-called Pacific island solution, which saw processing not take place either in a source, transit or receiving country but in Manus Island in Papua New Guinea or Nauru, countries that have no direct relationship with this difficulty or this problem, abolished; and the removal of women and children from behind razor wire. We made those changes because we believed those changes reflected a view that you could be tough, and have a system of border integrity and security, and at the same time discharge a humanitarian and an international legal obligation. We do not believe that those three major changes are the driving force behind what we now see. The clear driving force behind what we now see are the push factors that I have described.

I note the thesis of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for immigration that the cause, the sum total and entire cause of the difficulties we now face is the changes that we made.

Photo of Sharman StoneSharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | | Hansard source

That’s right.

Photo of Stephen SmithStephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

The shadow minister for immigration says, ‘That’s right.’ I ask the shadow minister for immigration, I ask the shadow minister for foreign affairs, and I have twice in this House asked the Leader of the Opposition: if it is your view—to which the shadow minister for immigration says ‘yes, that’s right’—that the sum total of the causes for this matter are the changes that the government made when it came to office, then tell us which ones you will reintroduce.

Photo of Sharman StoneSharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

Photo of Ms Anna BurkeMs Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! If the member for Murray wants to get her turn she will—

Photo of Ms Julie BishopMs Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

Photo of Ms Anna BurkeMs Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Deputy Leader of the Opposition!

Photo of Stephen SmithStephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

I noticed this morning at the doors, when the Leader of the Opposition walked out to speak to the media, he said—and I quote from the transcript headed: ‘Malcolm Turnbull: Transcript, Parliament House Canberra 28 October’:

… it is Kevin Rudd’s doing, every bit of it.

He unpicked the border protection policies of the previous government …

The journalist then went on to ask him a couple of questions, and I will refer to a couple in passing. A journalist asked:

Mr Turnbull who should take the asylum seekers, Indonesia or Australia, on board Viking?

Malcolm Turnbull said:

This is the question you should ask Mr Rudd.

Photo of Ms Julie BishopMs Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

Exactly.

Photo of Sharman StoneSharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | | Hansard source

You are in government.

Photo of Ms Anna BurkeMs Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Murray are warned!

Photo of Stephen SmithStephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

A journalist asked:

Does Indonesia need more money do you think?

Malcolm Turnbull said:

Well you’d have to ask Mr Rudd that or the Indonesians that.

Then a journalist asked the question about the changes that Mr Turnbull has referred to. They said:

… you don’t want to bring back a Pacific Solution. So where exactly do you stand on this?

Malcolm Turnbull said:

Well where we stand is to hold the Government to account.

In other words, the Liberal Party say on the one hand that the entire cause of this difficulty are the three changes that the government made when it came to office, which were taking women and children from behind razor wire in detention centres like Baxter, abolishing the system of temporary protection visas and abolishing the Pacific island solution. You say that the abolition of those three things are the sum total—

Photo of Sharman StoneSharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | | Hansard source

That’s right.

Photo of Stephen SmithStephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

of all our problems—and you said that that is right—but you will not say whether if you were elected to office you will reintroduce them.

A lot was said by the Leader of the Opposition today in question time about the 78 asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. Let us be absolutely crystal clear about three issues that are currently before the Australian public. The first is that a boatload of over 250 Sri Lankans were intercepted by Indonesian authorities within Indonesian waters and taken to the port of Merak. There have been over 80 interceptions and interdictions by Indonesian authorities within their territory over the last three to four years. This one was very significant because it was the first occasion in which an interdiction in Indonesian waters was made by Indonesian naval authorities. We welcome that very much. We have heard the Indonesian authorities say that they will wait until the asylum seekers on that boat want to get off. Then they will be processed in accordance with the UNHCR procedures in Indonesia—bearing in mind that there is of course an immigration directive in Indonesia from 2002 which says that anyone claiming asylum in Indonesia will be treated in accordance with UNHCR procedures. That is one issue before the public eye. And we welcome very much that interdiction. I have seen very many criticisms by the opposition of Indonesia and what is occurring, and I certainly hope that they are not criticising that.

The second issue is the Oceanic Viking. Let us very clearly understand what the Oceanic Viking situation is all about and what the opposition have said about that matter. Australia authorities received a request from Indonesian search and rescue authorities to render assistance in Indonesia’s search and rescue area. We did two things. There was a check made of whether any commercial ships were in the vicinity to see whether they could render assistance. There were not. So HMAS Armidale came to the ship’s assistance to discharge our humanitarian and our safety at sea obligations.

When that was done, we knew only too well that there would necessarily be immigration, refugee and humanitarian consequences flowing as a result of that. The view which we put to Indonesia was: ‘We have picked these people up at your request in your search and rescue area. We believe that they should go to Indonesia.’ The Indonesian President said: ‘Yes, I agree with that. They should come to Indonesia.’ That is in the process of being effected. Indonesia said, ‘Yes, they can come to Indonesia.’ It is now a matter of discussion between Indonesian officials and Australian officials on board the Oceanic Viking as to how that embarkation will be effected.

What I find very unclear is whether the opposition, firstly, believed that the refugees in the boat should have been picked up. There have been questions in this House which go to whether the boat was in distress because it had been disabled by those people on board. We have questions today about whether it was within the capacity of the Oceanic Viking and, I assume, HMAS Armidale to pick people up because there might have been a numerical difficulty.

Secondly, the opposition have been very unclear as to where they believed the Oceanic Viking should go. Our view was that it should go to Indonesia; that was the Indonesian President’s view. The shadow minister for immigration, on 20 October, was asked, ‘What should they do with these people who are on this ship?’ The response was, ‘You should ask the federal government about that.’ A question from a journalist was, ‘What do you think?’ After about half a page of transcript, the answer was, ‘These people should be taken to Indonesia.’ The shadow minister for foreign affairs, Ms Bishop, was on News Radio on 21 October and said ‘we welcome the decision of Indonesia to take the 78 people’. But I was confused by her on 25 October when in a doorstop interview a journalist asked: ‘Should that boat continue on to Indonesia, then? What does the coalition think should happen to the boat? Should they come to Australia?’ Ms Bishop said, ‘The coalition is not in government.’ Malcolm Turnbull on the doors today was asked, ‘Mr Turnbull, who should take the asylum seekers, Indonesia or Australia, on board the Viking.’ Mr Turnbull said, ‘This is a question that you should ask Mr Rudd.’

Maybe they are all taking the advice of the former minister for immigration, Mr Ruddock. He was asked on 28 October whether Indonesia or Australia should take the Oceanic Viking passengers. He said, ‘I’m not going into micromanagement.’ On 23 October on Sky News he was asked the same question and Mr Ruddock said, ‘I’ve advised all my colleagues that that is the question that they shouldn’t answer.’ We have the Liberal Party opposition in here giving lectures to the Australian parliament and the Australian people about how to deal with asylum seekers. They have a hide. They have a hide to come into this House and seek to give lectures about how people should be treated and then say—on their own admission today—that all of these ills have been caused by the government making three changes, including abolishing temporary protection visas and taking women and children out from razor wire, while not saying that they will reintroduce them. (Time expired)

4:21 pm

Photo of Ms Julie BishopMs Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has lost control of Australia’s border protection system. He refuses to take responsibility for the chaos that he has caused. If we needed any further evidence that the government’s border protection policy is in chaos, just look at what has happened over the last 10 days. An Australian Customs vessel has on board 78 asylum seekers. According to the Prime Minister, he made a deal with the President of Indonesia for those asylum seekers to be taken onshore in Indonesia. Ten days later, the Australian Customs vessel is still at sea, the 78 asylum seekers are still on board and there is no solution in sight. There is no leadership and no responsibility.

Take question time over the last couple of days. The Prime Minister has refused to state the terms of the arrangements he made with the Indonesian President to take the 78 asylum seekers on board. He could not state when he knew that those arrangements would change because the Indonesians would not allow the boat to dock in Merak. He could not state what arrangements are currently in place for the 78 asylum seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking even though his foreign minister has been out every day saying it is about to dock, and that does not materialise.

The Prime Minister has been unable to state what arrangements are occurring now for the 78 asylum seekers on board an Australian government vessel. The Prime Minister could not state how many people are on board the vessel. He could not give any details as to the current health and welfare of the Australian crew, the Customs officers or the 78 asylum seekers. Ten days ago he said it was a humanitarian crisis because there was a sick child on board. Ten days later he cannot tell the Australian people about the current health and wellbeing of any of the people on board the Oceanic Viking.

As the Australian Customs vessel spends its 10th day, heading into its 11th day, at sea, as another boat carrying 255 asylum seekers that was on its way to Australia sits in the port of Merak, after a boat arrived undetected earlier this year at Christmas Island and after another boat made its way halfway down the Western Australian coast earlier this year before being detected, and as now 45 boats have made the treacherous journey to Australia before being intercepted or brought to Christmas Island, the Australian people are entitled to ask, ‘Who is now in control of Australia’s border protection policy?’ It is certainly not the Prime Minister of this country. Is it the people smugglers? Is it the Indonesian President? Is it the regional governors of Indonesia? Who is in charge of this border protection policy?

The Prime Minister knows that his shambolic, chaotic handling of the border protection policy is starting to affect his image of all control. The controlling Prime Minister is now out of control. And because the Prime Minister steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the softening of Australia’s border protection laws in August 2008 has made Australia a target for people smugglers, the border protection policy will continue to fail. Until he acknowledges that he made a mistake and seeks to rectify it, this border protection policy will continue to be in chaos.

To refuse to accept the link between the softening of the border protection laws and the massive surge in people smuggling just defies belief. In 14 months, 45 boats have been intercepted or have arrived on Christmas Island. The numbers are self-evident. But there is also evidence out of the mouths of the people smugglers themselves, who have told journalists who have interviewed them that the changes in the laws have encouraged them to take more clients on board to make the treacherous journey to Australia. The asylum seekers themselves have said that the changes in the government’s policies have encouraged them to take that journey.

The sheer numbers equate to a colossal policy failure based on the standards the Labor Party, when in opposition, set for the Howard government—their own standards that they set for the Howard government but have refused to meet themselves. Between 2002 and 2008, when the Howard government’s border protection policy laws were in place, there was an average of three boats a year. But in the period 2002 to 2005 there were three boats in three years. When the first boat arrived in early 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the shadow immigration minister, said ‘Boat proves government has no solutions’. If one boat proves that a government has no solutions, what do 45 boats prove?

When the second boat arrived in 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister, then the shadow immigration minister, said, ‘Another boat on the way, another policy failure’. Two boats equate to a policy failure according to the Labor Party when in opposition. Then a third boat arrived 12 months later—three boats in three years. In early 2004 another boat arrived—the third boat. The Foreign Minister, then the shadow minister for immigration, said this was a wake-up call for the Howard government. If three boats in three years is a wake-up call, 45 boats mean that this government is asleep, that this government is in a coma when it comes to the border protection policies of this country.

The Prime Minister refuses—incredibly, unbelievably—to acknowledge any pull factors at all as a result of his changes to the border protection policies. And it was not just three changes; this government has made a whole raft of changes over a period of time. But in the face of the evidence from the people smugglers, from the asylum seekers and from the Australian Federal Police report—which the minister at the table obviously still has not read and which warned the government that its changes in border protection policies would attract the people-smuggling trade—in the face of the Indonesian ambassador’s specific warnings that the changes in policies would be used as a marketing tool and in the face of the International Organisation for Migration’s statement that the people smugglers were pushing the envelope as a result of the government’s changes in border protection laws, all the Prime Minister can do is refer to push factors. He says that since 2005 there has been a massive increase in asylum seekers and refugees around the world.

If there was a massive increase from 2005, why did the Prime Minister then decide to soften Australia’s border protection laws so that Australia became a soft target for the people-smuggling trade? He says, on his moral high ground, how much he despises this vile people-smuggling trade. So why did he soften the border protection laws so that the people smugglers could be back in business? He had no answer for that today in question time when he was asked why he softened our border protection laws if, on his version of the facts, there has been this massive surge out of Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

As each boat appears on the horizon another crisis is triggered within the Rudd government. The Prime Minister is refusing to take responsibility for the crisis. The incident involving the Oceanic Viking is an appalling case in point. The Prime Minister says that he personally intervened and asked the Indonesian President to accept the 78 asylum seekers on board, and that was over a week ago. Yet he would have the Australian people believe that he has not made one further inquiry and that he had no other involvement in the fate of an Australian government Customs vessel, the crew, the Customs officer and 78 asylum seekers onboard.

What deal was actually done with the Indonesian President? What commitment did the Prime Minister give to the Indonesian government? The Prime Minister has made public Indonesia’s commitment to take the 78 asylum seekers, but he has not made public what commitment he gave on behalf of Australia in return. Has the Prime Minister agreed to toughen Australia’s border protection policies to stop the people smugglers targeting Australia? If he admits that that is what he has been asked to do, he has to admit that he has been misleading the Australian public all along about the pull factors resulting from his softening of the border protection laws.

When was the Prime Minister informed that the Indonesian President could not deliver on the commitment to take the 78 asylum seekers on board? The Prime Minister is in a state of denial. He has been most evasive, and unconvincing in question time. He says he cannot recall what he was told just last week, or when he was told. We are not talking about events of 12 months or two years ago; we are talking about events of last week—events that are on the front page of our national newspapers, events that are on the nightly news every night, and the Prime Minister wants the Australian people to believe that he cannot recall what was discussed or what was agreed. After 10 days at sea. This Prime Minister has absolved himself of responsibility for the Oceanic Viking and our border protection policies.(Time expired)

4:31 pm

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

Firstly, I want to start by indicating that the government takes this issue very seriously. That is why we have a very balanced approach to people-smuggling: tough on people smugglers, humane on asylum seekers. In relation to the MPI led by the opposition leader today, the chaos to which it refers can only be the chaos that exists within the opposition. There is a variety of positions taken by the members of the opposition in relation to this matter. We are aware that the members for Kooyong, Pearce and McMillan have taken a principled position in relation to a number of issues, and that is why they strongly supported the government’s view on the abolition of the temporary protection visa. We are also aware that the member for Murray originally supported all of the changes that took place as a result of the government’s initiatives in this area, but it seems now she has a different view. The member for Farrer put out a media release on 14 October headed ‘Australia’s borders: Open all hours’ and was forced to retract it. That is the situation that exists in the opposition. Differing positions, putting out policy initiatives, having them forcibly retracted—no doubt by the Leader of the Opposition, who has not one position but a complicated, complex, confused position in relation to this very important area of public policy.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had all sorts of views on this matter. In 2001—the Prime Minister referred to this in question time—she argued strenuously for a solution, an ‘agreement’ as she put it, with Indonesia. She said, ‘It is vital there is an agreement with Indonesia.’ Mr Speaker, that is exactly what the government has been embarking upon: ensuring that we have regional cooperation on these regional and global challenges. This is a very challenging issue, as most respected commentators are well aware, and therefore we have to ensure we take a balanced approach to these issues.

It is also important for the opposition to fully comprehend their position when they seek to perpetrate myths that this is about factors to do with domestic policy. There is no doubt every independent commentator in this area understands that, as a result of the conflicts in the region, as a result of the conflicts in Afghanistan, as a result of the civil war that has just ended in Sri Lanka, there has been a significant increase in unlawful maritime arrivals. Those people are seeking a haven not only in Australia but also in other First World countries. The evidence is clear. It is empirical evidence and for the opposition to pretend otherwise suggests they are looking to score political points rather than developing a policy on this area. The evidence is clear by the comments made by the United Nations Secretary-General, when he indicated to the Security Council that 2008 was the most violent year in Afghanistan for many years. The evidence is clear also, as a result of the hundreds of thousands of people displaced in Sri Lanka as a result of the civil war, that there was going to be an increase in the number of people seeking haven. Most of them seek haven in Europe and other parts of the world, but a significant and increasing number have sought asylum in Australia. Those are the primary reasons for the increase in people seeking to enter our waters, seeking to come to our country.

There are two other compelling facts that should be underlined to substantiate the view of the government that this is primarily as a result of push factors. One is the change that occurred in 1998. There was a massive increase in unlawful maritime arrivals between 1998 and 1999, but there was no change to domestic policy and no change of government. There were 200 unlawful maritime arrivals in 1998, and they went from 200 to 3,721 in one year without one change to domestic policy in this country. Why was there a twentyfold increase in unlawful maritime arrivals in that year without any changes to domestic policy, without any change of government? Because of the push factors. You can be assured of this: the then government was not arguing that they were pull factors. No change had occurred to domestic policy in that year, yet there was almost a twentyfold increase in unlawful maritime arrivals.

The other compelling evidence to demythologise the views of the opposition is the Christmas Island detention centre. The Christmas Island detention centre was commissioned for construction after 2001. It was constructed very recently—as late as 2007, and some would argue that it was not operating until beyond that point. If the opposition had managed, as they now seek to argue, to prevent unlawful maritime arrivals after 2001, why did they spend $405 million to construct a purpose-built detention centre on Christmas Island? They built that detention centre because they knew then what they genuinely know now: from time to time, there are increases in the numbers of people seeking haven as a result of conflicts around the world. People sometimes seek haven in Australia when there are conflicts within our region. That is the compelling evidence. The actions of the previous government underline the assertions of the current government that these are primary factors that are external to conduct by our government or this country.

As the foreign minister made clear, upon election we wanted to build upon the previous government’s efforts in maritime and aerial surveillance. For that reason, we have dedicated $654 million to ensuring greater aerial and maritime surveillance of our waters. We are focused on maintaining the integrity of our borders and the integrity of the immigration system, and that is why we have dedicated more resources. We have also dedicated more resources in source and transit countries. More resources are being provided in Indonesia, and we are working very closely with the Indonesian National Police, along with our friends and counterpart agencies in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and other countries within the region, to prevent people being enticed by organised syndicates into endangering their lives by getting on dangerous vessels and undertaking perilous journeys to come to this country.

As I said, we have dedicated more resources to working with our counterparts in Indonesia and other countries. That is why we have been successful, as the foreign minister made clear, in disrupting more than 80 ventures on land, and the Indonesian authorities have intercepted a vessel in their own waters. That has sent a very important message to organised syndicates who would seek to rob people of their life savings and entice them to undertake perilous journeys on dangerous and unseaworthy vessels. That is exactly what we should be doing—continuing to work with our friends within the region and doing everything we can to dismantle organised syndicates. As a result of the efforts of the AFP, the Indonesian National Police and others, 53 people have been charged for people-smuggling and 15 prosecutions have occurred in the last year. This is evidence that these efforts are working. But we have to continue to do as much as we possibly can to target organised syndicates, working with the International Organisation for Migration and the UNHCR on a proper process to provide people with a genuine capacity to seek asylum.

4:41 pm

Photo of Sharman StoneSharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | | Hansard source

We have a most extraordinary situation here, with the Rudd Labor government continuing to refuse to acknowledge the pull factors which have brought on this whole new wave of people-smuggling. In August last year the Rudd Labor government dismantled the coalition’s strategy and destroyed the reputation of Australia as a place of strong and fairly managed immigration policy and border protection. In August 2008 five years of virtually no smuggling activity came to an end, and since then we have seen several thousand people successfully make their way to Christmas Island—and, unfortunately, many others lose their lives in the process. We have had a boat explosion, with Australians as well as asylum seekers having been seriously injured as a result. The 42 asylum seekers who survived have now been released into permanent residency in Australia, although they are still subject to inquiries in relation to the coronial inquest into that explosion.

We now have chaos. We have a serious humanitarian crisis when it comes to the two boats from Indonesia we have been talking about. The Prime Minister is paralysed with indecision and bereft of any idea about what to do next. He says he has not been consulted—or he is not asking. How can this Prime Minister, as this issue appears day after day on the front pages of newspapers and as the leading item on television news, seriously expect us to believe that he is not following events all that closely? He tells us about his ‘Indonesian solution’, which he hatched that Sunday, many weeks ago, when he picked up the phone to the President of Indonesia. He had a crisis. His crisis was too many people on Christmas Island. He had brought in the portables and put bunks in the recreation area. He needed a quick fix. We are told he asked the president if he would kindly intercept the boat of 255 Sri Lankans, divert it to a port in Indonesia and lock up Australia’s problem in detention centres in Indonesia—and that might be the end of that. Of course, as we know through Alex, the spokesman on that vessel, the government have no solution. The asylum seekers say they are going to be on that boat until Mr Rudd delivers them to Christmas Island. What is Mr Rudd, as Prime Minister of this country, going to do? We have no idea—nor, it seems, does he.

Then we have the boat that we are told was going down and called out a distress signal about 10 days ago. Yes, they were in distress. It would seem the crew had left the boat and taken the steering gear with them. That was serious. And there may have been a sick child on board—we would not doubt that. So the Australians conveniently helped the Indonesians, of course, in their safety and rescue zone. The boat was left and some 78 Sri Lankans were put on board the Oceanic Viking.

Presumably the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration breathed a sigh of relief and thought, ‘That is okay. These 78 will be quickly landed in Indonesia and put into detention there for an indefinite period of time, until the UNHCR might get around to processing them. But that is another problem off our hands.’ Unfortunately, as we know, the 78 Sri Lankans are still on board the Oceanic Viking. It seems that the great Indonesian solution did not include the governors of the various islands who happen to be hosts to detention centres away from Java.

So we have this extraordinary problem. It is not just on these boats in Indonesia that we have this problem with women and children. The Australian Human Rights Commission has said that the Labor government is also transgressing mightily in its attention to the needs of children in the Christmas Island facilities. We have there a significant number, over 80 children, who are being kept in areas like a construction camp. The Australian Human Rights Commission says that is not good enough. Since 2005 the coalition has said this should not happen, and we made sure children were not kept in detention centres. But this Labor government hosts these poor little children—more than 80 of them—in a construction camp on Christmas Island. This is a disgrace. (Time expired)

4:46 pm

Photo of Tony ZappiaTony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I welcome this matter of public importance because this is a debate that needs to take place, but it needs to take place in an honest and constructive way. It is a debate that all Australians should be engaged in because we are debating a matter which affects the lives of real people—real children, real mothers and fathers. These are real people who find themselves in traumatic and vulnerable circumstances. They are real people whom people smugglers are exploiting and whose lives are being placed at risk.

We are confronted with a complex worldwide problem and one that is deserving of bipartisan support as we work through it—a problem where, according to the UNHCR, at the end of 2008 there were 42 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, including 15.2 million refugees. We are confronted with a global problem that will not be resolved by rhetoric and political point-scoring but by considered and measured strategies that produce the best long-term outcomes for refugees and for the countries that asylum seekers want to settle in. Those strategies will best be achieved by cooperative arrangements with the international community and, particularly for Australia, by cooperative arrangements with our regional neighbours.

In recent times the situation in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka has resulted in an escalation in the number of people who have been displaced from their homes—people whose lives are at risk, who are living in atrocious conditions and who are desperately wanting to find a new home. Attempts by the coalition to ignore this reality are politically motivated. The increase in unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia in recent times is consistent with increases in asylum seeker numbers being seen around the world. We require a global response to refugee matters that is humanitarian and that is consistent with UNHCR principles, in conjunction with international counter-people-smuggling strategies; a global response that ought to attempt to stabilise and secure those countries from where people are fleeing. These are the long-term objectives towards which we should all be working and the objectives I believe that are underpinning the government’s response.

Since World War II, three-quarters of a million refugees have settled in Australia; 150,000 of them arrived during the Howard government year and nearly 15,000 of those arrived as boat people. It was not the Howard government’s Pacific solution that resulted in a decrease in refugees and unauthorised boat arrivals but a decrease in refugees leaving Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka after 2001. In fact, between 2001 and 2003 numbers dropped significantly. Between 2005 and 2008 the number of refugees leaving those countries, from which most refugees are coming, rose once again.

These are the facts—not the rhetoric. That is why in the budget the government allocated an additional $654 million to combat people smuggling. That is why the government recently increased its core funding to the UNHCR by $4.4 million, to $14.3 million, and provided another $2 million for the UNHCR’s protection, assessment and outreach program in Indonesia. This is in addition to another $5 million that was provided to the International Organisation for Migration for its Indonesian activities.

I listened to the debate and the contributions from members opposite. What struck me was that on one hand they would have you believe that they are the party of compassion and fairness but that on the other hand they are the party that had the tough policies that stopped people coming to this country as refugees. At the same time the Leader of the Opposition asserted that it was the Howard government’s soft policies in 2005 that took children and women away from the detention facilities and away from detention.

Photo of Kevin AndrewsKevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.