Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I contribute to this debate in response to those answers given by Senator Evans this afternoon. In the matter of border protection, it is important that the chamber understands that the Howard government confronted a problem and it found a solution. The Rudd government removed that solution and they have now created a problem for themselves—but not just for themselves but for the Australian people also and, worse, for the would-be asylum seekers. The only, the best and the safest way to save and protect the lives of these people is for them not to go to sea in the first place. Nobody in this chamber is suggesting that anybody has any objective other than to protect the lives of those men, women and children who are being subjected by people smugglers to this shocking trade. We know that in Asia and other places people smugglers are very active. We know they have increased their activity, and that is what must be stopped if we are to once again protect the lives of these people. Our immigration policies are well known in Asia and the Indian subcontinent. They are known on the streets of Pakistan. They are known by taxi drivers. They are very, very well known.

I simply ask the question: in the lamentable case of these Sri Lankans who are attempting to leave their country, why is it that more than double the number are wanting to come to Australia than are going to India, to the Middle East or to the Islamic countries of Asia? Why is it that so many of these people are welcomed into countries like Malaysia, which is itself Islamic? They are welcomed into an Islamic country but only welcomed to go through it, not to stay. If they go down to Indonesia, they are welcome to keep moving but not to stay. They want to come to Australia. This is where we must be directing our activities.

Despite the denials of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, we know very well that a special deal was struck for these people. Why were the Prime Minister’s own staff involved in this particular negotiation? Are they involved in all the other negotiations? We suspect that they are not. Why was the Prime Minister ignored at APEC in Singapore on the weekend, to the embarrassment of this country and no doubt himself? Why is it that the Indonesian President has cancelled a diplomatic visit to this country this week? Because they just do not like the megaphone mentality and being preached at, as they are by this government.

We know that even people in Indonesia who have been in refugee camps for many years are bitterly resentful of the people who have come off the Oceanic Viking and the other 56. Why are they being held in protection in that camp? Because of the resentment of the other people in that refugee camp, who know that these others have received and are receiving preferential treatment. What are the people smugglers going to say to the next raft? I do remind you, as one who knows those waters well, that from November through to March we are in the cyclone season; therefore, the safety of the people on these vessels is even more at risk. We have to stop this for no other reason than their safety. We must stop this before the onset of the cyclone season.

Here in Australia, people who have recently arrived and been processed in the correct way are deeply angered by this fast-tracking. I say again in this chamber that Australia has a very proud record of taking migrants into this country—second, I understand, only to Canada on a per capita basis. But we know that for every one, for every 10, for every 100 who come in through the backdoor it is another one, 10 or 100 who sit in another camp in Somalia or the Sudan or wherever they may be simply because they do not have the funds to be attractive to the people smugglers. Those on the other side of this chamber want to see a resolution. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, they were handed a solution and they threw that solution to one side. They derided us over the activities on Christmas Island, only then to turn around and have to use it again. In conclusion, I ask: where does the UNHCR stand on this whole issue? What is their understanding of Australia’s policy when they believe we are going through normal processes only to see them changed? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.