Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For too long in this country, the debate about refugees and the seeking of asylum has been used and abused for political purposes. Like many Australians, I find the media 'frames' and 'messaging' around this debate offensive: 'stopping the boats', 'border security', 'border repair', 'sovereign borders', and so it goes on—as if people seeking asylum by leaky boats are somehow a threat to our national security, up against a fleet of ANZAC-class frigates. As if our borders are somehow being breached, our national assets being seized, and our way of life being threatened because people seek sanctuary from danger in Australia.

I want to talk about this debate within a different frame, Australia's global responsibility, and highlight a solution—a way forward—offered this week by the Australian Refugee Church Taskforce. Australia has a proud history of making global contributions that resonate beyond our boundaries. We, until recently, made significant and growing contributions to development assistance in our region and beyond. Our aid sector is world class and highly skilled in short-term disaster and humanitarian assistance, as well as in the longer game of development, equity, governance and sanitation. Rarely have Australians shirked their global responsibility in development aid, although recently our aid budget has been used as an automatic teller machine for domestic policy. We also have made significant contributions to regional security. Our defence force has carried out a number of missions to support regional stability in places such as East Timor and the Solomons. We also have contributed to global peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and Rwanda. We haven't shirked our global responsibilities in peacekeeping.

We have also played a role in building a global set of rules and norms for a safer and healthier planet. We have been strong players in developing treaties in nuclear nonproliferation and a ban on anti-personnel mines. We have on several occasions played the lead diplomatic role in securing these treaties. Rarely has Australia shirked our global responsibilities in establishing a global rule of law. So Australia has a long history in contributing to global issues of development and humanitarian assistance, regional security and peacekeeping, and establishing a global set of rules and norms.

But when it comes to the global problem of displaced people and asylum seekers this government is found wanting, sadly wanting. The issue of displaced people is a global one. It is not one we can deal with on our own. But neither can we claim to solve all the world's problems through our other global efforts. We do not retract from global negotiations on trade or peace or finance, just as we shouldn't withdraw from our responsibilities in dealing with the global problem of displaced people and their right to seek safe asylum.

I was at the inaugural Chancellor's Address at the University of Tasmania in Hobart last week. The Chancellor talked about the role that University of Tasmania place in offering opportunities for students of low socioeconomic backgrounds to get a leg-up through higher education. He also spoke of the role of the university in leading debate about how we as a state could best raise the educational attainment of our populace. But the key point from his address was at dysfunction—within or between institutions, communities, governments et cetera—is often due to the presence of what he called 'unspeakables'. These unspeakable is are issues that are too sensitive or too difficult, to controversial or too troubling to raise with each other. One of the roles of the university, he said, was to make sure we don't shirk from addressing these unspeakables, that we have no fear or favour. Those debates that no-one quite wants to have just have to be had. And until we do, we will remain dysfunctional on issues, because when we don't debate the unspeakables we never get to the root cause of the problems and they are never addressed.

The global situation of displaced people and Australia's role in addressing it is an unspeakable. The Liberals want to talk of stopping the boats and nothing about responsibilities. Labor barely wants to talk about it at all. But tonight I do want to raise this issue. Let me tell you what is the unspeakable in this refuge asylum seeker debate: the national discussion and debate we are not having. What exactly is it we are afraid of by allowing more asylum seekers into Australia? Are we worried about the impact on our cost of living and economy? Are we afraid of having to share our lucky country? Is because we cannot afford more asylum seekers? Is it because we don't have the ability to culturally integrate many more thousands of people into our communities? Most importantly, we never have the debate on what is the right or optimal number of refugees Australia could or should take into the future. The government constantly taunt their opponents as bleeding hearts when this issue is raised. I have certainly had this raised myself in debate. When I am asked how many refugees asylum seekers could Australia take, I say, 'I don't know the answer to that question but I guarantee nor do you.' The reason is that we have never had this debate, this discussion, in this country, so no-one knows the answer.

The UNHCR estimates that there are over 11 million refugees under their care. Only a month ago they published figures saying there were a record 33.3 million people internally displaced at the end of 2013 due to conflict and violence

This was a rise of 4.5 million from a year earlier and, with strife in Iraq at the moment, that number is only going to rise. The major places of refuge are Pakistan, Iran, Jordan and Lebanon, while some of the major sources of refugees are Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. Australia is not bearing their load, but the government is paying a large bill for a refugee policy, and helping far fewer people in the process. We are spending billions of dollars on naval frigates, turning around leaky boats, on orange lifeboats to leave people to their fate, and on offshore detention centres where refugees are put at risk of violence and disease.

The Churches Refugees Taskforce says it is costing Australian taxpayers $3,744 per day for each man, woman or child held in offshore detention centres. They say the tens of billions spent on offshore detention cannot be justified when the federal government is cutting funding for health and education to the states. The Churches Refugees Taskforce is developing a Tasmanian alternative to offshore processing. Under their plan, we could process and take in more asylum seekers. It would cost less and we would save funds to use instead on health and education. The Anglican Archbishop of Tasmania, John Harrower, supports the Tasmanian alternative and is one of its key architects—as do the head of the Multicultural Council in Tasmania and the Hobart Lord Mayor. And Pastor Jeff McKinnon, from the City Baptist Church in my home town, with whom I have been lucky enough to do some work in recent weeks, is also an active supporter of pursuing this plan. I support this plan and so do the Greens. Even The Mercury newspaper, in Tasmania, this week supported the plan in its editorial. In fact the Tasmanian Greens, through their leader, Nick McKim, took this policy to the last election—and I hope that all political parties choose to take it to the next election. I support the Churches Refugee Taskforce in their efforts to provide leadership in this area and raise this point for debate.

Australia could do more to both help with the global problem of displaced people and provide jobs in Tasmania in the process. We could take more refugees, save money and provide investment and jobs for Tasmania. When Pontville closed, with the shift to offshore processing, we lost 250 jobs in Tasmania. A long-term strategy of making Tasmania the national asylum seeker processing centre would provide an incredible jobs boost for our state at no extra cost to the taxpayer. Pontville was known as the most humane of all the processing centres, and the refugees built strong links into the community.

I call on all parties to support the Tasmanian alternative. I call on Tasmanian state Liberal and Labor politicians, and their federal counterparts, to back it. Tasmania has proven through Pontville, through the programs getting refugees into local schools, that we have been able to take a different approach to working with asylum seekers. Tasmania is one of the most compassionate states in the country and we want to play our role in this global issue.

Australia should not shy away from its international responsibilities in global settings. We rarely do so in peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, diplomacy and so many areas I have already outlined. But we could and should do more to give people the right to seek safe asylum in this country, and we should talk more about what is the right amount of support in terms of resettlement and assistance. I commend the Churches Refugee Taskforce for coming up with a Tasmanian alternative and stimulating this public debate, I commend them for not shying away from the so-called unspeakable debates that Australia has to have, and I am proud that Tasmania could lead the way.