Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The impact of record numbers of people illegally entering Australia by boat under this government.

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—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer will get to his feet tonight and engage in what can only be described as another act of fiscal fantasy. Such will be the fictional nature of what the Treasurer will say tonight that I suggest that he begins his budget speech with the phrase 'Once upon a time …'. What will be true about tonight's revelations by the Treasurer is that while Labor's record failures on our borders mean that they have not been able to stop the boats those record failures under this Treasurer have, however, ensured that they have been able to stop a surplus.

Labor's record border failures have no peer. That is why they are records. This afternoon there is an opportunity to go through in some detail the nature of those border failures, which are entirely an act of this government's own making. What is important is to understand the impacts and consequences of this record level of failure.

Under this government, what we have seen occur in the short space of time of just five years is an average of two people illegally entering Australia by boat every month in 2007-08 expand this financial year to an average of over 2,000 per month. From two per month to over 2,000 per month: that is an extraordinary act of growth on this government in terms of the border failures that we have seen—it is absolutely extraordinary. It is important to note that, over this period of time, what we have seen is a constancy in the level of pressures that have been brought to bear. As we all know, push factors are, sadly, a tragedy that is always present. What changes is government policy that enables the border failures to present as they have under this government. So we have gone from an average of two per month to over 2,000 per month. And just this year we have set two monthly records. In March we had a record of over 2,500. In April we had a record of over 3,300. And in May, in just less than 10 days, we have had over 1,500 people arrive in this manner. We had a record last financial year, 2011-12, of 8,300 people arrive, and more; but this financial year we have had a record of 20,861 people arrive in this manner—and we are not even at the end of the year yet.

What we also note is one of the other records this government achieved in 2011-12—the 2012-13 figures will be released at some time. I will refer here to the Parliamentary Library publication which refers to IMA refugee status determination requests received—that is, those who have arrived by boat. In 2011-12 the figure for those who came by boat was 7,379. For those who came by air, it was 7,036. For the first time, in 2011-12, more people came by boat than came by air, according to the Parliamentary Library and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. That was at a time when the arrivals for that year were 8,300. This year they are almost 21,000, and we are not even at the end of the year, so one can only imagine the disparity between the figures.

That is the record, but what has been the impact? This government, while in government and in opposition, always took the opportunity to lecture the coalition side of politics on the morality of their policies. One area in particular where it was particularly keen to talk about the impact of the Howard government's policies was the impact on children. But this government's record, because of these record arrivals, is that more children are turning up on boats than at any other time in our nation's history. In this financial year alone, more than 3,000 children have come on the boats. That is up on around 2,000 in the year before that and around 1,000 the year before that. It is estimated that around 40 per cent of those coming on boats now are in family groups. In addition, we have more than 2,000 children who are in the detention network as we speak and over 1,000 of those are in formal detention itself. The previous peak was back in 2000-01, which was under the Howard government, and it was 1,344.

The government have set the record for children coming on boats, flowing as a consequence from their failed policies. So their lecturing and their hectoring of the Howard government over our border policies and their impact on children is dumbfounded by their own record. They should be ashamed of themselves, with their grand acts of pretence to compassion. Their policies have put those children on boats for years, and now in record numbers. They should be aware of their own record of failures and of the impact: when you fail on the borders, children and families get on boats. That has occurred in record numbers under the government.

It was the Prime Minister herself in 2010 and the former minister, Minister Bowen, who said they were going to remove children out of formal detention. There were about 750 in detention at that time. Today there are more than a thousand. She said:

We did not believe that children should be held … in high-security detention … And so, we have worked to have more appropriate accommodation for family groups and for children.

What that turns out to be is more children now in formal detention and, if that is not enough, they have just announced they are going to build more facilities at Curtin and at Wickham Point to take more children into formal detention and, as the minister himself has said, for a period of around 120 days. That is the consequence, the implications and the impact of the government's failed border policies. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. If they are going to make those accusations and criticisms of the Howard government policy then it is time to look in the mirror of their own policy record and policy failings.

The record detention population today is a result of the record level of arrivals. We had four people in immigration detention who had arrived illegally by boat in November 2007. Today? I should say at the end of February, because the government have not released the figures since the end of February, but there were 7,528 at the end of February and another 10,000 on top of that who are on bridging visas.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No amount of shouting from those opposite will change that fact. It will not change the fact that 17,528 people, at least at the end of February, had arrived illegally by boat and were in detention. Since the end of February there have been over 7,500 more who have turned up. So on top of these record figures even more have arrived. And if we go to just in May, we know that there were 2,962 people on Christmas Island. I do not need to remind the government, I suppose, that when they burnt down, and the Australian Federal Police had to retake by force, the facility on Christmas Island there were roughly 2,500 in the facility at that time.

The compounding border failures of this government continue to compound the problems and the impacts that flow from that, which are children getting on boats, children going into detention, and detention centres overcrowding and overloading. The riots and various other things that we have seen that flow as a consequence of those things stem from one key problem: a failure to be able to deliver on the responsibility of a government to protect our borders and ensure proper border security.

Labor is putting the consequences of their failed policies off to the other side of the election, and they did this before at the last election as well. Before the last election, Senator Evans was the minister who failed to act on recommendations and reports, which were coming through his department at the time, that said that more detention capacity needed to be created, and he sat on his hands. It was only after the election that the incoming minister, who was given that hospital pass by Senator Evans, went and, I admit, expanded that network—and we commended him at the time—but it was all too late. The consequences of that stalling before the last election were already set in train, and nothing the government could even do at that stage would be able to take them off the fast train they were on to the crisis that we saw in the immigration detention network, which literally exploded in February, March and April of the following year.

We are seeing the same thing happen again today, because there are currently around 18,255 people who have turned up on boats since 14 August last year and what we do know is the government have not been processing the people that have turned up since that time. So what we have now is a detention population, and a population within the system more broadly, that is growing by the thousands and currently sits around an estimated level of 18,000 to 20,000. I am happy for the government to confirm the numbers and give me a fresh number if they have got one, but by the time we get to an election that number could well be over 30,000 of a backlog in the system, pushing the consequences and responsibilities for dealing with this issue until after an election.

All of this comes at a record cost, and the record cost of this government is spectacular. Since the last election alone, the blow-out in the government's budget—actual figures from the government's budget based on the estimates released in February this year—is $5.2 billion. They said it would cost something just over $1 billion, and it ended up costing, based on the estimates we have at the end of February, $6 billion plus—a $5.2 billion blow-out since the last election. So tonight the Treasurer has the opportunity to be honest in the budget and tell us what the real costs over the next few years will be. If you simply just put into the budget for the next three years what the estimated cost for this year is then the Treasurer has a $5 billion hole in the budget as we speak today. The Treasurer will need to detail tonight whether he is going to budget on this issue on the basis of the coalition's policies that will stop the boats or he is going to budget on the policies of his own government that have failed to stop the boats. If that budget tonight does not come up with at least the $5 billion that is missing currently in the estimates, then he must be budgeting for a change of government, because that is the only way we are going to see a change in those figures.

The budget blow-outs are extraordinary and they are costing Australians every single day. They have led to record chaos more broadly in the immigration department and they have led to the chaos we have seen not just in immigration detention but also in the bridging visa program in the community. We have now seen the government not engage in a policy of community release; we have seen the government engage in a policy of community dumping. This is a government that is dumping people into the community with no care and no responsibility—out of sight, out of mind. It is putting more and more pressure on the charitable organisations that are out there and other service providers who have to step into the gap created by this government.

Do not kid yourself that this government has somehow embarked on this policy of bridging visas out of a sense of compassion. They have embarked on this policy because they cannot cope with the level of arrivals. Not only did the detention network get overrun—they had to let single males out on bridging visas—but now the community detention facilities have been overrun and they are now going to dump families into the same situation we have seen single adult males in over the last 18 months. So it is not surprising that the Salvation Army's Major Paul Moulds has said:

We are stepping into a gap created by the federal government. … These emergency relief services are usually for people who desperately need help here, but what else are we meant to do? What else do you do when a hungry child turns up at your door?

Anthony Thornton, the national president of the St Vincent de Paul Society said:

It is a matter of great sadness for the St Vincent de Paul Society that the federal government is abandoning asylum-seekers to fend for themselves in the community with minimal, or even no, support and no right to work.

They are the comments of the St Vincent de Paul Society.

These are the policies and the consequences that have come as a result of the government's border policy failures. The coalition's alternative has always been there for this government to adopt, and they have used excuse after excuse not to embrace that and they still continue to do that today. That will not change between now and the election, and so the opportunity at the election is to change the government and change the outcome by changing the policy. That is what the Australian people will have the opportunity to do on 14 September.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had this debate late last year just before Christmas, and at that time I told the House of my fears and concerns about more people dying over the Christmas period. Unfortunately, all of my fears have been well founded. On 25 January this year, Customs intercepted a boat 17 nautical miles off Christmas Island that was carrying 15 people. The people on board reported that four men had left on a makeshift raft of inner tubes and bamboo poles approximately 24 hours earlier in a bid to swim to Christmas Island. A search was commenced, and on 30 January one man was found at Ethel Beach on Christmas Island. He was reported saying that four men had been separated from the raft, possibly as it broke up. Those three other men have never been found.

In January, 20 more asylum seekers were rescued by Indonesian fishermen after their boat sank off the coast of Indonesia. It was reported that two more asylum seekers perished. In March, minutes after being boarded by two border protection officers, a vessel capsized after being struck by two freak waves. Ninety-four people were rescued, two people died, and one of those people was a young boy. In April, another vessel crashed off the coast of Indonesia with 66 people on board; 14 were rescued, 52 have still not been recovered—presumed perished.

Forget the politics. That is what this debate is essentially all about—stopping people from dying, stopping the constant repetition of this. That is what this debate is about, or at least it is what this debate should be about. But it is a debate that has been poisoned by politics—by politicians seeking political advantage. That is the reason that we are debating this and why this debate has gone on now for almost 12 years. It is not about the policy as much as it is about the politics. I made this point last year in the same debate. We agree on most of the policy. The differences here are really at the margins. It is the politics that are poisoning this debate and, if you want proof of that, there is no better place to look than the contribution by David Marr in his Quarterly Essay where, at page 36, he talks about the WikiLeaks cable that showed what was happening back in 2009. It said:

In late 2009, in the dying days of Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the Opposition, a "key Liberal party strategist" popped in to the US embassy in Canberra to say how pleased the party was that refugee boats were, once again, making their way to Christmas Island. The issue was 'fantastic', he said. And 'the more boats that come the better.' But he admitted they had yet to find a way to make the issue work in their favour: his research indicated only a 'slight trend' towards the Coalition."

There you have a senior Liberal Party strategist in the US embassy saying 'the more boats … the better' and it is a pity that it has not yet worked well enough as a political device. That is why we are having this debate. That is why the Liberal Party refuses to allow the government to implement our own policies—because of Liberal Party strategists who think the more boats is in their political interest.

We do not agree on everything, but on big issues of life and death where people's lives are at risk we should agree on this principle: that the government of the day—Labor or Liberal or whatever it might be—should be given the power that it thinks it needs to stop people getting on boats and perishing at sea. That is what the Labor Party did in opposition in 2001 when John Howard asked for more powers after the Tampa. That is what John Howard would do now if John Howard were the Leader of the Opposition.

But that is what we are being denied right now by both the Liberal Party and by the Greens, who have refused to give us the powers that this government genuinely believes will help to stop people getting onto boats and risking their lives. That is why we are here. That is why we are having this debate—because of the politics, because of the fight for political advantage. I am sick of it. The people of Australia are sick of it. They are sick of this fighting and they want us to work together.

So what works? We know this: the fear of drowning has not put people off; offshore processing has not put people off; but the threat of being flown back has. The threat of being flown back home has had a significant impact. Last year there was a big increase in the number of people coming to Australia by boat from Sri Lanka—more than 5,000 people. Most of these people are not refugees. They are economic migrants, people looking for a better life, people looking for a job. They are not entitled to asylum in Australia. Last year we made the decision to screen these people quickly and fly them back when it was determined that they were not refugees. The impact of flying people back to Sri Lanka has been dramatic. The number of boats coming to Australia from Sri Lanka has dropped significantly. In the last four months of last year there were 70 boats coming to Australia from Sri Lanka. So far this year, there have been seven. This shows that flybacks work. The fear of death does not put people off, but the fear of being sent home a few days or a few weeks after they set out to sea certainly does. It shows how critical this is in stopping people getting onto boats and risking their lives. If we want to stop the boats, we have got to do this, and we have to do it elsewhere.

The biggest group of people coming to Australia by boat at the moment are people from Iran, and like most of the people coming from Sri Lanka, most of them are economic migrants. They are not fleeing persecution; they are looking for a better life; they are looking for a job. They are not entitled to asylum.

But unlike Sri Lankans, we cannot fly them home. Unlike Sri Lanka, the country of Iran refuses to take them so we cannot fly them back. But what we can do is fly them halfway back. We can fly them back to the countries they transit through to get on a boat to come to Australia. And one of those countries is Malaysia. The fear of death, as I said, does not put people off, but the threat of being sent back home does. That is why the plan to fly people back to Malaysia is an important part of the solution. Flybacks work, and if you cannot fly people all the way back to Iran, fly them halfway back, to Malaysia.

The agreement with Malaysia is limited. But it is a start. It is one that we Australians can build on with them and it is the type of program that we can do with other transit countries. In many senses, it is the same as the opposition's pushback policy except for this important difference: it is safer, a lot safer. This is what we have to do, I sincerely believe, if we are going to reduce the incentive for people to get on a boat and risk their lives.

Here is the frustrating part of this: the opposition has refused to give us the power to implement this policy, a policy that we think will reduce the risk of people dying. Their argument is that you cannot fly people back to Malaysia because they are not signatories to the UN convention on refugees. That is a fake excuse. It has been contrived as something to hide behind. Their own pushback policy is designed to send people back to another country that also has not signed the UN convention on refugees, and that is Indonesia. Our policy is exactly the same, only safer. The opposition say that if they are elected they will push back boats where it is safe to do so. My question is: when is it safe to do so? The answer to that question is, of course, never. That is the advice of the Navy and that is what experience tells us.

I have gone back and I have had a look at the attempts by the Howard government to push boats back in the past, and what happened in those instances is revealing. SIEV I on 7 September 2001 showed that Navy personnel were threatened and forced to withdraw after they boarded the vessel. On SIEV II on 9 September 2001, there were 30 knives found concealed on the boat and the passengers threatened self-harm. On SIEV III on 11 September 2001, naval personnel were met with violence and they could not control the wheelhouse. The boarding party had to leave the vessel. On SIEV V on 12 October 2001, equipment was thrown overboard and the boat was sabotaged. SIEV VI on 19 October 2001 was also sabotaged. When naval personnel attempted to repair the ship, fires were started, the deck boards were turned up and the boat ended up sinking. SIEV VII on 22 October had 15 people dive overboard; others doused themselves in fuel. They damaged the mast and started a fire in the hold

SIEV IX on 31 October 2001 was also sabotaged—fuel lines were cut. On SIEV XII on 16 December 2001 there was more sabotage, more fires and more threats of self-harm. This is what happens when you attempt to push boats back; it is why the Navy say it is not safe to do this. That is why I am making the argument today that a much better option, a much safer option and proven effective option, is to fly people back.

Perhaps the best example of how dangerous this practice is, and how dangerous this practice would be, is what happened with SIEV XXXVI in 2009. This was not a boat that was turned around, but the people who were on the boat thought that they were about to be turned back. This is what Coroner Greg Cavanagh said in his subsequent report:

…the vessel's engine was sabotaged and subsequent petrol was spilt into the bilge and ignited.

There was an explosion; five asylum seekers drowned, 40 people were injured, including ADF personnel, who were subsequently treated for burns and other injuries. The important point here is that what happened in this terrible incident could have been much, much worse. The coroner, Greg Cavanagh, says that one of the ADF personnel, Corporal Jager—a medical officer—would have died if not for the efforts to rescue her. In his findings he found that all of this happened on this vessel because the people on the boat thought that the boat was going to be turned around. That is why the Navy has criticised the idea of turning boats back. That is why they say that it is never safe to do so because it puts the lives of their men and women at risk.

Compare all of that—compare all the chaos of what happened on these boats and what happened on SIEV XXXIV—to the policy of flying people back: boarding the vessel and getting the people who are on the boat, putting them on a plane and flying them safely back, whether it is Sri Lanka or whether it is Malaysia. It is a lot safer, we have proven that it is much more effective and it is something they can and should be rolled out more broadly.

This is not easy stuff; it is very hard. It is a wretchedly difficult area of policy, and the opposition know that. We have seen in recent weeks the opposition leader saying that instead of stopping the boats he will 'reduce the boats'. This is difficult but there is a way through. As I say, it involves flying people back; that means legislation. It means we have to work together. We have been fighting about this since Tampafor more than a decade. The issue has been rancid with politics ever since. As I have said in this debate—and as I have said elsewhere—all we are saying is that the government of the day should be given the power that it thinks it needs to stop people dying at sea. We think that is fly-backs. The evidence shows that it works. We need the Liberal Party and we need the Greens to let us do that. While ever we do not, more people will come and more people will die. That is just a simple fact. And that should weigh on the minds of all of us here. These are not just numbers; they are people. They are mothers, they are fathers, they are sisters, they are brothers, they are boys and girls and we should condemn the political strategists I quoted earlier who say, 'the more boats the better'. That sort of attitude diminishes all of us; we are better than that. I am disgusted by those comments. I think all my colleagues on both sides of the House should be disgusted by those sort of comments. This is not going to be solved with politics. It is going to be solved with policies. With every boat there is the risk of death. We have seen too much death in the past few years. We have seen too much death in the past few months. If we are going to stop this we need to work together and that involves voting for one simple piece of legislation which is before this parliament. I ask all members to support that legislation and fly people back to Malaysia.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The MPI that we are discussing today is about the consequences of the terrible failure of the Labor Party to control our borders since they came to office. Members will know—and of course this will be revealed later tonight in the budget—about the cost to Australian taxpayers of what is possibly Labor's most significant policy failure since arriving on the treasury bench in 2007.

We also know, and we know very well, about the enormous toll that it has taken on people who have sought the services of a people smuggler and drowned in the attempt to come to Australia. I want to highlight some of the other consequences of this failure to control our borders—issues that have not been raised as extensively in this place, but very serious issues that go to national security in Australia.

Clearly, when you have a circumstance of criminals being in charge of who comes to Australia, and when there is enormous weakness on our borders, criminals will seek to exploit that weakness in the same way that if you leave your doors unlocked that criminals will seek to exploit this sort of weakness if they come to burgle your home. It is the same if you are not controlling your borders—criminals will eye the opportunities that are available to them through that policy failure. When you have over 40,000 people having arrived here courtesy of people smugglers, it is clearly impossible for us to rigorously assess the background of everyone who arrives in this way. I want to make clear that the vast majority of people who arrive using the services of a people smuggler are not in this category. But, clearly, when you are talking about such a large number of people, the opportunity for people of bad character to arrive by paying a people smuggler is very real and we would be naive and we would be foolish to overlook the fact that criminals will exploit the border weaknesses that have resulted from the Labor Party's policy failures.

I wanted to talk about a few cases in particular that have been highlighted in the media, but that we have not had an opportunity to highlight in the parliament. I want to call on the government to use the parliament to explain the circumstances surrounding three cases that I am going to raise. The three I am talking about were highlighted in a report in the West Australian toward the end of last month. They are people who have arrived here by paying a people smuggler. One is an accused Egyptian terrorist, one is an alleged Sri Lankan murderer and the third is an Iranian who is apparently wanted for drug trafficking in his home country. The cases were revealed in a report in the West Australian.

What is most concerning about this is, first, the fact that people of this character would have used the services of a people smuggler to get here. Second, and most important, is the manner in which they have been treated since they have arrived. That report revealed that the accused Egyptian terrorist was the subject of an Interpol red notice, the highest level of alert from Interpol. That should have said to Australian law-enforcement authorities that this was somebody who needed to be apprehended on arrival in the country. A red notice is essentially an international arrest warrant.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

He was in detention. I will get to this now. It would be very good if the minister would actually—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Demonising refugees. It is a disgrace.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Demonising refugees'? This is a typical example of an overreaction from the Attorney-General. What he should be explaining is why he has allowed a situation in this country where national security has been breached, firstly, because people smugglers have smuggled people in of this character and, secondly, the manner in which they have been held in this country since they have arrived.

Government members interjecting—

In the case of the accused Egyptian terrorist, he was apparently held in Inverbrackie, a detention centre in the home state of one of the members who is interjecting. That is a low-security environment protected by the equivalent of a pool fence. This is a person who is serious enough to appear on an Interpol red notice and the government thinks that an appropriate way to hold him is to release him into Inverbrackie.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In detention.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General—and I will just get this on the record—is foolish enough to keep interjecting, saying the man is in detention. I am talking about the manner in which he was detained. There is a very big difference between being held in Inverbrackie, a low-security environment, and being held in Villawood, where apparently this person was moved once the media reported on the circumstances of his detention.

The question for ministers like the Attorney-General is: why would an accused Egyptian terrorist be held with such a low-security environment? I would really welcome the Attorney-General taking the opportunity in the parliament to respond to that. Why would you put somebody, an accused terrorist subject to an Interpol red notice, within a low-security detention environment? This is the question that the government has refused to answer. The question is: did the immigration minister even know that he had a person subject to such serious allegations or perhaps even convictions? We do not know. Did he even know that this person was held within such a low-security environment, because once the media report was published in the West Australian on the Saturday apparently the government then took action to move this person from Inverbrackie to Villawood? The question for ministers like the Attorney-General, who is supposed to actually protect Australia's national security, is: why would a person of such a character be placed within such a low-security environment? I hope that the Attorney-General takes the opportunity to answer that question to the Australian people in the parliament today.

The Sri Lankan who was accused of murdering his girlfriend was not held in low-security detention. He was released into community detention, again something that seems highly and totally inappropriate for somebody accused of such a serious crime. I wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship asking him why. The first question I posed to him—and a question that he has not answered—is: was he even aware that he had these three people within the detention network? I posed that question to him because he only took action after these cases appeared in the media. I also posed some other questions that he has so far refused to answer, even though he has responded to my letter, but unfortunately he has not responded to the questions that I put to him.

I asked when did he become aware that he was housing within the detention network people who have been accused of such serious crimes. What action had he taken to assure that appropriate security in these cases was available to manage the risk of flight in the community? When somebody is being released into community detention, clearly there are serious questions to be asked about managing that flight risk. I asked, for each case, when did the individuals arrive and in what boat? Where were they located now and what is the current status of their refugee assessment? Finally, how have these accusations been further investigated, by whom and what are the implications for the findings of their refugee assessments?

The minister did respond to my letter but he did not address any of these questions that have been put to him. They are serious questions on which he owes the Australian people an explanation as to what has gone on here. Sure, people are going to exploit the weaknesses of the Labor Party's failed border protection policies, but it raises very serious concerns when they are housed in such low-security detention environments. The minister by his letter to me and by his public comments has given every indication that he had absolutely no idea that this was happening until he was alerted by the West Australian newspaper. He was asked on 22 April, for example, on 6PR radio in Perth about the specific people by the radio commentator Howard Sattler. The minister said that he was going to get a brief on it, which really strikes me as somebody who had no idea what was going on within the detention network. Two days later, on Sky News, he was asked about these cases as well. His response was that he was going to examine the circumstances. This is clearly a case, as so often we see with this government, of them doing something well and truly after the horse has bolted.

The Australian people are owed an explanation as to what has gone on in all three of these cases. The most serious is that of the accused Egyptian terrorist who was the subject of an Interpol red notice. One of the reasons the government is struggling to cope with looking at the security background of the 40,000-odd people who have arrived here courtesy of a people smuggler is that they have astonishingly cut the budget that ASIO has to conduct these character assessments. In last year's budget, $6.9 million was cut out of the ASIO budget for them to conduct character assessments of people who have arrived here on illegal boats. That I think is an astonishing fact that goes to the heart of Labor's failure to protect national security in these instances. We now have an apparently light touch character assessment that does not even seem to establish the identity of a person before giving them what is essentially a tick and flick exercise. These are very serious allegations on which the government owes an explanation to the Australian people and I call on them to use this parliament to provide that explanation.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a long debate, isn't it? We have had debates before on boat arrivals and we will probably have them again before this parliament rises and the election happens. It is a long debate for a reason. There are 46 million displaced people around the world. Periodically it has been a national debate since about the middle of the 1970s. It is very interesting to look at the different national approaches we have taken over that time.

Not many people understand that a mere 1,700 or so Vietnamese boat people arrived here in the 1970s. There were 111 in 1976, about 868 in 1978 and about 304 in 1979. There were two approaches that could have been taken by the Labor Party at that time. We could have sought to demonise these people and take political advantage of it or we could have sought to work with the government to resolve the issue. It is a great credit to Mick Young and Ian Macphee, the then minister, that those members of the House got together and put together an agreement to resolve that issue and bring people here by an appropriate mechanism rather than having them risk their lives by coming here by boat.

Fast forward to the Howard era. You hear the opposition talking about the glories of the Howard era, but of course Howard fixed a problem that he had presided over. In 1999, 3,700 people arrived by boat. In the year 2000, 2,939 people arrived by boat. In 2001, 5,516 people arrived here by boat. I am not seeking to blame the former Prime Minister. He introduced TPVs, but they had very little effect. Some 4,000 people arrived after that. Those movements were not driven by domestic policy; they were driven by people being displaced by wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Through a combination of events that number shrank to very little the next year—one, and then we got a few more along the way.

What was the Labor Party's approach during that time? It was to support the Howard government. Let us look at this opposition. We heard from the minister how they bragged to the American Embassy. We heard about the cables. A Liberal Party strategist bragged to the US Embassy about what a great issue this is for them. Despite the government's attempt to bring a rational, less heated, less partisan approach to this debate and commissioning the expert panel, what we have seen from the opposition is partisanship. This MPI reeks of a dark partisanship and the speeches given in support of it reek of a dark partisanship with the politics of division, florid language and aspersions being cast on the government's motives and their competence. We see all the Nixonian tricks you would expect from an opposition bent on serving its own interests rather than the national interest. That is I think the whole approach of the Liberal Party in this area. They have sought to gain partisan advantage at a time of national crisis.

The tragedy is that the opposition really are as sanctimonious as they are partisan. You hear sanctimonious reciting of the great triumphs of the Howard government but never talk about the amount of people who came here during those years. They never talk about the thousands that arrived during those years. They never talk about the fact that, even if the former Prime Minister solved a problem, it was a problem that had occurred on his watch. It did not occur on Labor's watch; it occurred during the Howard years—1999, 2000 and 2001. Let us not forget that the Howard government had the benefit of a parliamentary majority and an opposition that supported the government and did not, most importantly, frustrate its ability to act.

What have we seen from this opposition? Rejection of the Malaysian transfer agreement. After all of their rhetoric and sanctimonious lecturing about offshore processing, they marched into this parliament, sided with the Greens, not just in this House but in the Senate, and prevented the government from acting. It was an extraordinary thing for them to do given how sanctimonious and partisan they have been on this subject.

We need to talk about the facts of this year. You hear the opposition talking about arrivals, and there have been serious numbers of arrivals. There were more than 6,000 Sri Lankan irregular maritime arrivals in 2012-13 compared to 1,356 in the previous year. That is a significant increase. We know that is in part because there has been terrible strife in Sri Lanka. There have been a couple of hundred thousand people herded into barbed wire camps and a very serious war. Notwithstanding that very serious war, we know that some of those people are coming here for economic reasons and that is why, since that time, we have sent 1,073 people back to Sri Lanka.

As a government we are using all the tools available to us in order to deal with this issue. We have not sought from the opposition partisanship, sanctimonious lectures and entirely self-serving history lessons; we have always sought from the opposition cooperation in the national interest—the same cooperation that Mick Young gave Ian Macphee and the same cooperation that Kim Beazley gave former Prime Minister John Howard. Instead, what have we got from the opposition? No matter what the facts, no matter what the expert panel recommends and no matter what the Australian people want, the opposition are dedicated to coming into this parliament and frustrating the government's ability to do anything. They rejected the Malaysian transfer agreement, rejected the prospects of transfer agreements with other countries, demonised Malaysia for their attempts to cooperate with the government and rejected the expert panel—not just its recommendations but the prospect of it. They rejected its authority. They deliberately set out to undermine it. They said: 'It doesn't matter what the expert panel say, we'll reject it. We won't listen to them, because we know best.' They have undermined regional cooperation and the Bali process. They have attacked Malaysia. They have second-guessed Indonesia. They have refused to acknowledge what Indonesia has said—what the foreign minister and the chair of the foreign affairs committee have said over there. It does not matter what the Indonesians say. 'No, don't worry about them; we'll push the boats back.' That is what the opposition are telling people.

They have embraced a dangerous policy—this idea that you can turn boats back safely. Well, you cannot, and everybody knows you cannot. The Navy has told the parliament that you cannot, because, as the Navy's tactics change, so will the people smugglers'. We know that they are far more ruthless than we are, so they will burn boats. If you want some evidence of it, listen to Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, who said:

… there were incidents during these activities, as there have been incidents subsequently, which have been risky. There have been fires lit, there have been attempts to storm the engine compartment of these boats, there have been people jumping in the water and that sort of thing … yes, there are obviously risks involved in this process.

That is what the head of the Navy says. The opposition say, 'We're going to embrace this policy,' and they do not care what the evidence is. They do not care what the feedback is; they are going to do it.

This is an amazingly dangerous and short-sighted approach for the opposition to take, because they have set expectations very high indeed about the consequences of their policies, haven't they? Their rhetoric and their florid partisanship, their dark partisanship, have—let's face it—inflamed the passions of the Australian people, who are legitimately concerned about the arrivals on our border. But let us make no mistake: with this policy of theirs—frustrating the parliament and the government and trying to squeeze every vote out of this situation for themselves to try and change the government of Australia, instead of cooperating, ending this issue and saving lives—ultimately they have the tiger by the tail, and ultimately all of their dark partisanship will rebound on them and it will be to their everlasting disgrace.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, the impact of the record number of people illegally entering Australia by boat under this government. The boats keep coming, and that is why again I have to speak about the Gillard Labor government's absolute failure to protect our nation by efficiently protecting our borders and our immigration program. It is clear to all that the Gillard Labor government has lost control of our borders, and the people smugglers are jumping for joy because they still have a product to sell and will do that at any cost.

Australians know that it is the Gillard Labor government that undid the border protection policies introduced by the Howard government. As I have said in this place before, it does not surprise me to hear very concerning reports that the people smugglers are racing to fill their boats before 14 September, and we all know why: because the Gillard Labor government has the welcome mat out and that will be laid out until then. With the election date fast approaching and with a possible change of government, the people smugglers are doing all they can to fill their boats as fast as they can. The Gillard Labor government is complicit in this because it removed the border protection policies that have been proven to work. The people smugglers know that the coalition will stop the boats.

We are seeing evidence that Labor's border protection failures continue day after day—so much so that the people smugglers are looking for any chink in the armour after the Gillard Labor government's cuts have left our hardworking border protection service overworked and understaffed for the increasing number of boat arrivals. What we can infer from the recent influx of boat arrivals approaching the Top End of Australia is that the recent people smuggler boats have been targeting the mainland of Australia in a bid to exploit the legal loophole that would exclude people from being sent offshore for processing. Let's all remember that it is the Gillard Labor government that has been messing around with this excision bill and failed to get it to pass through the Senate whilst it was too busy pushing through its media reform bills. The Gillard Labor government foolishly pursued its media reform bills instead of passing legislation to excise the mainland of Australia. This just meant that the people smugglers can continue to sell their product: to get to the Australian mainland so their clients can avoid being processed offshore.

Many people in my electorate tell me that they are tired of the Gillard Labor government wasting money when Darwin and Palmerston, like so many other jurisdictions across the country, are in desperate need of funding for improvements in health, education, community safety, housing and child care. After almost six years at its disposal, the Gillard Labor government has not stopped and will not stop the boats. It cannot. We are seeing record numbers of arrivals. The Northern Territory News reported last week that the number of illegal arrivals by boat had hit 40,000. The Northern Territory News also reported the disgusting conditions people smugglers are inflicting on their clients.

So let's just look at how many arrivals have been intercepted off the shores of Darwin this year alone. On 1 January HMAS Armidale intercepted a boat west of Darwin carrying 43 people. On 28 February HMAS Launceston intercepted a boat north-north-west of Darwin carrying 33 people. On 20 March HMAS Pirie intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 78 people. On 24 March HMAS Pirie again intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 41 people. On 27 March HMAS Pirie again intercepted a boat south-west of Darwin carrying 147 people. On 3 April HMAS Bundaberg intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 41 people. On 9 April HMAS Ararat intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 73 people. On 17 April HMAS Childers intercepted a boat west-south-west of Darwin carrying 78 people. On 21 April HMAS Maryborough intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 67 people. On 23 April, ACV Ocean Protector intercepted a boat north-north-east of Darwin carrying 65 people. On 26 April, HMAS Maitland intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 75 people. On 3 May, HMAS Albany intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 160 people. On 4 May, ACV Botany Bay andMV OMS Endurance intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 105 people. That is 13 boats targeted for Darwin, carrying 1,006 people. Clearly, there is a new approach for the people smugglers and they are targeting the Top End. That is over 1,000 extra people putting pressure on our services in the Top End, where our services are already under pressure and completely thin on the ground.

Let's just look at the track record for all of the arrivals. Two hundred and eighty-eight boats and 18,255 people have arrived in Australia since August 14 last year. This was when the Gillard Labor government agreed to open Nauru as an offshore processing centre. This was their big deterrent. Clearly that has not worked either. Since the last federal election there have been 673 boats and 40,772 people that have arrived illegally on our shores. What a great track record—they should be so proud!

Let's look at the cost. It is over $5 billion. As I have said in this place before, I can only imagine what I could do in Solomon with $5 billion. $5 billion would go a long way towards the NDIS too, wouldn't it? But clearly we have spent it on different things. Five billion dollars would be able to fund a desperately needed hospital in Palmerston. It would be able to fund new police to improve community safety, perhaps a new school for our ever-increasing population, affordable housing for the Territorians who are being forced into homelessness every day due to the housing crisis, improvements to our roads to combat the ever-increasing traffic due to our population growth. No wonder the people of my electorate are fed up with the Gillard Labor government and its failed border protection policies—policies that give the people smugglers a product to sell.

People in my electorate know very well that every dollar spent on combating people smugglers is a dollar not spent in our community. Darwin has become the Gillard Labor government's front line failure for border protection policies. Our detention centres are full. The Prime Minister was in Darwin last weekend when 18 detainees escaped from our detention centre. She knows first-hand how she and her border protection policies have failed, and have impacted significantly on my electorate, because the boats continue to arrive to the point where families and children are now being transferred to detention centres that were previously used for males. After the Gillard Labor government promised children would be removed from formal detention and removed from being behind barbed wire, they are now being relocated to a site previously only suitable for males in detention. Another Labor broken promise.

There is a different way. The coalition does have a plan, an alternative to mitigate the disastrous impact that the Gillard Labor government has had on border protection. We have stopped the boats before and we will do it again. The coalition will restore what the Labor Party abandoned: a strong border protection regime developed by the coalition as a priority to protect our nation's borders.

The coalition will reintroduce off-shore processing of illegal boat arrivals as part of a series of measures to stop the boats and protect our borders. We will prevent this problem by minimising the numbers coming from both initial countries of origin and first asylum countries. We will disrupt the business of people smuggling and intercept the boats where it is safe to do so. We will make it a priority to identify and assist those in genuine need of refugee protection as early as possible. We have done it before and we will do it again.

The Howard government successfully reduced the flood of illegal arrivals to a mere trickle. Between 2002 and 2007, 10 illegal entry boats arrived with fewer than 250 passengers. Compare this with over 400 boats and 25,000 people arriving illegally since the last federal election. It is fair to say Labor's management of this issue has been a disaster. The boats must be stopped. There is no argument that people smuggling is a good result for anyone. It is unsafe for asylum seekers and every year people die from taking this risk. Stopping the boats is a priority in my electorate, and given the opportunity, the coalition has made it a priority to fix this disaster and the legacy of the Gillard-led Labor government. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, for recognising me this far away from you. It is a bit unusual for me to be this far away from you.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you in your right seat?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been moved—promoted.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton has the call and I recognise his elevation to deputy whip.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have heard a range of speakers on this topic, and some interesting ideas from both sides. I will take out the member for Solomon's contribution, because that was just a stitching-together of election slogans. But there were some interesting ideas put forward in this MPI, because it is an important issue.

The world has changed significantly since the Howard government came to power in 1996, and significantly since those years in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when a significant number of boats started heading towards Australia. Let's look at things that have happened. Australia's population has obviously increased—we have now reached 23 million people, and I think that the world's population has reached nine billion. Climate change is recognised by all—leaving aside a few people on the opposite side of the chamber—of the world's serious scientists as being a significant problem. Now, today, there are approximately 46 million displaced people within their own countries—46 million people displaced around the world—and we see it playing out in war in horrible places like Syria; with climate change impacting on many countries both in terms of agricultural production or rising sea levels; and also with some political challenges that have come. Over 15 million people have registered with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and they are seen to have a legitimate case.

Australia has a proud history of accepting immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants, as you know by looking around at the surnames, religions and backgrounds of people in this chamber. Since the end of World War II, almost six million people have migrated to Australia from other nations. So we do understand migration. We are not a xenophobic nation, even though ever since 1788 we have had an almost pathological fear as a nation of people coming in boats. Whether we are worried about the French that were only a couple of days late, the Russians, the Japanese, the Germans, the Vietnamese or whoever, it seems to be part of Australia's DNA to have a fear of boats, but also to welcome the person from overseas who lives next door to you, even though they seem to be contradictory concepts. In my electorate about one in three people were born overseas, but throughout Australia it is about one in four. I think we are No. 2 in the world in terms of taking refugees in—I think we went past Canada the other day—and it is basically the United States, Australia, Canada and then a fair bit of daylight before you get to anyone that takes any significant numbers. I think some of those Scandinavian countries take 100 or 200 and then it is basically no-one else. You can count the number of countries that do accept refugees on two hands.

In stripping out some of the politics and passion about this topic, it is important to remember that approximately 90 per cent of the asylum seekers who arrived by boat were found to be refugees. It does vary from year to year depending on where the people are coming from, and I think the minister indicated that there had certainly been a change in terms of people coming from Sri Lanka. In terms of people arriving by plane, where there is nowhere near the hysteria, less than 50 per cent of those seeking asylum have been found to have genuine cases. We need to put that in that context. It is a horrible fact that if people are coming because they are starving to death that is not a genuine claim to be a refugee. If you are coming because your island is being covered by waves and you are drowning, you do not have a genuine claim as a refugee. It is a horrible fact that some people do not realise that you must be fleeing extreme persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality or the membership of a particular social group or political opinion. I have certainly got refugees in my electorate that have come both by boat and by plane who have those characteristics—and I particularly mention many of the Vietnamese in my suburb of Oxley who made that journey and many of the Sudanese in my suburbs of Moorooka and Annerley as well as Hazari throughout my electorate who came for all sorts of different reasons.

That is one of those facts that we do not realise, that we could watch someone starve to death and that will not enliven our treaty obligations given the treaty that we on both sides of the chamber support. I particularly thank the member for Wakefield for touching on that history of bipartisanship in this area—a proud history of bipartisanship in this area—where people did not play the race card. Instead, they played the national interest card: the right thing to do, the Christian thing to do, the 'what would a good neighbour do? thing' That has been the case in the past where we see those figures for the Vietnamese. I had not realised that the actual number of Vietnamese people arriving was so low in terms of those coming by boat—1,700 people throughout the late seventies—but the number of Vietnamese who then came under other programs is obviously much more significant and they continue, as a whole, to make a great contribution to our economy and to our nation.

What to do to set up a situation where we manage this flow, this reality of a changed world? We cannot just put the mirror up and say, 'This is what we did in 2001-02.' As we heard from the minister, that policy was of a time and was flawed at that time. We must accept the advice of the people who know, and that is the Navy, the people who actually go out there on the waves and put their lives at risk. They have said very clearly that it is too dangerous and that we put ADF lives at risk. I have stood in this chamber too many times commemorating the loss of ADF personnel lives, and to think that a political decision could result in more ADF personnel dying scares me horribly. Along with the member for Stirling, who spoke earlier, and the member for Wakefield, I was a part of the joint select committee chaired by Senator Gavin Marshall that looked into the Christmas Island tragedy. We stood on the cliffs at Christmas Island and many of you have seen the footage of that boat breaking up there, except we then had to watch the entire footage and see those young girls drowning—the footage that did not make it onto our news at night. That event was significant because we had the footage, but there are so many other untold stories of lives lost at sea.

Every day that I go for a walk in Canberra I walk through the SIEV X memorial to those 300 other lives that were lost. We need to do all we can as a nation to stop people making that journey in boats, because the reality is that about one in 20 of them will drown. Lots of things motivate people to get into boats, but the reality is that it is about a one in 20 ratio of people drowning at sea. That is why we asked Angus Houston, the former chief of our Defence Force and very well respected by both sides of the chamber, to pull an expert panel together and find out what we should do. All of their recommendations must be in place for the whole suite of measures for us to be able to stop people making those dangerous journeys.

However all of them were supported, apart from the politics that came into play in the Malaysian solution, where we had that dreadful hypocrisy of, 'We will tow boats back to Indonesia, even though they are not a signatory to the UNHCR treaty,' and at the very same time saying, 'We won't send people to Malaysia because they are not a signatory to the UNHCR treaty'. It is that rank hypocrisy from those opposite, where they are prepared to milk this situation for every available vote.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance: the impact of the record numbers of people illegally entering Australia by boat under this government. No other issue that faces the Australian people today better illustrates the outcomes of the chaotic, divided and dysfunctional government. What better manifestation of an incompetent government could there actually be than the deliberate removal of policy walls that were protecting our home and our nation, just as we have seen under these Labor Rudd and Gillard governments? Perhaps tonight's budget might actually be a better manifestation, but let us not forget the impact that losing control of our borders is going to have on tonight's budget, and all the budgets. More than $5 billion of border protection blow-outs have occurred since the last election, and all that has contributed to the substantial black hole that the Treasurer will preside over tonight.

The blow-outs result from Labor's remarkable ability to spot something that has been solved—something that is fixed—and turn it into a problem, and then quickly turn it into a crisis. Having watched the former Prime Minister, John Howard, effectively stop the flow of illegal boat arrivals, this Labor government proceeded to dismantle the solution and create a problem. It has turned into a crisis, and the boats keep coming and coming and coming.

Since November 2007, when the successful Howard government ended, we have seen a staggering 40,772 illegal arrivals in our country. The sheer scale of Labor's border protection failure now surpasses the population of most towns in my electorate of Dawson. The Labor Party must be wishing that those illegal arrivals could all vote, because they must have imported almost half an electorate in the past 5½ years.

But I have to tell you that the other 150 real electorates around the nation are not so impressed. People have genuine concerns about their country throwing its doors open to economic refugees and throwing the immigration program over to people smugglers, human traffickers and perhaps terrorists. In this post-9/11 world we see airport security getting tighter and tighter, but in the post-Howard years we see Australia's maritime border security getting looser and looser. When this government sets new benchmarks for porous borders on a daily basis, Australians rightly question how many illegal arrivals are genuine refugees who will become tomorrow's citizens and how many are using the back door to become a threat to our nation.

Illegal immigration through people smuggling is a threat to all Australians. It is a threat because it raises serious security and criminal concerns, it raises quarantine and health issues, it costs time and money in processing and a lot of time and a lot of money under this government. Most importantly, it infringes on our nation's sovereignty and gives us less control over who comes into this country.

These are not actually my claims: what I have paraphrased there is from the Australian Federal Police website. To rebut what was said by the previous speaker, the member for Moreton: arrival in illegal people-smuggling vessels is actually different, and more of an issue, from illegal arrival by plane. We know who you are when you get here by plane; you have to have identification to get on the plane. We probably know where you are from as well. When you arrive by boat, without identification, there is a serious issue in working out whether you are a security risk to this nation.

While those on the opposite side would have us believe that all of these concerns are just unfounded, the facts actually speak for themselves. Last week on 7 May, Nine News reported that four Vietnamese asylum seekers, including a teenage boy, were on the run after escaping from the Darwin detention centre. What about the public revelation in April that recent unauthorised arrivals included a Sri Lankan man who allegedly fled his home after killing his girlfriend, an Egyptian man who was the subject of a high-level Interpol red notice for terrorism activities and an Iranian man accused of drug trafficking in Teheran?

A month ago I noticed a report that asylum seekers who had actually been branded as national security threats were protesting and asking the government to release them from detention or kill them. The article where I read about this went on to say that most of the asylum seekers had been in detention for two or three years following adverse security assessments from ASIO. They were among 56 in Australia who have been deemed threats to national security, without the ability to challenge those decisions. But they have been deemed by our agency which looks after national security as national security threats.

On 4 September last year the Australian reported that asylum seekers with violent histories were being released on bridging visas or into community detention. One was even allowed to marry in detention and make home visits to his wife. The 31-year-old was considered by ASIO to be a risk to security. Again, on 16 August last year the Australian reported that asylum seekers travelling to Australia had been identified by Sri Lankan authorities as members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The identification of the terrorist group members was based on photographs of new arrivals published in the Australian media. Back in 2010, on 14 July, the Australian reported that Indonesian authorities believed they had captured a senior Afghan al-Qaeda link figure posing as an asylum seeker and trying to reach Australia. There is this overwhelming body of evidence that Labor's open-doors policy is a real and direct threat to our national security and our way of life.

We can look to the experience in Britain to see the impact of unfettered illegal immigration. In an op ed piece back in 2009, the foreign editor of the Australian, Greg Sheridan, wrote about a discussion he had had with the then British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. Miliband said to him that 75 per cent of all terrorist plots that were aimed at Britain actually originated in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. He noted that some 800,000 Pakistanis lived in Britain. He said:

The vast majority, it goes without saying, are law-abiding citizens. But there is a link between uncontrolled Muslim immigration and terrorism.

The real historic significance of the illegal immigration crisis in our northern waters is that this could, if things go wrong, be the moment Australia loses control of our immigration program, and that would be a disaster.

If we are importing potential security risks because we are too scared to be labelled racist, bigots, dog whistlers or whatever then we are condemning this nation to an inevitable terrorist attack. The real danger that we face is that most Australians are too scared to mention the elephant in the room and this Labor government is too gutless to acknowledge that the elephant they rolled out the red carpet for is a very dangerous thing to actually have in your room.

Never one to wear the gutless tag, the former member for O'Connor, Wilson Tuckey, said, in 2009, he believed terrorists could be masquerading as asylum seekers. His reasoning was:

If you wanted to get into Australia and you have bad intentions, what do you do?

You insert yourself in a crowd of 100 for which there is great sympathy for the other 99.

You go on a system where nobody brings their papers, you have no identity, you have no address.

At the time, the member for Griffith, then Prime Minister, predictably condemned those comments, but the fact is that Wilson Tuckey was right. The facts speak for themselves.

The Gillard Labor government, not content with having the worst border security crisis in the history of our nation because of their dismantling of policies that worked, are now trying to pull the rug out from our national security agencies. These are the agencies charged with the responsibility of ensuring those who arrive illegally on our shores do not pose a risk to our nation. This is what the Labor Party wants them to do. On 1 May, two weeks ago, Radio National reported that Labor backbenchers were pressuring the government on ASIO assessments. It said the federal government was considering calls by its own backbench for increased scrutiny of the way ASIO makes adverse assessments of asylum seekers. They are upset because those 55 alleged asylum speakers I spoke of before have no prospect of release in sight because they are deemed by a national security agency to be a threat to this nation. So, far from recognising the dangers of security threats to this country, the Labor Party wants to ignore what ASIO says and just let them in.

We ignore the advice of ASIO at our peril. I am reminded of a story printed in the Australian on 4 September 2001, a week before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. It reported that the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, James Kelly, said the flow of illegal immigrants from South Asia and the Middle East into Indonesia was a source of concern. He said:

If it's easy to move people under strange identities around, that's a capability that terrorists who we know exist can then use.

Labor has removed our border controls. They have put this nation at risk. A nation without borders is like a house without walls. Anyone can get in. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought that, given that the government has no more speakers on the MPI, I would stand and have my comments as well. We have heard a lot about what has happened in the six years since the last time the coalition was in government. The story is not good. The story is a tragedy for a lot of people who have lost their lives along the way. The story is a tragedy for the finances of this country: some $6 billion in overspending and waste this government has presided over when there was a working system which discouraged people from risking their lives, because they knew the chances of making it to Australia were very slim. The trickle of boats that took place from 2001, when the Howard government saw a problem and created a solution, became a flood when the current government, under the former Prime Minister and continued in every respect by the current Prime Minister, changed the system completely, encouraging people to come to this country, risking their lives and putting money into the pockets of people smugglers and other international criminals. That is a tragedy. This is what happens to this country when a government that does not understand the priorities and wisdom of strong borders is let loose.

Look at what actually took place. We hear a lot from those on the other side about compassion. We hear a lot from those on the other side about the circumstances of those who come to this country. No-one says that the people who come by boats are coming from a great place. The point is that this immigration system—even our humanitarian refugee program—must have integrity. Currently, all those who come by boats take the emphasis away from all those stuck in refugee camps around the world.

I have plenty of refugees in my electorate—plenty of people who have come from Africa, plenty of people who have come from Burma. There are a lot of places in the world where we need to do our best to support refugees and to give people a better life, but the fact that you have money should not matter; your need should matter. I have been to a refugee camp up on the Burma-Thailand border. I have been to a refugee camp and seen the faces of little children who are going to be stuck longer in those refugee camps because this government cannot do the job the Australian people are paying them to do. That is a damn tragedy. Why should the children in refugee camps in Thailand—those Karen and Chin children, those strongly persecuted minority groups—finish second? Why should they be delayed any day longer than they have to be because this government cannot get its priorities right? What about those who know their families are stuck in refugee camps back in Africa and are desperate to get their families out of those circumstances? Why are those people stuck in refugee camps in Africa with no chance of coming here? The answer is that this government has dropped the ball. They created the problem out of the solution that the Howard government had.

I hear this a lot in schools and from the government as well. They talk about the terrible circumstances of those who come by boat and why they want to come here. As I said before, no-one doubts that there are bad circumstances in other countries—in Afghanistan, in the Middle East. No-one doubts that these circumstances are unpleasant and desperate, but it remains a matter of priorities.

I was at a function last year—just upstairs in Parliament House—where there were a lot of refugee advocates. I heard some people questioning the coalition's knowledge of the refugee convention. Article 31 is the main part of the convention that a lot of us think about when we talk about those who come by boat. Article 31 talks about people coming directly. In case there is any doubt that I am trying to paraphrase this, article 31 of the refugee convention prohibits states and parties from imposing penalties on refugees who come:

… directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened … enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This is often held up by some as the reason there should be no detention of those who come by boat, but the key part of article 31 is that it talks about people who come directly from a territory. I say to everyone here that, when you talk about directly from Afghanistan, there is a big difference between Afghanistan and Christmas Island or the Australian mainland or Ashmore Reef. You cannot hop on a boat in Kabul—or, in fact, anywhere in Afghanistan—and go to a different country. It is a landlocked country. So none of this 'directly' business comes into it. Those who come from Afghanistan do not move directly to Australia; they would have to go normally through Pakistan and, of course, as we know, hop on a plane. So they would go maybe from Karachi airport or maybe Islamabad airport—I am not sure—and probably then go to Malaysia or to Indonesia. So they wait in that departure lounge and then hop on a plane—maybe they get a meal or something like that—and then they land, maybe even in Jakarta. There is not a lot of directness in these circumstances. It really does bring into question how article 31 of the refugee convention comes into it. There is no moving directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened. That does not apply whatsoever. Of course, article 31 also talks about illegal entry.

I cast doubt on the legitimacy of many of those who come by boat to be considered as a refugee under article 31. Despite the fact that the circumstances in their old country are terrible circumstances—there is no doubt about it—it is not like they are coming directly from a threat and landing here. They go through other places where that threat does not apply and yet they still hop on a boat and take the places of those people that I spoke about before: those in refugee camps in Africa or in places like the Burma-Thailand border.

I say again, as I have said so many times in this place in numerous speeches: I might be accused of dog whistling or being a racist or something like that, but the reality is that what this government has done since 2008 when it changed the policies is take the emphasis away from those who are legitimately in need, those who are stuck behind barbed wire in refugee camps around the world, and, instead, give the opportunities through numerous places and through the support systems that they have here to those who come by boat. Under article 31 of the refugee convention I cast doubt on those who come by boat and I certainly cast doubt on their legitimacy to be received here under the humanitarian program in contrast to those who are stuck behind wire. This is an indictment of this government and in September the Australian people will get their chance to pass judgement.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This discussion is now concluded.