Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4337 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

Some members of the Assembly have forgotten that the federal government's action in relation to the asylum seekers on the Tampa, which is the colourful issue often raised, was firmly based on its desire to ensure that the asylum system protected those most in need and that the system was not abused by those seeking migration outcomes.

It was becoming increasingly clear that people were paying criminal gangs to access Australia and gain a migration outcome to which they were not entitled ahead of those in much greater need. I will talk about those in much greater need a little bit later, Mr Speaker. In relation to those on the Tampa, it should not be forgotten that the Tampa was headed for Singapore when it rescued the asylum seekers; it was going that way.

The Tampa's captain received authority from Indonesia to proceed to its port of Merak to disembark the passengers. However, the rescued asylum seekers put the captain of the Tampa under duress and forced him to turn around and head to Christmas Island. It was the Tampa affair, of course, which created the debate that we have had for something like two years.

The federal government's actions in refusing to allow the rescued asylum seekers to disembark were entirely justifiable and consistent with international law. These people were not in danger of persecution in Indonesia and they bypassed several countries where they could have sought protection, and that is international law.

Let me address paragraph 1 (a) of Ms Tucker's motion, regarding international law, the rights of the individual and the obligations of the state. There is no right at international law for an individual to enter the territory of a state of which that individual is not a national, nor does international law give refugees any right to choose the country in which they will be protected from persecution.

Let me repeat that, Mr Speaker: genuine refugees, regardless of the degree to which they are being persecuted or pursued, have no right to enter the territory of a state that they choose to enter in terms of shopping around for a better outcome. They have the right, and they are fully protected under international law and by compassionate communities, to be taken in at the first port of civilised and safe embarkation.

That has not been the case with the great majority of people who are at the moment under some form of detention in Australia. In fact, the main obligation that the convention imposes on Australia as a signatory state is not to refuse refugees, that is, to return them directly or indirectly to a country where they will be persecuted.

In relation to the claim that mandatory detention is inhumane, inefficient and an international embarrassment to Australia, as Ms Tucker is wont to say, let me remind the Assembly of a number of points. I will start with paragraph 1 (b) of Ms Tucker's motion. Mandatory detention ensures that unauthorised arrivals are readily available while their identity is established and during the assessment of their claims. It also facilitates health, character and security assessments and ensures their availability for removal if they have no lawful basis for remaining in Australia.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .