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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2499 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

sitting, we should move a motion to send a clear message to the Prime Minister that we reject the federal government's policy of placing children in detention. After hearing Mr Pratt's contribution today I am sure we would receive unanimous support.

I am sure that all members would be concerned about what happens next. If we received unanimous support for a motion that rejected the federal government's policies relating to children in detention, would we then say that it was all right to have children and their mothers on bridging visas? I assume at this point that even members of the Liberal Party would not suggest that children should be separated from their mothers. However, we would probably have to separate them from their fathers.

Are children on bridging visas destined to become homeless and desperate? I hope not. Those issues would also have to be debated. Mr Cornwell said in debate that he was sorry that people had been brought into these broader issues but, as Mr Pratt chose to go into those broader issues in some detail, I need to respond some of his comments. Mr Pratt continues to make certain statements even though I have presented evidence and there is abundant evidence available to show that his statements are incorrect. Mr Pratt keeps repeating those statements as if somehow it will make them true.

One of the things that he says quite often is that most Australians are generous and that they traditionally welcome refugees. At present 71 countries accept refugees. In 2001 the top three countries receiving refugees were Iran, Pakistan and Tanzania. Those three countries host over 3.6 million refugees between them. Mr Pratt referred to the developed world, so I presume he is saying that, as Australia is one of the best countries in the developed world, that somehow makes it okay.

The fact that the majority of refugees are going to developing countries does not seem to be a problem. I think it is a problem if we consider the fact that developed countries are in a better position than developing countries to deal with refugees. I do not know from where Mr Pratt got his figures, as he never produces them. If his figures were based on the ratio of refugees to host country population we would have to include family reunions and other categories.

The normal ratio for the acceptance of refugees is as follows: one in 1,130 in Australia; one in 572 in Canada; and one in two in the Gaza Strip, which is not a developed country, so that does not count in Mr Pratt's mind. The ratio in other countries is as follows: one in 456 in Germany; one in 33,000 in Japan; one in 75 in Pakistan; one in 285 in Thailand; and one in 681 in the United Kingdom. I will not refer to all the other developing countries because, as I said earlier, Mr Pratt does not seem to think that they count.

I refer briefly to one other issue. In December last year we had a similar debate on a motion that I moved to establish refugee welcome zones-an initiative put forward by the Refugee Council of Australia, which is pretty much the same initiative as the one proposed in the motion we are debating today. While the intention of the motion was to implement a more formal system of refugee-friendly zones, it was really just symbolic. (Extension of time granted.) I do not understand why things have changed, but I am glad that they have.

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