Mrs D’ATH (2:16 PM) —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government’s response to people-smuggling?

Mr RUDD (Prime Minister) —I thank the honourable member for her question. The government is committed to a tough but humane policy on immigration. The immigration policy that we have taken in relation to people smugglers embraces a range of measures which are in part consistent with those adopted by the previous government and includes enhancements which have been embraced by this government as well. Furthermore, in dealing with the challenge of asylum seekers worldwide, we will do so on the basis of a humane policy consistent with our international obligations.

The government has embraced this policy on immigration in part because the Liberal government which preceded it failed in a policy called the Pacific solution. The Pacific solution was ineffective and inhumane. It stripped away the dignity of human beings, most of whom are now lawfully living in Australia under decisions taken by the Howard government.

The Liberal Party defend the Pacific solution based on one claim and one claim alone. They claim that the Pacific solution caused the reduction in asylum seekers coming to Australia between 2001 and 2003. Unfortunately, this claim does not stand up when compared with the global figures of the time. They are as follows. The Liberal Party need to reflect on the fact that around the world we saw decreases in the arrival of asylum seekers across this period. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Iraqis claiming asylum worldwide dropped from 52,000 to 27,000—a drop of 48 per cent. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally dropped from 50,000 to 14,000—a decrease of 73 per cent. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Sri Lankans claiming asylum globally dropped from 14,000 to 5,600—a decrease of 61 per cent.

The decrease in asylum seekers we experienced arriving in Australia after the introduction of the Pacific solution happened at exactly the same time as decreases were occurring worldwide. The number of arrivals went down in Australia; they went down in the United Kingdom; they went down in Europe; they went down around the world.

Mr Ruddock —It was stopped here, quite a different performance.

Mr RUDD —The only problem that the Pacific solution solved was the Liberal Party’s predisposition to find the next scare campaign, about which the member for Berowra now, interestingly, interjects. The success of the Pacific solution was in many respects trumpeted by those opposite as an effective response to the real problem of asylum seekers. In fact, it did no such thing if you examine carefully the global statistics from the time. That is myth No. 1.

What is myth No. 2? Myth No. 2 from the Liberal Party is that this government’s new tough and humane immigration policy caused the current increase in asylum seekers arriving in Australia. That is exactly what they argue day in, day out on the doors and in the particular form of expression used by the member for Murray, the member for O’Connor and other members with a similar approach to these questions. Unfortunately, once again, this claim is simply false when compared again against the global figures. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Iraqis claiming asylum globally increased from 14,000 to 42,000—an increase of 193 per cent. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Sri Lankans claiming asylum globally increased from 5,000 to nearly 10,000—an increase of in excess of 75 per cent. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally increased from 7,000 to 18,000, a 139 per cent increase.

The increase in asylum seekers we are experiencing in Australia is happening at exactly the same time everywhere across the world. It is happening in Australia, it is happening in the United Kingdom, it is happening in Europe and it is happening around the world. When the global asylum claims go up around the world they also go up for Australia; when they go down around the world they also go down for Australia. That is myth No. 2.

Let us explore myth No. 3, which goes to the purported implication by the member for Murray, among others, that they have advocated a different policy in the past since this government has been elected. This is a very interesting point indeed because every time the Liberal Party get to their feet on the question of asylum seekers there is always a bit of a wink-wink, nudge-nudge that they actually have represented a different approach in the period since the last election. Let us subject this to a little scrutiny as well and actually go to the detail. When the government chose to abolish temporary protection visas, what did those opposite do? They did nothing. They did not vote against it one bit—absolute inaction. They now, however, seek to pretend that something was different.

Let us go to the other one, which is the whole question of an alternative policy which was considered by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The committee recommended that, as a priority, the Australian government introduce amendments to the Migration Act—

Dr Stone interjecting—

Mr RUDD —You always know when the member for Murray is in trouble: she starts interjecting at a pace of knots. The committee recommended that, as a priority, the Australian government introduce amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to enshrine in legislation the reforms to immigration detention policy announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans. Sharman Stone, the member for Murray, was a member of that same parliamentary committee and said, ‘Labor is very much echoing what we did.’ Then, when asked if she welcomed the report’s recommendations to finetune the system, she said, ‘I do.’ On 16 April this year the member for Murray ruled out the reopening of offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. That is the Pacific solution. I quote the member for Murray again, as she studies her documents carefully knowing that these actually reflect what she has put on the public record:

Myth No. 1, myth No. 2 and myth No. 3. What they have engaged in instead is simply the politics of fear. What they have sought to do is to deliberately cultivate a culture of fear in Australia about this because they, consistent with those who have gone before them, believe that this represents an excellent political strategy for the opposition rather than a real solution to the problem.

This is the party of the Pacific solution, this is the party of kids behind razor wire, this is the party of Vivian Alvarez and this is the party of Cornelia Rau—as those opposite who have previously held that office as migration ministers bury their heads again in their papers pretending that none of this ever happened and all can be carefully and precisely airbrushed from history. In fact, it cannot be so. The Liberal Party fear and smear campaign on this matter has no basis in fact, no basis in policy and no basis in morality. But the time has come for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and show some leadership on this question, to lead for the first time rather than always to follow.