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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4343 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Mr Pratt mentioned the fact, and I think it is a very salient point, that we take the second highest number of refugees and asylum seekers per head of population. Canada, I think, is the highest. Australia takes, I think, some 12,000 a year. I seem to recall the federal government saying that it is going to increase the number. Like Mr Pratt, I would be quite happy to see it doubled, taking it to about 24,000. The federal government is thinking of taking the number up to about 20,000. The annual rate of migration to Australia is about 80,000 to 100,000. Whilst Australia is big in size, it has a small population and that is a very commendable performance indeed.

I think there are 25 million refugees in the world. Mr Pratt says that there are 20 million of them and I would probably bow to his greater experience in that regard, but I have seen the figure put at 25 million. Anyway, there is a hell of a lot of refugees. Every country does have the right to say what it will do in terms of its own immigration policy-whom it will take and whom it will not. There are many countries in the world which do not take anyone. We have a very proud record in terms of taking people, going back to before World War II. A hell of a lot of reffos came out here after World War II. My father was one of them. That proud record continues.

But every country does have the right to pick where people should go. Mr Pratt mentioned, I think, that our obligation under international law is not to return asylum seekers and refugees to the place from which they fled, but it is not necessarily for the refugees to pick where they will actually go. There is a real problem with people jumping the queue, people who in their original country perhaps had some wealth and are able to buy their way to Australia. I can recall some immigration officials telling me not all that long ago of the dreadful conditions for some people waiting in camps in Africa to come to Australia. They had been waiting many years because other people were jumping the queue and their applications were being put back and there were no other countries for those people to go to.

There are 20 million to 25 million refugees in the world and quite a few countries are not prepared to take any of them. I do not see Japan, for example, taking many. I do not know whether Norway does. I had an argument just after the Tampa incident with a Norwegian woman who was terribly vocal about what happened with the Tampa being dreadful. I think I asked her how many people Norway takes. Maybe things here can improve a bit, but Australia does have a very proud record. After the current spate of applications from refugees and asylum seekers is processed, a significant number will remain in this country, but that will be done according to law and according to due and proper process.

I seem to recall reading once that the Greens do not want any more immigration. I wonder how that sits with Ms Tucker's call in this regard. She might like to address that point in reply. If they have that as a policy, it might be a bit inconsistent with this motion.

Ms Tucker stated that Pakistan, Iran and, I think, Tanzania have the largest number of refugees in their territory. Of course they do. They have land borders with countries from which lots of refugees have fled and they are camped over the borders until things actually occur.

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