David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

They did that not because they saw that they were getting the government out of trouble; they did that because they saw, as elected members of parliament for their community, they had an obligation to act in the national interest. That is the challenge that each and every member of this parliament faces on every bill that comes before them. The challenge for the opposition will soon be upon them, and they will have to make the decision as to whether they go down that path.

The Leader of the Opposition came in and said: 'We will wreck. I don't care about what this does for future governments when it comes to the ability of executive government to act, and to act decisively, to secure our borders.' In a desperate pursuit of short-term gain, which must only be about trying to bring this government down short of its term, he said he would do that rather than empower the executive government to do what every Australian would believe to be its first and foremost responsibility—and that is to protect our borders and to manage our migration program. That is what is at stake.

The Leader of the Opposition came in here and said, 'We've got to get the facts straight,' and he pointed out a fact that he believed the Prime Minister had got wrong. Can I point out that the Leader of the Opposition said that 1,500 people were taken to Nauru under the Howard government's Pacific solution. He ought to get his facts straight, because 1,322 people went to Nauru and 315 went to Manus Island. If you cannot get your facts straight, do not come into this place and start accusing others of not getting their facts straight.

I mentioned there are two wings in the coalition. There is the 'let's wreck and bring the House down' wing. And then there is the wing that seek some fig leaf of respectability, and they argue that they cannot support Malaysia because it is not a signatory to the convention. I think the member for Cook likes to consider that he is the leader of that wing within the coalition, and we will hear more from him shortly, but those in that wing come forward and say, 'We cannot allow Malaysia because they're not a signatory to the convention.' I note that when this point was raised in relation to Nauru in the past, the member for Cook said it was a furphy. The Leader of the Opposition used the same word, saying it was a furphy. If that is the standard against which this government and any future government, an executive government, acting to secure the borders of this country, is going to be judged, then you should think very carefully about what that might mean for any future government when they seek to do what governments in the past have always sought to do and what governments in this country will always need to be able to do into the future.

The member for Cook, who likes to talk about how terrible this Malaysian arrangement is because they are not signatory to the convention and who is now holding up whether or not a nation is a signatory to the convention as being the key test—

Mr Morrison interjecting—

See this speech in context