House debates

Thursday, 22 September 2011

Bills

Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011; Second Reading

12:06 pm

Photo of Bob BaldwinBob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and, in particular, to reject the government's bill and to support the opposition's amendments. The only reason that we have had 12,263 illegal arrivals on 241 boats is that this Labor government held up the 'open for business' signs. In fact, since the Prime Minister became leader there have been 100 boats, containing 5,710 illegal immigrants. For the record, not one person has been processed offshore.

It was this week that Treasurer Wayne Swan was named Finance Minister of the Year. I am absolutely sure that the 'People Smugglers Association' would call our minister for immigration the 'International Immigration Minister of the Year' because he has done so much for people smugglers. In fact, he has recreated an industry that brings to those people smugglers somewhere between $120 million and $250 million in revenue, and that was after the Howard government smashed the people-smuggling rings.

It is only absolute stubbornness that stops the Prime Minister from having an offshore processing solution. The Prime Minister—that wheeler and dealer; that negotiator of extreme ability—cut a deal with Malaysia which sees us taking five refugees for 800 people. That is a hell of a deal, but she should actually work out that 50 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing. If the Prime Minister were to agree with the amendments by the opposition, she would have in place an offshore processing regime that does not dictate Nauru. In fact, Nauru is excluded until Monday, when it will finally have its signed ratification of subscribing to the UN convention on refugees. In fact, what amazes me is the Prime Minister's push for Malaysia when so many speakers in the past, on previous bills, have spoken about the need to have countries that are signatories to the convention.

I quote from the UNHCR website about Malaysia. It says:

Malaysia is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its Protocol.

…   …   …

By law, refugees are … vulnerable to arrest for immigration offences and may be subject to detention, prosecution, whipping and deportation.

It is true that Nauru is not a signatory at this point in time. It will not be ratified until Monday. So by the time this bill is voted on and by the time it goes through the Senate, Nauru will be a signatory. As I said, it is only the stubbornness of this Prime Minister. In fact, I quite expect the Prime Minister to come in and say something along the lines of: 'We, and we alone, will dictate the terms of who comes into this country and by which means they come into this country.' So much so is her stubbornness.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds. I say that in the light of the Prime Minister's position on 6PR on 8 July last year, when she said:

I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

But she has changed her mind yet again. This Prime Minister has had more positions and more policies than I have had hot feeds—and, I have to say, that is actually saying something! She has changed her mind on so many issues and has changed direction from one extreme to the other, bouncing almost like a ball in a pinball machine—bouncing off the little flickers—

Comments

No comments