Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Earlier this week the member for North Sydney gestured across the House to ask whether in my heart I could support this amendment to the Migration Act—whether someone who is associated with human rights and has a close association with many migrant and refugee communities in this country could endorse it. Later in the week, my convictions were questioned by the member for Mitchell. He has nothing better to do with his time than to rush to his local paper boasting about how he has been thrown out of the House and that he had said as he departed: 'I remember when Laurie was a lefty'. These people are stereotyping this debate and making it extremely simplistic.

It is no surprise that today they were joined in their analysis of this debate by the member for Melbourne. As we know from listening to a previous speaker, in a recent radio program, Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, who does not believe in any offshore processing—and, of course, he is joined by Senator Hanson-Young and the member for Melbourne in that belief—indicated that the eventual outcome of this debate would be that offshore processing would be destroyed. Today, we are going down that road for certain.

The contribution of the member for Melbourne to this debate today was as infamous as his misunderstanding earlier this week of the history of the Vietnamese who entered this country. He said that they had all come by boat; he had no knowledge of the processing wait in Hong Kong and no knowledge of the situation of the Vietnamese in camps in the Philippines, which can be seen in the film In Limbo. Furthermore, he made the extremely erroneous allegation that Labor was advertising to the Australian people that it was sending people to be caned in Malaysia. He went on to say that poll after poll in this country has endorsed onshore processing. One poll, a recent Fairfax poll, has endorsed that position. The question has been rarely asked of the Australian people. Surveys from May 2009 to July 2010 from Morgan, Galaxy, Age/Nielsen and Essential Report showed that over 60 per cent of Australians said that they supported a tougher policy in this area. In one of those polls they actually asked about offshore processing, and 62 per cent of people said that they endorsed a stronger policy on offshore processing.

I refer the member for Melbourne to the work by Professor Goot, Population, immigration and asylum seekers: patterns in Australian public opinion 2011. He may get some worthwhile knowledge by reading that publication. There is nothing right necessarily about Australian public opinion. Basically, you should only utilise it when you feel it is right. But he has come here today and said that the Australian people want onshore processing. That is totally incorrect and he knows it. He has described this as a grubby debate and a race to the bottom. As with those Liberal members, he is making this very simplistic. There is nothing wrong with offshore processing, even if you support a strong humanitarian refugee migration intake. There is nothing wrong with endorsing offshore processing, if you are concerned about people being in the camps for two decades and are concerned about the people who live near the camps.

Essentially, there is a real moral question here and people can take different positions on it and understand it in different fashions. I strongly endorse offshore processing, and I do not think you are going to see too much inconsistency from me on this matter. At the same time, I do believe that the number of boats arriving has a relationship with events in other countries. It is not just about what Australia does. It is not just about how available the boats or the smugglers are. We do not exactly get refugee claimants on boats from all lands on this earth. At the moment we are getting the Tamils from Sri Lanka, Iraqis, Afghans et cetera, and there is a clear relationship with events in those countries.

The opposition is now coming forward, at a very late stage in this long debate, saying that the be-all and end-all is whether people have signed up to the international convention and that Nauru is justified because it has signed up and others have not. Earlier today I heard the member for Goldstein quoting Freedom House about the situation in Malaysia compared to Nauru. We all know that Nauru is not a long-term option. I spoke to a person this week who is very involved in refugee policy who has recently been there. I heard that part of the camp is currently being used for schoolchildren. There are water shortages. The water is cut off for a few hours every day. There is no work available on the island for the people if they are let out. The situation is chronic indeed. What are they going to do when 1,500 people are there?

Those opposite are talking about what a failure this has been because all the boats have come. If they did not think the boats were going to come—under either side in government—why did they spend $317 million of taxpayers' money on Christmas Island? If they had solved the problem, if boats were never going to come again, why did they build that facility? They built that facility because they knew there was always going to be a challenge to Australian immigration policy and the right of the government of the day to have some say in our refugee and humanitarian program and where refugees come from. When the laws were changed with respect to temporary protection visas—the new nirvana; the new glorious solution—those opposite stood there like stunned mullets and let the legislation go through. Dr Stone, the member for Murray, said at the time that it had outlived its purpose. And now, today, it is Nauru or nothing.

The member for Goldstein quoted Freedom House on the situation in Malaysia. Freedom House said that Malaysia got eight out of a possible 14 with respect to human rights—14 is the worst case; it got eight. Those opposite say that everyone has to sign the convention, and it is very interesting to look at the other countries that have signed the refugee convention. Those opposite say that we cannot send them to Malaysia. Malaysia have a court system. When Anwar Ibrahim was basically set up by the government, he could fight his way through the legal system. They have a democratic political system. They have recently legislated with regard to getting work rights for refugees in the country. They have got rid of their internal security legislation.

It is interesting to see who has else has signed the refugee convention—and we can send them there, those opposite reckon. Afghanistan got 12 out of 14, China got 13 out of 14, the Democratic Republic of the Congo got 12 out of 14, Iran got 12 out of 14 and Zimbabwe got 12 out of 14—and we ceaselessly hear opposition members, particularly those from Western Australia, telling us how bad Zimbabwe is. These countries which have signed the convention—which is the one thing those opposite think a country needs to have done for us to send people there—are the countries which we receive many of our refugees from. And those opposite are saying that those countries are good enough to send people to.

There has also been the statement that they can tow people back to Indonesia. The shadow minister's nice bit of language about this was: 'Oh, we can't send them to Malaysia because it has not signed the convention, but we can tow them back to Indonesia'—which is in a similar class. While supportive of reforms and change in Indonesia, I do not think there are many people here today who would say that Indonesia is that much more democratic, liberal or tolerant than Malaysia.

See this speech in context