Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

In supporting the amendments to the bill, I think we should perhaps all go back to first principles for a little while and just look at what is really etched in our psyches. Whether we are Christians, Muslims or Buddhists, etched in our psyches is the defence of women and children and the care and protection of the vulnerable. Even in the period since the Second World War, we have seen all sorts of migrations of displaced persons from country to country, including right down to the more recent years in Vietnam. Now we find ourselves in this current circumstance. We ask what our response should be to this defence of women and children and care of the vulnerable. Why do people come to this country? Do they come to this country because they want to escape terrorism, blinding and grinding poverty and starvation? Is it because they want the freedom to practice their religion and political beliefs? They know that if they come to Australia they will have a good standard of living. They will have freedom of religion. They will have freedom of association. They will have freedom of the press. They will have freedom of assembly. They will have all the sorts of things that many of them have been denied. So this country becomes a very attractive target.

There is a dichotomy here: on the one hand is the care of the vulnerable and, on the other hand, is how you regulate to get people out of one situation and into another. In the middle, you have those who trade in people, the people smugglers. As the folklore about Australia spreads throughout the Indian subcontinent, South-East Asia and the Middle East, we become a very attractive target. We are generally agreed in this place on what should happen.

The sticking point that this whole debate has come down to is the Malaysian situation. I find it very difficult to accept this Malaysian situation. I think deep down the government has a similar problem. If the government were sure that the Malaysian situation would satisfy our needs in Australia on this matter, why would they have excluded women and children from it? They are clearly disturbed by aspects of it. Then you come to this extraordinary situation of: we will take 4,000 of yours if you take 800 of ours. You can dress that up any way you like, but that is trading in human flesh. That is using a social, human dimension to achieve a political outcome, and it should be unacceptable to both sides of this House. Trading in human flesh is the most loathsome thing—and that is what it gets down to. At the end of the day, there are only 800 who are going to be catered for.

There are lots of imperfections in what we have done thus far with our various programs to accommodate people who have come to this country; but, by and large, the offshore processing has been the answer. And you heard the figures today—I will not go over them again—during the Howard years. We did stem that tide. When the tide was stemmed, the smugglers were not operating, the boats were not coming and the people were not drowning. I think we should go back to as close as that as we can. Places like Nauru and Manus Island offer that possible solution, and for that reason I support the amendments.

See this speech in context