Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Prime Minister and the government for facilitating this opportunity to speak on indulgence.

Plainly this is a sombre day. Plainly this House meets in the shadow of unfolding disaster in the seas to our north. Plainly this is the kind of occasion when we should try to put aside some of the ordinary partisan politicking that so often marks this parliament. Nevertheless, I do not think anyone on either side of this parliament would expect people to put aside their strongly held beliefs and their strongly held principles about the various policy positions which have been put by different people in this parliament on the question of border protection. I will come to that shortly.

I thank the Prime Minister for her update on the emergency operations now taking place for search and rescue in the seas to our north. I congratulate the merchant ship on its fine work. I obviously thank and admire the Australian military personnel who are now, as they always do, preserving life under difficult circumstances. Nevertheless this latest disaster, the second in under a week, does raise very serious questions which need to be considered by this parliament and by the government. Obviously there are serious questions about the resources that our government has in the area, given the increasing flow of boats and the increasing overloading of dangerous and risky boats in this area. Obviously there are serious questions about how we can have better cooperation with Indonesia, given that this disaster and the disaster last week have taken place in Indonesia's search and rescue area. And, yes, there are fundamental questions about government policy and about what this parliament has been doing over the last six months.

The fact is that the government has had a bill in this parliament since late last year, and at any time this government could have brought the bill forward for decision. It chose not to do so. Instead the government worked with the member for Lyne, Mr Oakeshott, to bring a bill into the parliament in almost identical terms to the government's bill—not a bill that was strictly moved by the government but a bill which was in almost identical terms to the government's bill.

The opposition has very serious problems with the government's bill. We do not like and will never like the Malaysian solution. We are perfectly happy with Malaysia as a country, but as a place for boat people to be sent we do not believe it works. We do not believe it meets the ordinary standards which the Australian public would expect of the conduct of the Australian government. Let us be very clear what this opposition has been consistently saying for six months, ever since the Malaysian deal was mooted by the government. We have said that this is a dud deal for Australia and we have said that it is a cruel deal for boat people.

We have always believed in offshore processing, but we have always believed in offshore processing with protections, and it is these protections which have been stripped away from boat people in the legislation which the government first put and which now the member for Lyne is putting. We know that while the opposition has been absolutely consistent for a decade in our support for offshore processing with protections, the Labor Party—the government—has radically changed its position. First it was totally opposed to any form of offshore processing, then at the last election the Prime Minister said the government supported offshore processing at East Timor, but she explicitly ruled out—on numerous occasions before the last election—processing in a country that had not signed the UN convention, and then only last year did the government finally say that it wanted offshore processing and in a country that had not subscribed to the UN convention.

I want to make it crystal clear that at any time in the last six months the government could have taken this action, but at no stage did bring its bill forward, and it certainly has not brought Mr Oakeshott's bill to the conclusion that it now seeks to give to his bill. By contrast, the opposition's position has been absolutely crystal clear all along.

Earlier today, until interrupted by 90-second statements and without facilitation from the government, I tried to give this parliament a way forward that embraced the common ground that now exists on both sides of this chamber: support for offshore processing at countries which have subscribed to the UN convention. That is acceptable to the opposition. It is acceptable to the government. I believe that that is the legislation that should now be dealt with by this parliament. I think that, if this Prime Minister really wanted our nation to go forward on a united basis, the best thing she could do would be to allow the legislation that I sought to bring into the parliament earlier today to go forward, because we know that there are many members opposite who do not like the Malaysia deal. We know there are many members opposite who have spent a parliamentary lifetime attacking offshore processing in any shape or form, let alone offshore processing without any protections whatsoever.

If this parliament is to be offered a piece of legislation which is most consistent with the consciences of the members of this parliament, it should be the legislation that I sought to bring forward earlier today, legislation that every coalition member of parliament and every Labor member of parliament ought to be able to live with in his or her conscience, because it allows offshore processing with the kinds of protections that a decent and humane country such as Australia should always have in place. That is what the coalition offered the parliament an hour or so back and I deeply regret the fact that this Prime Minister and this government have not allowed this bill to go forward.

That concludes my remarks on indulgence. I think it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to allow the coalition to consider its position, given that we have had no notice of this. I did seek to speak to the Prime Minister just after one o'clock today to inform her of my intentions. Unfortunately, until she got to her feet at two o'clock, I had no notice of her intentions.

See this speech in context