Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

Everyone in this House believes that we should conduct ourselves in a way which will achieve two outcomes: firstly, that we save lives at sea; and, secondly, that we offer safe haven and adequate human rights protection to those who have sought comfort in Australia. These are the two tests by which we should consider this: do we save lives, and do we offer safe haven with adequate human rights protections?

There are three difficult choices we have to consider. The first has been onshore processing. The history is well known—that, when that option was taken away by the previous government, the numbers coming on boats, and therefore drowning, plummeted. We also know that when that option was reintroduced—for the best of purposes, from the best of intent, with the best of will, to ensure safe haven—we saw a 100-fold increase in the numbers of people coming to Australia. The consequence of that is the reason we are here today. Everybody knows that the consequence has been almost 20,000 arrivals and at least 500 lost at sea and, fearfully, potentially many more. So that option clearly and utterly and absolutely fails the test of saving lives at sea.

The second option which the government has proposed is Malaysia. Again, let us take it as in good faith and a genuine attempt. But it has a significant, fundamental failure. Not only does the bill that the government seeks to pass through the agency of the member for Lyne remove all human rights protections—let us understand that we are being asked to pass a bill that removes all human rights protections—but the reality of what is being considered as a destination in the camps of Malaysia is not adequate in its human rights protection. I have great respect for Malaysia, but the reality of what is being proposed is not adequate. How do we know this? We know this because the government has said it will not send unaccompanied minors to Malaysia.

Let us understand this. The government does not believe Malaysia is a fit and proper place, in terms of the current protections provided, to send unaccompanied minors. And that means that the government, in its heart of hearts, knows that the safeguards, the protections, the human rights conditions, are not adequate. And what is the consequence of not sending unaccompanied minors? There is a terrible perverse effect—that young people will then be put on boats and the trade will continue. The young people will be the lures to be sent to Australia so that family reunion can be commenced. This recognition of the human rights flaws in the Malaysia proposal leads, however, to an absolutely fatal flaw in the government's approach, and that is: it is a lure for the most insidious of all of the people smugglers to put young people on boats to send them to Australia. The trade continues. The human rights inadequacies are recognised by this decision of the government alone and, as a consequence, nothing will be solved. We will be offering neither safe passage nor safe haven. These two tests are failed on both counts in relation to the Malaysian solution.

That is why—knowing that this bill, with all the goodwill in the world, fails the two most fundamental tests you could possibly put for any legislation—we have offered amendments. Those amendments are very simple. They guarantee the human rights protections by reinstating and ensuring that a refugee convention nation is the benchmark—the test, respectfully, Prime Minister, which you set prior to the last election—and, as a consequence of that, we can ensure in the real world that either Nauru or Manus is operated under Australian circumstances, with Australian cooperation, with Australian standards, and human rights conditions can be protected and we can put in place again a lasting and enduring solution which will ensure that we no longer have safe passage issues and we also have— (Time expired)

See this speech in context