House debates

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Bills

Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail

4:36 pm

Photo of Josh FrydenbergJosh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When this debate started more than two hours ago, I looked up at the gallery. It was filled with schoolchildren, and I thought to myself, 'What would they be making of this debate?' I wanted them, despite the sometimes acrimonious nature of this difficult debate on border protection, to know one thing: Australia is a humane and generous country. Immigration is part of the Australian success story. In this country about a quarter of the population was born overseas. About nine million Australians have at least one parent born overseas and about seven million Australians have two parents born overseas. People such as Victor Chang, Frank Lowy and Sir John Monash are all the product of migrant Australia. In fact, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were both born overseas, and I myself am a product of immigrants.

In fact, Australia is one of the top three countries in offshore resettlement. During the nearly 12 years of the Howard government, immigration doubled in this country. Let me repeat that: during the nearly 12 years of the Howard government, immigration doubled in this country. In 1996-97 there were 73,900 people in our migration program and 11,900 in our humanitarian program. When John Howard left office in 2006-07 there were 148,000 people in our immigration program and over 13,000 people in our humanitarian program. John Howard took the public with him. John Howard's strong border protection policies helped take the public to a point where they accepted a very generous immigration story.

This is the point of our amendments today. We want a strong border protection policy. We want something that works. We believe in the migrant Australia but we also believe in an issue of state sovereignty—namely, protecting our borders. We have a tripartite approach to border protection—that is, temporary protection visas, offshore processing and turning the boats back when it is safe to do so. These are all policies that worked in the 12 years of the Howard government to the point that, when John Howard left office, there were only four unauthorised arrivals in detention and just 300 unauthorised arrivals had come in the preceding five years. Compare that to what has happened since 2007 when Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith, came to office. We have had 19,000 unauthorised arrivals, more than 500 tragic deaths at sea and massive cost blowouts and—importantly—8,000 people have been denied offshore resettlement in Australia because of the large number of unauthorised arrivals.

We oppose the Malaysian solution because Malaysia is not one of the 148 signatories to the UN convention on refugees. There are 148 signatories, but Malaysia is not one of them. The High Court ruled the Malaysian solution invalid, and now we are being asked in this place to support a bill which will see the Malaysian solution implemented. On the coalition side we are committed to good policy that works. We want consistency and credibility in our border protection policies. We do not want to worsen our relationships with important neighbours such as East Timor, Malaysia and Indonesia, as has happened on the government's watch by not having an effective border protection policy in place.

I know that my colleagues the member for Lyne, the member for Moore, the member for Pearce and many others in this House are all committed to the same goal—namely, a humane and generous approach to immigration—and also to a strong border protection policy. The Malaysian solution is not it. The coalition's amendments are a step forward because they mean that we can have offshore processing in one of the 148 signatory countries. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments