Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 and in doing so bring to the House the reason we are here. The reason we are here is that border protection to our north has broken down and become dysfunctional. At the outset I congratulate everybody because this debate has been very civilised. Not only this urgent debate but debate on this whole issue over the last few days has been civilised—other than the irrational and out-of-control comments by the member for Isaacs who should withdraw them and apologise. I will move on.

In 2007 the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare, was on a committee trip with me to Geraldton. I said to him, 'Do you realise the trouble you people are in regarding border protection?' It is ironic that he is now the minister in charge. At the time he said to me, 'It's not an issue; it won't be an issue.' It is an issue and this is why it needs to be taken so seriously. It has come home now. The rest of the world is watching us. Our electorates are watching us and they are watching the way in which we deal with an issue which is so sensitive.

Yesterday, when I was on Capitol Hill with the member for Eden-Monaro, we treated this issue sensitively. When I got back to my office I had a number of emails generally supporting my point of view but there were some who said, 'I'm from your electorate and I've got a different point of view.' That is fine. That is the great thing about this democracy we have in Australia. I know that there are many divergent views out there but we are trying to reach a solution where we can stop the boats.

We did stop the boats. The Howard solution was something that brought me into parliament. In 2001, we received 5,516 boats. That is when the Tampa arrived. I was elected in 2001 in the only electorate in Western Australia to change hands. After 2001, there was one boat in 2002; 53 people in 2003, 15 in 2004; 11 in 2005; 60 in 2006. What happened in 2007? Double. Now we are reaching the point where the arrivals will probably outstrip the number of people that we bring in on our humanitarian program. We bring 14,000 people to this country annually on a humanitarian program, and we are about to usurp them.

I support the amendments that the member for Cook has moved. The Labor Party cannot on the one hand say they want countries with human rights obligations that have signed the conventions and then say, 'We've changed now. We want to send them to a country that doesn't have these conventions.' I bring to your attention an article in the Herald Sun of 2 June last year by Geoff Chambers in Kuala Lumpur entitled 'Refugees brutality claims: torture in Malaysia', which says:

Refugees in Kuala Lumpur's suburban slums say they have been tortured in Malaysia's detention centres.

It goes on and says:

Gruesome personal accounts include claims of beatings with rattan canes and whippings a fate that could await the 300 refugees the Federal Government intends to send to Malaysia as part of its controversial detainee swap.

It goes on about human rights groups criticising the tactics, but they are supported by Malaysian law. I would like to be able to table that, but I know I would not be permitted. In yesterday's Australian an article entitled 'Malaysia solution is a death sentence: lawyer' says:

A Former Iraqi soldier was tortured by police in Malaysia to obtain a confession that he planned to arrange for asylum-seekers to reach Australia, according to a leading human rights lawyer in Kuala Lumpur.

This is where people on that side want to send them. Can I appeal to people on that side who have made it their mantra in this House to support human rights, people such as the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Calwell, the member for Banks and the member for Fremantle. As a colleague from Western Australia, the member for Fremantle spoken on human rights issues. I have been on delegations with her when she has made human rights her No. 1 objective. On this issue I would be most surprised if she were comfortable in voting for a bill that sent people to a country that abrogated their human rights. I encourage people like the member for Fremantle to think carefully before they support the Oakeshott bill, but do support the amendments that we are offering to this House.

See this speech in context