Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

There have been a number of matters raised, but, first of all, there was no ball to drop. He had never left a ball behind when it came to offshore processing and resettlement in particular. There were no resettlement arrangements with Papua New Guinea when the previous government left office. There was nothing. There had not been anything for months until we sat down and started working through these issues. We started that process within weeks of coming to government. It has been a long road and we have worked carefully with the government of Papua New Guinea. We are very close now to the finalisation of proper resettlement arrangements in Papua New Guinea.

Just announcing them does not make them true. They did not exist, member for Corio. They were not there. They had to be created. Just because you promised them does not mean they miraculously came into existence. They had to worked on, they had to be implemented, they had to be created, they had to be negotiated and they had to be funded. That is what our task has been over the last nine months. So there was no ball to drop. They never even picked up a ball. There was no ball when it came to what the previous government left behind when it came to resettlement arrangements. It was a blank page and an empty promise from the previous Prime Minister and the previous minister.

The other point to note is what would have happened had arrivals continued at even the claimed levels of the opposition—and they base their great statistical achievement on a two-week period before the election date. They were so successful that this occurred in the caretaker period. This was the period of their triumph. Two weeks they claim as the success of the implementation of their policies. Two weeks says nothing. Six months of no successful venture to Australia talks about success. But let us assume even for a second that in his wildest fantasies that this was an achievement of the previous government. Arrivals at 400 per month, which is higher than it was back in 2010 at the time of the previous election, would have swamped Manus Island and Nauru within months. The whole policy would have collapsed. They simply did not have the capacity, the resources or the systems in place to deal with that rate of arrivals which would have continued to happen under that government. They only had one arrow. They only had one arrow on offshore processing.

We have never claimed that it required just one thing. We brought in the policies of denying permanent visas for those who were already onshore. There is a pool of 30,000 people constantly messaging back to those offshore. If there had been a re-election of the Labor government, those people would have said, 'Yes, come down on the boat. This government is going to hand us our permanent visas.' That would have messaged back. The nuances of whether people ended up in Papua New Guinea or stayed in Australia would have been lost, but the message about permanent visas being handed out would have remained. That still remains true today. Without that message, without that clear change in resolve and without the clear actions of the government to turn boats back where it was safe to do so, Manus Island and Nauru would probably not have got past the first quarter of this year—if they were lucky, and if they could have sustained arrivals at no more than about 400 per month. It would have collapsed. Today, as we sit here, if that government had been re-elected we would be back up where it was. The policy would have been a complete failure; it would have been overwhelmed by their own failures. The opposition are seeking to delude themselves with pretensions and fantasies as some sort of comfort from the terrible failures they had in government. They should just simply acknowledge that they got it all wrong and this government has got it right. They should simply accept this fact, support the government's policies, support turnbacks where it is safe to do so, support denying permanent visas and support offshore processing done properly, as it is being done by this government.

On the very sensitive matter of Mr Leo Seemanpillai, I have no power to intervene in a decision that has been made for a tourist visa by a delegated officer for an offshore application. There is no such intervention power for the minister. I said that earlier today, and perhaps the member missed it when I made that comment on Sky News earlier today, but that is the case. I would not suggest that he takes his immigration advice from Sarah Hanson-Young—Senator Hanson-Young—or Fairfax press or anyone else. This is a very sensitive matter. The difficulties of family members, in this case, of getting to Australia was acknowledged by the government. It was for that reason that I took the unusual step up of offering the repatriation of the remains to ensure that a funeral could have been held with the family. That offer was rejected. That is a matter for the family and that is for their judgement. But Australia's visa laws will apply; the processes that are put in place to police and run those visa arrangements will apply. There is no special intervention power that is available to the minister to override those processes in an application of this nature. Tomorrow will be a very sad day for that family and it will be a very sad day for all of us. I extend my best wishes and sympathies to his friends and family.

See this speech in context