Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of the motion submitted by the minister. This is an extremely important motion. It reflects an issue which some might describe as wicked. It is one of those policy issues where there is both complexity and extremely important consequence, both for individuals and for society. I want to make some comments that reflect the importance of not only this particular resolution but also the government's overall stance.

As the minister said when she introduced this motion, this is a topic that has been bedevilled by political sniping for too much time over the last few decades. It is important that this issue be set very much in the national interest, very much in the public policy sphere, and I'll make a couple of observations about that. I also want to make the observation that this is an issue where well-intentioned people can disagree. I'll make some comments on why I disagree with the thoughtful comments of the member for Clark later on in my speech. I also flag that I'm going to speak in a way such that the remaining time on this motion will be divided equally between me and those who are to follow, who I suspect might have slightly differing views.

As the minister indicated, this is a topic which should be beyond political pointscoring. What we've heard from those opposite so far are two speeches which you might characterise as 'I support, but'—'I support this motion, but,' and then there is nine minutes of what you could only describe as political pointscoring that I think this important issue doesn't warrant. So I just want to flag right from the start that I think the minister, on a number of occasions in her contribution, flagged this as is one of those issues that are of such importance for individuals and for the country that we as a parliament really need to take them to a different level—a better mode; a better tone of debate.

I note that one of the best MPIs that I've ever taken part in was one on a similar topic to this. It was raised by those on the crossbench. It was an MPI where many disagreed, but it treated this topic with appropriate respect.

On the substance of the issue and why I disagree with the member for Clark, if you look at this issue I believe we have, at the heart of it, a fundamental need, as the minister and the Prime Minister have indicated, to respect humanity, to be kind, to respect our international obligations but, at the same time, to break this despicable business model of the people smugglers. This is something that was reflected way back in 2012, the last time Labor was in power, when we received the report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers. You could barely imagine a better qualified group of dispassionate experts to look at this issue. Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Professor Michael L'Estrange and Mr Paris Aristotle covered the full gamut of academic, policy and lived experience in dealing with this issue, and I just want to very briefly refer to that 2012 report. In speaking about the report, they indicated:

We recommend a policy approach that is hard-headed but not hard-hearted. That is realistic not idealistic. That is driven by a sense of humanity as well as fairness.

I believe that very much reflects the words that the Prime Minister adopted in the lead-up to the last election, which the minister cited.

Now, I won't go through all the recommendations, but recommendation 1 contained some key principles, one of which was the provision of incentives for asylum seekers to seek protection through a managed regional system. That is at the heart of the government's current approach. Another is the facilitation of a regional cooperation and protection framework. Again, this issue that we're discussing today is one element of a realistic, workable regional cooperation and protection framework. Recommendation 7, of course, as the minister indicated, recommended:

… legislation to support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements be introduced into the Australian Parliament as a matter of urgency …

Recommendation 8 dealt with Nauru in particular. Those were the recommendations of a panel that I believe dealt with this issue both from the perspective of being humane and from the perspective of solving this incredibly difficult public policy challenge of trying to prevent deaths at sea. As the minister indicated, this was the policy of the previous Labor government, it was our policy in opposition and it remains our policy today. We went to the election with that policy. It remains our policy.

In terms of all of the legal tests, the minister indicated that she has satisfied herself that this is in the national interest in relation to section 198AB(2). This will deter people smugglers. It is part of our broader satisfaction of the objectives of Operation Sovereign Borders. It is part of a regional cooperation framework. Also, as she indicated, this government will continue to ensure that there is further uplift in services on Nauru. So it ticks the boxes in terms of national interest. There are five key pillars which she has set out. In relation to section 198AB(3), she has received assurances through those key documents she talked about: the memorandum of understanding between the government of Nauru and Australia; the statement of arrangements that are in place; and the advice from the Office of the UN High Commissioner.

I conclude by saying that this is, as the minister has indicated, and as I think others who probably disagree with some of my contribution would concede, a problem with no easy solutions. I am firmly of the belief that this is the best solution that is currently available. It is the solution that breaks the back of the people smugglers. I have spoken to people in my electorate face to face who were desperate in seeking to get out of their country but who were abused by the people smugglers; who found themselves on the open seas when their boat broke apart. I've seen at that individual human level what that model can do to vulnerable people. I want to see that model stopped. That is why I support this motion. We should not let this debate be distracted by the political point scoring. We should be voting on this motion on the basis of the policy merits. On that basis, I support this motion and hope this House does too.

See this speech in context