Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for a proven, more cost effective and more humane solution to address illegal arrivals to Australia.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The subject of this matter of public importance is the need for a proven, more cost effective and more humane solution to address illegal arrivals to Australia. The government have themselves a new slogan. You will hear it from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, who is sitting opposite me, or from any other members of the government, every single time they get to their feet. It is: 'Break the people smugglers' business model.' What the government do not understand is that the government are the people smugglers' business model. The government's policies have underwritten the people smugglers' activity for the last three years. Those criminals up in Indonesia and around South-East Asia who have been putting people on boats and sending them to Australia for the last three years have been doing so because of the incentive, the conditions and the environment that the government have created through their policies—

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

as the Father of the House knows only too well. They are the reason the people smugglers have had such a good run over the last three years.

Any amount of embellishing rhetoric that comes from the minister proclaiming their commitment to breaking the people smugglers' business model must be backed up by proven solutions, solutions that are more cost effective, more humane. This is something the government and this minister have failed to do. Their first approach, their first big project—before this minister was in the chair; it was through Senator Evans—was the asylum freeze, which did nothing more than detain people unnecessarily for six months, expand detention times, increase costs and lead to another 1,200 people turning up in the detention network, leading to the chaos that we now see in our detention network.

The Prime Minister's next big initiative to break the people smugglers' business model was East Timor. East Timor went the same way. East Timor was a farce of historical proportions in Australian international relations. And now we have the sequel, and that is the Malaysian people-swap deal. The government inherited a solution and created a problem. It is a point that the coalition has made many times. They inherited a solution and they created a problem. As I said earlier in my remarks to the House, the people-swap deal is not what this country needs; it needs a policy swap. It needs a swap from the knee-jerk, ill-thought-through measures of this government to the proven, more effective, more humane, more cost effective solutions that the coalition has not only proposed but has implemented—most notably through the Father of the House, the member for Berowra, and then through those who followed him—to ensure that Australia had a border protection system that Australians could have confidence in. Today they have no confidence.

While it is true that this government has been the people smugglers' business model for the last three years, I can guarantee that one thing that will break that people smugglers' business model is an election. An election would see a change, to the policies that are proven, that are cost effective, that are sensible and that the Australian public overwhelmingly support. This government has, frankly, run out of excuses when it comes to picking up the phone to the President of Nauru and reintroducing temporary protection visas. First of all, there was the great excuse of, 'They're not a signatory to the convention.' The Prime Minister said on 8 July 2010, when talking to 6PR:

I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the refugee convention.

As we all know, Malaysia is not a signatory to the United Nations convention. We know that the Prime Minister was quite happy to throw that pledge away, as she threw away her pledge to the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. This is a Prime Minister who simply cannot be believed on these pledges that she makes. But we also know that Malaysia is not a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This is a serious convention that imposes obligations on countries to ensure that things such as caning cannot be indulged in by countries that are signatories.

Nauru has been working through its process, as I have been aware for some time. I visited there last August and the President told me on that occasion that they had begun a process to look at how they could sign the refugee convention. This was never a deal breaker from our point of view, because I have always known that the people of Nauru, the President of Nauru and all Nauruans would treat those who were sent there from Australia to the highest of standards in terms of their human rights. This has never been in question, and the demonising of the Nauru practice that we had when we were in government and the demonising therefore of the Nauruans has been a disgraceful practice of those who now sit on the government benches and those who sit outside this place and have demonised the Nauruans for how things were conducted. The Nauruans are a friendly people, they are a hospitable people, they are a welcoming people and they will take good care of the people we put in their care. Nevertheless, they have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition and I, just as recently as yesterday, that it is their intention to sign the refugee convention. As a result, this government has run out of excuses to not proceed and pick up the phone. The government also said, back in the election campaign, that the government of Nauru was not stable. The Prime Minister said:

Well the Parliament of Nauru is deadlocked and obviously there isn't a functioning government …

What the Prime Minister did not understand at that time was that we had spoken to every single member of the Nauruan parliament, and every single one of them was supportive of reopening the facility in Nauru, as they are today.

The Prime Minister is purveying this fantasy that somehow they are going to reach an agreement with Papua New Guinea. Even the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said he will not go to Papua New Guinea to try to get this Prime Minister out of trouble, because he believes they have more important things to talk about. So the simple question for the Prime Minister and the minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, is: do they agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs that they should not be proceeding and arguing their case with the Papua New Guinea government at this present time?

They have said quite openly to members of parliament there that, if the great Minister for Foreign Affairs were to get on a plane and go to Papua New Guinea, things might be different. But the Prime Minister, Minister Bowen opposite and the foreign minister are not prepared to do that. They will send the parliamentary secretary to run an errand for this government and treat the people of Papua New Guinea and treat the people of their government with disrespect. That is what we are seeing from this government when it comes to matters in the Pacific. The refusal to pick up the phone to Nauru and the refusal to deal at a senior level with those in Papua New Guinea are extremely disappointing. That is the excuse put forward and it is an excuse that has fallen over.

Then there is the great suggestion that the great majority of people who went to Nauru ended up in Australia. Minister Bowen told Jason Morrison on 9 June 2011—not that long ago—that there were 2,000. Morrison replied:

4,000. How many thousands came through Nauru to Australia?

Bowen: About 2,000.

That is a quote from the minister opposite. Apparently 2,000 people were transferred to Australia from Nauru. I refer the minister to the statement from Senator Evans issued on 8 February 2008—and I am happy to table it, by leave. It says:

A total of 1637 people were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, of whom 1153 … were ultimately resettled from ...

these centres—

to Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled … 705 … were resettled in Australia—

not 2,000, not a majority of the 1,637 people, but just barely over 40 per cent. This government and those outside this place constantly put this nonsense that the majority of people who went through the Pacific solution ended up in Australia. It is just simply not true. The minister should be honest about it and those outside this place who continue to repeat this nonsense should also be honest about it.

The government also says that it costs too much. The minister opposite said on 10 May to Howard Sattler—his good mate over in 6PR; Howard Sattler is always happy to talk to you, Minister; he loves having you on the program; so does Ray Hadley; he sends his regards:

Well Nauru would be a very expensive option, a lot more expensive than this Malaysian arrangement …

That is what the minister said. The cost of the Malaysian agreement is $292 million over four years. As the minister knows, from the same celebrated statement from Senator Evans, the cost of running the Pacific solution was $289 million over six years. That is actually less than what this government asked for in one year as a top-up to its budget. We know the budget has gone from less than $100 million a year in expenditure on asylum seeker management to more than $1 billion. The government's budget has blown out by $3 billion in this area over two years, and that includes around $450 million in additional capital costs. This government is going to lecture us on this side of the House that we apparently spent too much money. Amazingly, Senator Evans says in his statement that the Pacific solution is 'a cynical, costly and ultimately unsuccessful exercise introduced on the eve of a federal election by the Howard government'. The department expended $289 million between September 2001 and June 2007. If we could compel the member in the other place to come in here and give an explanation, we should, because he should describe the $3 billion blow-out that this government has incurred. Its $1 billion expenditure has gone up from less than $100 million a year. So, if he wants to do that, then I think it would be a welcome gesture.

But it does not stop there. The minister knows that he has put in the budget $130 million on top of the $292 million for a phantom regional processing centre, which in estimates the government could not say where it was, how big it was, who would go there or where they would come from. They said: 'We thought we could put $130 million in there and just slip it in and not mention it to anyone.' I am quite happy to say to the minister opposite that I can get Nauru up and running for a lot less than that. The minister has, I think, 7,700 people working for him in the department of immigration. If he were happy to make them available to me, I would be happy to work through these matters. But I can tell him this: I have been there; the minister has not. I know that it is going to cost a fraction, because the minister knows that when we set up Nauru it cost $10 million. Senator Cook—your own Labor senator in your own inquiry—found that the capital cost of establishing Nauru was $10 million. So 10 million bucks—it may be a little more than that now, but it is not $292 million. That is the cost of your disgraceful Malaysian people swap, your five-for-one deal, which sends people over there into the never, never.

The other point is that the government has said that it is not part of a regional solution. This is the great fig leaf that it tries to put over its feign measures in this area. The region has an Australia problem when it comes to asylum seekers. It does not have a regional problem; it has an Australia problem. If the minister were honest he would tell us what the Indonesians and the Malaysians have said about that on the record. They have called these regional processing centres that the minister likes to champion but can never get established anywhere 'an asylum magnet'. We know that they are actually proposing an offshore processing centre in Papua New Guinea, which is not a regional processing centre. They think it is good idea to set up a processing centre in Papua New Guinea. Senator Cash in estimates recently asked the departmental secretary in relation to PNG: 'Are we talking about a regional processing centre or just a processing centre?' The secretary said, 'We are talking about a processing centre.' So what we have from the minister is a proposal from the government to establish an offshore processing centre in Papua New Guinea that will actually be staffed by Australians. This is by the secretary's own confession. I am puzzled to understand the difference between what the minister is now proposing in Papua New Guinea and what is on offer in Nauru. I suppose the only difference between what is on offer in Papua New Guinea and what is on offer in Nauru is that Nauru can actually happen and it can actually start. They actually want to talk to you, they actually want to get on with it and they actually want to look after people. They are actually prepared to do it because they are a generous people who are prepared to just do it. They understand the great support that Australians have given Nauru over the years from both sides of this House. I have just visited a school in Nauru which was built for $11 million. You would not get that much under the BER in Australia, I can assure you, but they built a good school in Nauru for $11 million. That proposal, I think, shows the goodwill on all sides of the House towards the Nauruan people when it comes to such projects—and the Nauruan people are happy to help. This is a humane proposal in Nauru because I would know, if I were the minister, where they are every hour of every day. After six weeks this minister is going to tag people, put them into the community and will never see them again. Unless he can guarantee how long they are going to be there and the conditions they are under then he cannot go ahead with this diabolical proposal. (Time expired)

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I welcome this MPI because it gives another opportunity to compare and contrast the proposals from the opposition and the government, I must say it is disappointing to hear more of the same from the honourable gentleman opposite. He had an opportunity, after his trip to Nauru on the weekend, to lay out some more developed thinking about the opposition's approach, to answer some of the questions and criticisms that this side has put to him, but we have heard nothing. Never before have so few travelled so far to say so little as the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cook on the weekend, going to Nauru. Never before have they gone so far to achieve so few sound bites. This MPI from the honourable member opposite goes through three criteria: proven, more cost-effective, more humane. He wants to be compared to this government. 'Proven, more cost-effective, more humane'—I am more than happy to go through each one.

We heard a bit from the shadow minister just then about the first element. He claimed that their proposals were more proven than this government's proposals. He can put it however he likes, but I would like him to outline where people sent to Nauru under his proposal would be resettled if they were regarded as genuine refugees. The member for Cook can get up at the dispatch box today and say they will be resettled in Australia and New Zealand like 95 per cent of those regarded as genuine refugees were resettled before. Where are they going to be resettled? Maybe they are going to be resettled in Europe, maybe in Asia, but you could outline it. Are you going to get the UNHCR to assist you in resettling people from Nauru?

The honourable member has had the opportunity, over 15 minutes, to explain why this Nauru solution is different to the last Nauru solution. Where would they be resettled? The honourable member for Cook knows that they would be resettled in Australia. He knows—and he loves me using this statement—that that does not break the people smugglers' business model. If people smugglers are able to go to Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq and say: 'Look, you come to Australia and you will be transferred to Nauru. You'll have to wait there awhile You might have to wait 12 months, you might have to wait two years or, as happened before under the previous government, you might have to wait five years, but you are going to get resettled in Australia.

'I still have a product to sell you,' the people smugglers would be able to say, as opposed to the arrangements with Malaysia, where it is very clear in the agreements outlined between the two prime ministers that people transferred from Australia to Malaysia will not be resettled back into Australia. That breaks the people smugglers model in a way the opposition could never have the wit to do. That breaks the people smugglers' business model in a way the Liberal Party never achieved while they were in office.

Then we have 'more cost-effective'. I know the opposition have the odd difficulty when it comes to budget costings. I know they have the odd black hole. But, based on his performance thus far, the member for Cook is no threat to the member for Goldstein or the member for North Sydney in terms of an economic portfolio because his performance on costings is about as good as theirs were. We heard the shadow minister saying: 'It only costs $10 million. That's all Nauru would cost.' He did the nice tour of the Nauru centre, which happens to be a school now, so you would have to transfer people out of the school and rebuild it elsewhere. We had page 34 of the MYEFO outline of capital costs and measures announced since the previous budget for irregular maritime arrivals of $45 million. We had operational costs of $251 million just for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, just the one department—not taking into account the transfer costs, borne by the Navy, of moving people to Nauru and moving people back again when they were resettled; not taking into account the support and administrative costs, borne by AusAID, that were necessary to get Nauru to agree to this arrangement. The department of immigration's costs alone—one government department—were $251 million.

Then we have the final leg of the opposition's claim that somehow the Nauru solution was more humane. I do want to spend a little bit of time on this particular leg of the opposition's attack, because the Pacific solution did not break the people smugglers' business model; it broke the will and spirit of asylum seekers. That is what the Pacific solution did.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is absolute nonsense.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did not break the business model; it broke the people.

Mr Keenan interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ):

Order! The honourable member for Stirling will remain silent.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what the opposition did when they were in office. And the member for Stirling says that is complete nonsense, that is complete rubbish. I am happy to spend—

Mr Keenan interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I warn the honourable member for Stirling.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to spend a little bit of time on this, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I do not think the member for Stirling is aware of the history. He is not aware of the amount of time that people spent in Nauru. He may not be aware that one of my predecessors as minister for immigration, Senator Vanstone, instigated and commissioned a report into the psychological damage of people who were kept at Nauru to advise her as to what to do with the people who were left on Nauru. This report does not make pretty reading. I will not tolerate the shadow minister for immigration or the shadow minister for customs saying that their solution was a humane one because it is nonsense, and anybody who read this report would be disabused of that notion. For example:

The nature of symptoms shown maintains that the depression will produce an inevitable cycle of further deterioration. The most important symptoms in this regard are hopelessness, worthlessness, self-blame, cognitive impairment, withdrawal and sleep disturbance.

It goes on:

Instead, frustration and anger are turned inwards against themselves, and this is contributing to a risk of self-harm and suicide.

The report goes on:

While the group considers the level of risk with regard to mental health, it is clear that the current environment and circumstances are dominant contributors to their condition.' It further goes on: 'The fact that the OPC operates as an open centre makes little difference to the mental health of residents. The mental health of the residents will continue to deteriorate rapidly while they remain in the OPC. These migrants have been suffering from their mental health cases for several years already and are deemed to be highly vulnerable to do self-harm if they continue to stay in the offshore processing centre in Nauru.

It goes on:

The IOM mental health team have given them all necessary services that they would be needing, but despite the availability of the advanced psychiatric medications frequent monitoring of behaviour and safety prevention provided these patients, and even the availability of a psychiatrist for 24 hours, are not enough to treat their mental health cases.

This is their more humane solution. This is what the opposition are so proud of. Those are people who were resettled in Australia. After being told to wait on Nauru they were eventually resettled in Australia. They did not break the people smugglers' business model; they broke the people. These are people who are still under psychological care in Australia today. Let's not have these crocodile tears from the opposition about a more humane approach.

What we do have with Malaysia is an arrangement whereby people will be transferred from Australia to Malaysia with the agreement of the Malaysian government. Therefore they are people who will be treated with dignity and respect and in accord with human rights standards. That is perhaps why the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has seen the benefits of this arrangements. We know the opposition, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, have been out there trying to claim, falsely, that the Pacific solution somehow had the support and involvement of the UNHCR. It did not. The Malaysian agreement entered into by the government has been developed in consultation with the UNHCR. That is perhaps why we have seen the UNHCR spokesman say:

To us, it's a real commitment by Australia in burden-sharing with a country like Malaysia that is now coping with a large number of refugees and asylum seekers.

We think the agreement has the potential to enhance the protection for refugees in Malaysia, as well as the region as a whole.

If it realises more resettlement opportunities for refugees, this would be a positive outcome.

There are plenty of statements on the record from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the benefits of the arrangement with Malaysia, as opposed to the UNHCR's views about the previous government's approach.

We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say on 27 May of the former government's centre on Nauru, 'It was auspiced under the United Nations and the IOM and we were responsible for the health, the education, the recreational facilities and all the support they received.' We had Senator Birmingham say just last week it was 'overseen and approved' by the UNHCR. Let's see what the UNHCR actually had to say about the previous government's record. On the day the Nauru centre closed, the UNHCR said,

UNHCR had strong concerns about the 'Pacific Solution' …

                    …   …   …

… in our view, today's closure of the centre on Nauru signals the end of a difficult chapter in Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Many bona fide refugees caught by the policy spent long periods of isolation, mental hardship and uncertainty – and prolonged separation from their families.

Just this week the UNHCR said this:

UNHCR was not involved and, indeed, distanced itself from any role in overseeing or managing the processing facilities on Nauru under the Pacific Solution. Recent media reports that the centre on Nauru was approved by and run under the auspices of the UN are factually incorrect.

That bells the cat for the claims of the opposition.

Here we have a situation where the opposition says: 'We will reintroduce Nauru. Don't worry about the fact that people arrived after Nauru and then ended up in Australia and it did not break the people smugglers' business model.' Then they say: 'Let's reintroduce temporary protection visas. Don't worry about the fact that the number of people, most particularly the number of women and children, getting on boats and coming to Australia after the introduction of temporary protection visas went up over the next two years.' Then they say, 'Let's turn back the boats.' So we have these crocodile tears about people being transferred to Malaysia. I wonder what protections the opposition would put in place for people who are turned back to Indonesia. I bet they would have none. It is okay to turn the boats back and not accept any more refugees as part of the process. It is okay to unilaterally turn a boat around on the high seas and send it back from whence it came, to Indonesia, without having a regional agreement to do so. But it is not okay apparently for this government to enter into an arrangement with another country under the Bali process in consultation with the UNHCR which ensures better protection and takes more refugees as part of the process. What hypocrisy from those opposite who say, 'We will turn around the boats,' and then come in here and cry crocodile tears about what happens to people when they are transferred to another country.

We have entered into an arrangement that means people will be treated in Malaysia in accordance with the agreement between the governments, which means that they will not be treated as illegal migrants. We know the opposition thinks this is a plan which just might work because the opposition has suggested something similar. Let us not forget that last November the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, in his Lowy Institute speech suggested Australia 'trade off … taking more refugees out of the camps in countries of first asylum' and he mentioned particularly Pakistan and Iran. He now claims that he was not talking about an agreement which would have Australia taking more refugees. He claims now that he was talking about a one-for-one swap. I wonder why he said this proposal would involve Australia taking more refugees. It does not sound like a one-for-one swap. He also says now, 'I was not talking about Australia managing it; I was talking about the UNHCR managing it. I was talking about a UNHCR arrangement.' There is not a word here about that other than to say the UNHCR would be invited as observers. He also very clearly proposes a bilateral arrangement between the Prime Minister of Australia and President Ahmadinejad, hardly a recommendation that could be seen as protecting people's human rights and ensuring that they will be treated with dignity and respect.

We have two alternative proposals before the House and before the Australian people. The opposition would send people to Nauru—presumably 1,500, which was about the capacity last time. There is no detail about where they would be resettled if they are regarded as genuine refugees, no detail about how they would be returned to their country of origin if they are not genuine refugees given the fact that Nauru has said that they would not support involuntary returns of anybody kept in Nauru, no detail about how the damage inflicted last time as outlined in those psychologists' reports would be avoided next time, damage to families and children included, no regional framework, and no UNHCR involvement despite the misleading by those members opposite. Or we have the arrangement with Australia and Malaysia as part of the Bali process in consultation with the UNHCR, which engages Malaysia, increases our humanitarian intake and means that, even if we transfer 800 people from Australia to Malaysia, there will be 3,200 people transferred in net terms who are able to resettle in Australia—4,000 souls who are able to say that they have a better life in Australia as part of a regional agreement. That is something that this government should be proud of and is proud of.

I understand that the opposition is devastated that this just might work because it would take away their sound grabs. It would take away their opportunity for cheap point scoring. They would be an opposition in search of a new narrative.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Try to secure a deal before you start crowing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Stirling that he is under warning. I think he might hope to get the call. He cannot if he is out for an hour.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to defend and protect the honourable member for Stirling. He is one of our greatest assets as well as being a fine gentleman.

Government members interjecting—

There might be a bit of disagreement on this side of the House. We have a model which breaks the people smugglers' business model. We are actually able to say very clearly, 'If you come to Australia you will be returned to Malaysia ' The opposition says, 'You will be taken to Nauru—or maybe Iran. But if you are taken to Nauru then there is a fair chance that you will be resettled in Australia, because that is exactly what happened last time.' The member for Stirling now has the opportunity to outline the new arrangements and where people will be resettled after Nauru. If he does not, we can assume that they will be resettled in Australia just like last time. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the chair has shown great restraint towards the honourable member for Stirling and he is still here he now has the call.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do appreciate that. But when you are listening to a minister who tragically cannot provide even the remotest defence for his policy, not even one fig leaf within 15 minutes, then clearly that is pretty substantial provocation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry that I tried your patience under those circumstances.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ):

I hope you are not reflecting on the chair.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister had an opportunity. He comes to this House and he pretends that he is concerned about the welfare of asylum seekers. Just let the record show that he will not even stay for this debate and he is returning to his office to pray for a reshuffle.

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will not interject as he is walking out.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What he might like to find out whilst he is there and what he might like to come and update the House on is whether he can provide for those people who go to Malaysia the guarantees that we can provide for people who would be sent to Nauru. Will those people be caned? Will they be fed? Will their children go to school? Will they get comprehensive medical care, including—since he seems to be so concerned—comprehensive mental health care? That he cannot provide answers to those questions is the reason why we have even had such harsh critics of the previous government's past policies, such as Julian Burnside and Marion Le, come out and say that, compared to the policies that we pursued, the Malaysian solution is vastly worse.

If you were to ask people how they might sum up this government I think most Australians would probably offer one word, and that would be 'incompetence'. The inability of this government to shape events or offer a coherent policy program has made the Prime Minister and her ministers standing national jokes. History is going to record this government as nothing more than a tragic footnote. Just as we use the Whitlam government as a metaphor for fiscal irresponsibility, for future generations the Gillard government will be a metaphor for complete and utter government incompetence.

We find this manifesting itself in many different ways. Sometimes the government is just too paralysed to act and it obviously does not know what to do when faced with difficult circumstances. But the worst thing is when this government gets involved in things because anything it turns its attention to becomes manifestly worse. When they respond to a problem they make it much worse. You can think of some recent examples like the banning of live cattle exports to Indonesia and the misguided ban on banking exit fees. When they gave away free insulation they managed to burn down houses and it even lead to deaths. There are the massively overpriced school halls. The list of incompetence goes on and on.

But the gold standard for this incompetence and their ability to take a problem, get involved and make it much worse still remains their border protection policy. When they came to office they were faced with a situation where we had had on average three boats arrive per calendar year in the last six years of the Howard government. On those boats there were fewer people than on the last six boats that have come to Australia since the government announced its Malaysian people-swap deal. When Labor came to power in 2007 there were just four people in detention who had illegally arrived by boat. The people-smuggling trade had been tackled, it had been stared down and it had been smashed by the Howard government—in particular, the member for Berowra.

The government changed and in stumbled the Labor Party. They had no clue, no idea and no understanding about how their decisions would work in the real world. They unwound the Pacific solution. When we used the word 'solution' it actually was a solution as opposed to some commentators who seem to be using the phrase 'the Malaysian solution' for something that has not even been finalised yet. So they unwound the Pacific solution and they liberated people smugglers to go back into business bringing people down to Australia illegally. Almost instantaneously we saw the boats start to return. That is exactly what we warned would happen when they came into the parliament with these policies to wind back the robust system of border protection that they inherited when they came to government. But, like someone who is drowning in quicksand, they thrashed about and it got worse and worse and they continue to drown. The trickle of boats subsequently became a flood and the government went into a tailspin and pursued more and more ill-fated policy responses as their political panic increased. We saw a group of asylum seekers hijack an Australian vessel, the Oceanic Viking. The government, instead of staring them down, blinked and gave them a special deal to come here to Australia. That special deal, extraordinarily, involved the Australian government chartering a private jet, flying it to Indonesia, picking up people who were deemed by ASIO to be security risks and then flying them on that private jet down to Australia. These are people who still remain in detention.

Then the government moved on to the absurd processing freeze on Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum seekers, which resulted in the massive overcrowding we have seen within our detention network and the subsequent violence and riots that we have seen on Christmas Island and at Villawood. Then they moved on to the East Timor proposal, a proposal that was so ludicrous and so damaging to Australia's regional policy that it paralysed Australian foreign policy and diplomacy as diplomats were forced to pursue this clumsy thought bubble that Julia Gillard dreamt up in the lead-up to the last election.

Next came the reopening of Manus Island but, as usual, the government got in the way of itself. The foreign minister refused to touch it, so they sent up the parliamentary secretary, which was deemed to be a grave insult to the authorities there and the Papua New Guinean government refused to move forward on this issue. Finally, they moved to the Malaysian proposal, which is without a doubt the worst proposal yet. It is a proposal that is so bad, so expensive and so inhumane that it really does beggar belief that it managed to pass cabinet scrutiny from people who, quite frankly, should know better. Whilst these policy contortions are going on, whilst they move from disastrous policy to disastrous policy, there is a ready solution sitting there for this government. If they were prepared to swallow their pride, they could take it and address this problem tomorrow.

We know that this solution works because we have used it in the past and we have used it successfully to drive the people smugglers out of business. People being smuggled illegally into Australia is not a new problem. Australia has faced it in the past and when the government has shown some resolve, when it has set a policy direction that actually works, and when it is prepared to see that policy direction through, it can legitimately break the people smugglers. That is what happened in the past and that is an option that is still open to the Labor Party if they were prepared to take it.

I want to compare the two options that are on the table: the option that we have, which is to send people to Nauru for processing, to reintroduce temporary protection visas, and to turn the boats back as appropriate, and the government's Malaysian solution. The government's Malaysian proposal manages to negotiate only a five-for-one people swap deal in which Australia pays all the bills, yet Labor still has not been able to pin down the final details of this policy. Apparently, we are still involved in negotiations with Malaysia. If Hansard could incorporate air quotes, I would have done them around 'negotiations'. You can imagine what it must be like for the Australian delegation going to negotiate with Malaysia. They would sit there, probably sweating profusely with absolutely no leverage whatsoever, while the Malaysian delegation can just sit there, filing their nails or ordering tea, because they know the Australian government is so desperate to conclude this deal—it has already announced it and given away any possible leverage it might have—that the Malaysians will be able to dictate whatever terms they like.

We know that Julia Gillard is so desperate for this arrangement that she is going to be forced to give the Malaysians everything they desire. What they clearly do not desire is people coming to Malaysia who have been singled out for special treatment, because once they do that then that would be an implicit criticism of their own system.

It is possible we might get a deal, but, if we do, it will be so one-sided and so embarrassing for Australia—a country that used to conduct itself with self-respect within our region under the previous government. It will contain only vague and generalised wording on the treatment of the people being sent there. There will be no guarantee of their human rights, there will be no guarantee that children will have proper protections, there will be no guarantee that people will be properly fed or that children will be educated. The truth is that anyone sent to Malaysia under this deal will be at the mercy of the Malaysian authorities.

All of this is in marked contrast to the proposal that we have to send people to Nauru, where we can guarantee the treatment that people will receive. Under any circumstances, it would be dire to send people to Malaysia who have arrived in Australia seeking our protection or who have arrived in Australia in an illegal manner. But to do so when there is a ready solution available—one that is superior—and to do so purely for political pride is unconscionable and I call on this government to reconsider. (Time expired)

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a matter of public importance and it is sad that we have to have such a divisive debate as is taking place now and as always seems to take place. I find it particularly galling when I listen to the Leader of the Opposition during question time, to the mover of the motion, the member for Cook—who I have a great deal of time for—and to the previous speaker lecturing our government about the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, particularly given the recent history and statements of the Leader of the Opposition. He has himself vowed to tow the boats back to where they came from. That is hardly a compassionate solution, particularly as we know that many of the boats that come to Australia are barely seaworthy and have little chance of making it back to their point of origin.

I think the member for Cook referred to the 'embellished rhetoric' of the government in relation to this whole issue. I find that particularly galling given that I sat in this chamber at the time the Howard government and the member for Berowra, who was then the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, traded on that appalling crisis with the children overboard. We saw desperate people coming to Australia being portrayed in a very dark way. The politics at that time were a sad chapter in Australia's history—imagine if we were in the same position as those people: desperate to leave behind a life of crisis and to just get their basic human needs met in another country. It was positively disgraceful. It was a really dark chapter. Sadly, the now opposition, the then government, seem to have forgotten about that. I am trying not to be too negative, but that really sticks in my throat. Yet here we are today with the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Cook and Stirling lecturing us about having an inhumane policy. Let us not forget that we are talking about people who have fled dreadful circumstances in their own country and who have witnessed things we could never begin to imagine. How desperate and vulnerable they must be.

As you have heard, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship today announced the important cooperative transfer agreement with Malaysia, which I believe will go a long way towards putting an end to the disturbing business of people smuggling. The government wants to stop these already vulnerable people from being preyed upon by the people smugglers. We want to stop those people from risking their lives by getting on boats to come to Australia. That is why our policy is sending a very clear message to the world that people thinking about coming to Australia will not be processed in Australian, and certainly will not be guaranteed settlement in Australia. This policy is about putting the people smugglers out of business. We do not want criminals preying on, and profiting from, vulnerable people. We are serious about putting an end to this despicable trade in human life. That is why our government believes that these people have the right to have their claim for asylum considered compassionately. If their claims are found to be genuine, we believe the international community has an obligation to offer protection. We are certainly not shirking our responsibility as a member of the international community, and we are acknowledging that this is a global problem and a regional problem and we are not the only country to be faced with the question of what to do with irregular arrivals. Thousands upon thousands every day are pouring into Europe. In comparison, a very small number of people want to come to Australia. Importantly, we are also acknowledging that we cannot go it alone in solving this problem. In order to effect real change to solve this regional problem we need a regional agenda, and that makes sense. I appeal to the goodwill and the spirit of the opposition to try to work with the government to come up with a truly humane and compassionate policy which will send the very good message to the international community that we actually welcome people.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're the government. It's your responsibility.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member interjecting but, sadly, conservatives in this country have used asylum seekers. The member for Cook talked about 'embellishing rhetoric' and the 'demonising' of asylum seekers, but those opposite have made a whole career of this, both in government and in opposition. There is no degree of sincerity about resolving this problem at all, as we have just seen over the last few days with the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Nauru. You cannot tell the people of Australia that there was not a done deal before Mr Abbott left our shores to go to Nauru—as if he had to go to Nauru when his spokesperson, who had previously been there, would have been able to report to him everything about Nauru! But, no, he just wanted to exploit this very divisive issue in the Australian community and play the dark politics of asylum seekers. It is a very sad time for Australia when the opposition continues to behave in this manner.

We are sending a clear message that if you have a genuine claim for asylum, you are not better off paying a criminal who is attempting to profit from your misfortune and risking your life to try to make it to Australia on an unseaworthy vessel. This will only lead to asylum seekers being removed from Australia and their claims for asylum being placed at the end of the queue. The clear message is not to get on the boat. That is what we are saying with our policy.

I hear the concerns of members of the public that the proposed deal with Malaysia might not protect those who are sent here, but I believe the minister for immigration when he guarantees that the final agreement between Australia and Malaysia will address human rights concerns. Let us be honest—our government has a much better track record on treatment of vulnerable asylum seekers. I have referred to the disgraceful children overboard episode under the Howard government and how they traded on the politics of that. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is continuing to mislead the Australian people, and that was never more evident than in the stunt of his visit to Nauru over the weekend. I understand the Leader of the Opposition claims that the processing centre established in Nauru by the former Howard government could be quickly reopened at little cost. I note that the Leader of the Opposition and previous speakers have given no indication of the cost of reopening Nauru.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much less than Malaysia.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all very well to say it is much less. We used to hear statements made by the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer, Mr Costello, in the Howard government that under a conservative government interest rates would always be kept lower than under Labor. We have dispelled that hypothesis big time.

This framework agreement has a number of core elements, and I put on the record that 800 irregular maritime arrivals who arrive in Australia after the date of effect of the arrangement will be transferred to Malaysia for refugee status determination; in return, over four years Australia will resettle 4,000 refugees already currently residing in Malaysia; transferees will not receive any preferential treatment over asylum seekers already in Malaysia; transferees will be provided with the opportunity to have their asylum claims considered and those in need of international protection will not be refouled; and transferees will be treated with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards. What that demonstrates is that we have a far more humane policy for looking after some of the most vulnerable people in the international community. Those opposite should all hang their heads in shame for making such dreadful politics out of this. (Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the matter of public importance raised by the member for Cook and supported by the member for Stirling. They made excellent contributions to the discussion, and I do feel very sorry for the member for Reid following what he has just had to go through. Whoever it was in the office of the Leader of the House who forced the member for Reid to go through this today is cruel and they should never do it again. For 10 minutes the member for Reid struggled with himself. It highlighted exactly what would have gone on in caucus this morning, where there is this battle between the Left and the Right, both trying to stand up for something which they know it is fundamentally impossible to stand up for—a solution where they are going to send back people to a country which has not yet signed up.

The member for Fremantle will be the next speaker in this debate, standing up to defend the solution of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Is she not the next speaker? She is a former UN lawyer. She knows more about this than pretty much everyone on that side of the chamber and pretty much everyone on this side of the chamber. I thought she would be ahead of the member for Reid, because she would be such a big and strong supporter of this proposal to send asylum seekers to Malaysia, which is a signatory to UN conventions. Or are they not a signatory to UN conventions? Maybe that is why the former UN lawyer, the member for Fremantle, is not able to speak on this—because they know that this is not a humane solution. They know there is a solution they could adopt today which would be a humane solution—the Nauru solution; a proven solution, one that has worked before and one that will not cost the Australian taxpayers $1.75 billion in a blowout of the management of this issue. We had the Leader of the Opposition in question time moving an important motion to suspend standing orders so that the Prime Minister could come and answer some very legitimate questions about this. He made the point that there is a solution which is proven because it was in operation when the former Liberal government was in power. It was a solution which stopped the boats from coming. In his response earlier, the minister talked about how 90 per cent of the people who were on Nauru were resettled in Australia. Of course, it was 90 per cent of a very diminished figure because the boats had stopped coming. They stopped coming because solutions were put in place in 2001 and 2002 which prevented the practice of people smuggling from occurring. That was the whole idea of it and that was what we did.

In 2008, after coming into government, they thought: 'This will be a great idea. What we will do is find a solution and create a problem.' Now they are desperately looking around. We are coming up to fundamental injustice day—a day that the minister at the table will remember—on 24 June when Australians went to bed with Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister and woke up with Julia Gillard as Prime Minister the next morning. One of the three great problems she was going to solve was, 'How do we stop the boats?' The first solution before the election was the East Timor solution. There were to be no more additional detention facilities on the mainland of Australia and the East Timorese people would provide a regional processing centre. We remember that and I am sure the member for Fremantle remembers as well.

Straight after the election at the beginning of October last year, my community, like the former Prime Minister, was ambushed by this Prime Minister and this minister. The Prime Minister was in my electorate the day before they announced the detention facility. She was in Aldgate, which is 18 kilometres from Woodside. It would take the Leader of the Opposition a mere five minutes on his bike to travel between them, even up the hill. But she could not possibly tell my community the truth about what their intentions were because she knew when she said the East Timor solution would occur that it was a lie, that it would never occur and that they had no agreement. Now we are hearing the same thing. We just heard the member for Reid talk about how there is an agreement between Malaysia and the Australian government. Of course, there is no agreement.

Then the member for Reid made this great claim that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cook travelled to Nauru even though they would have had a deal already sorted out. What was the purpose? Funny that—can you imagine going to a place where you worked out the details before you went and before you made an announcement? I know it is radical. It is very difficult for those on the other side to understand. You can go through diplomacy by announcing what you intend and putting all your cards on the table as in a game of poker, allowing the Malaysian government to sit back and play its hand knowing what it is playing against. That is what this minister has done in a weird attempt to try to spite their own budget by pre-announcing an agreement which has not been agreed to yet.

We heard again in question time today that the minister has not even visited the law enforcement facilities which these people will be sent to. We have seen reports in the Australian media about the treatment that some of these people are subjected to. We know in the Labor caucus this morning that members of the Left raised these legitimate concerns because we read it on the front page of national daily newspapers. They are right to be concerned because there is a reasonable solution which can be enacted today that would prevent these things from occurring.

I just want to go through the time line of what happened in my community after this government's announcement. Upon being re-elected to government and after she promised the Australian people prior to the last election that there would be not only no carbon tax but also no more onshore detention facilities, the Prime Minister rolled into my electorate on Sunday 17 October last year for a photo opportunity with the hardworking members of the Aldgate CFS. She had that photo opportunity and did not mention one word about a detention facility at Inverbrackie. The next day in a press conference at 1.30 pm, just prior to question time, she announced the detention facility at Inverbrackie. My community was rightly concerned and outraged at being ambushed by this Prime Minister. In fact, a community meeting held at Woodside, which is the town adjacent to Inverbrackie, had more than 400 people attend in a state of complete outrage at their treatment by this government.

The announcement was that the government would spend $10 million on this detention facility. We cannot get the actual figures from the government. After several FOIs and questions on notice, nothing has been answered. We are still being told that we have to wait for the final figure. We know it is going to be much more than that because in the budget there was a $1.75 billion blowout in the cost of these detention facilities. It is not just my community that has had this foisted upon it—there is also the community of Northam. We know that there have been extensions at Curtin, and now in Tasmania there has been an announcement that there will be another detention facility built there. It is a government that has lost control of this issue and which is desperately seeking a solution when the solution is staring it in the face. It is communities like mine that suffer.

The member for Reid and the minister talked about psychological damage. The minister quoted from a report on a Nauruan centre and no doubt there have been claims about psychological damage from people who have been in detention facilities. It must be added that there are also claims from people who are currently in detention facilities and from those who currently work in detention facilities. Three times a day there are reports of critical incidents occurring at detention facilities. These are very concerning reports.

There were also other concerning reports that came out of estimates regarding media reports of riots and so on, and of workers and children at these facilities being assaulted. These are all very concerning; however, Australia is signing up to an agreement where we send 4,000 people to a place which we know canes people and engages in that type of inhumane conduct. For those people on the other side of the chamber to defend that and to claim that that is more humane than sending them to Nauru is a complete joke. We saw the member for Reid expose that in his body language and in the way he spoke on this motion. He showed no passion for the defence. They are desperately hanging onto their old mantra about the Howard government and are reaching back 10 years, making claims about the way the Howard government treated these people. Yet they know they are signing up to an agreement which is far worse. If it were not far worse, the member for Fremantle would be on her feet defending the arrangement. She knows the arrangement is indefensible. This is a completely indefensible arrangement that Minister Bowen is trying to sign the once compassionate Labor Party up to. They are compassionate no more. They are an emperor without clothes. In their haste to try and find a political solution to this problem, they are creating an inhumane situation that will expose Australia's international reputation. They are trying to save their own skin politically. It is a disgrace. There is a solution; it is Nauru. They should adopt it and they should do it today.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I start by thanking all the speakers on this matter of public importance because I know that there are many people with very strong views about people smuggling, people trafficking, refugees and asylum seekers. These issues have always been questions for debate in this House and that probably should remain so. I know the member for Reid, the member for Fremantle and many other members in this place, including the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, feel a deep sense of compassion and a deep sense of responsibility to deal with these issues. But the chorus in this MPI is unfortunately very familiar. The familiar chorus is from the same voices across the chamber. They are saying the same things in opposition that they said in government. What underlies the chorus of voices opposite is that they always play a card—the refugee card, the race card, the antihuman rights card or the fear card. They play a particular card when it is politically suitable. That is the tragedy in this debate.

This MPI is not about finding solutions. It is not about comparing one solution with another. It is not about trying to walk through a complex problem and finding solutions. It is simply about seeking political advantage—exactly the same advantage that they sought when they were in government. If it were only advantage while in opposition, you could almost excuse it by saying: 'I understand it. I actually get the political nuance of trying to take some advantage whilst in opposition and hammer the government.' But they did exactly the same thing when they were in government—they always played the race card or the fear card. They always played some card but it was never a genuine card. The card they played was never one with a solution.

They will never accept the fact that this refugee problem is not Australia's problem; it is a global problem and a problem of immense proportions. It is not unique to Australia nor is it a new problem. If you had listened to the previous contributions, particularly from the member for Cook, you would think this problem had been created in the last three years. He kept referring to this 'three-year period', as if people trafficking, people smuggling, refugees and asylum seekers were invented by this government. If you were listening to them for the first time and you had no idea of the context of this debate, you would ask yourself: 'Why would a government do this? Why would a government create this problem?' Of course, it is far from the truth.

The reality is that it is a global problem and it is a problem within our region, and Australia should play its part in finding a solution to the problem and not hive off the problem to some place like Nauru. We know from lived experience and the facts on the ground—not what may come out of some new solution but what has already taken place—that it did not work. Not only did it not stop the boats but former Prime Minister John Howard said that a large proportion of those people would never set one foot on Australian soil. It was a complete farce and, I suspect, possibly even a complete lie. At the time, it was always going to be the case that they would end up in Australia. When they were determined to be genuine asylum seekers or refugees, they would end in Australia, as they should. But we went through this farcical process of shipping them off elsewhere only to have them come back through a turnstile. When you hear the other side talk about stopping the boats, they are not actually stopping anything; they are putting in a turnstile. Stop the boats, turn them around, take them through another port and bring them back another way.

With the cycle of boats coming in and going out, let us not forget that circumstances and events across the world have an enormous impact on what happens in terms of people trafficking, people genuinely seeking asylum and refugees needing protection. We ought to play our role in that, and that is what we are doing with our plan. But we have to recognise one key part—that we should be part of the solution not part of the problem. We should make sure that we send a clear message about breaking the back of the people-trafficking business model. We need to find solutions to make sure that people do not take advantage of us as a generous country or take advantage of people seeking asylum who are genuinely deserving of our help. They should not be exploited. We should play our part in the global problem and find a long-term regional solution. We cannot do that on our own—and that has to be the starting point. We cannot sign things away and shove people off for a period—whether it is one year, two years or five years—only to have them come back through a turnstile. That is exactly what took place with the Nauru solution—which was anything but a solution.

Under our negotiated agreement, we will be looking long term at how we start dealing in a regional context with people who seek asylum and how we ought to treat them. Let us also not pretend that it is only limited to these people. Let us not pretend, as I believe the opposition are doing, that we are only talking about the numbers on the table. It is a much bigger problem. If you start talking about children in detention and making decisions about those we accept and those we do not accept then you have to look at a more holistic plan—an approach that says we treat people equally and fairly and an approach that has a process. It ought to be that we make rules, we set terms and we set limits, and that we work to an orderly process and we play our part. Part of the Malaysian solution is doing that: making sure that we increase the number of people we accept, that we put more funding towards that, that we do it in a proper and humane way and that we look at agreements with countries in our region to be part of an overall solution.

It is pretty hard for members in this place to be lecturing about Malaysia or other countries. None of us in this place agrees with the inhumane treatment, including caning, of anybody. That is why we have made sure in our negotiations for an agreement that the people who go over there are not illegal, unauthorised or in any other way part of any other system. They will be completely legal and completely accepted as part of a genuine exchange. I am sure, although it may distress some members on the other side, that some of those opposite wish that caning were to take place, because it would make them feel good about being right and about somebody else's plan failing. We on this side do not wish for that. I am saying that we ought to negotiate that plan, work with Malaysia and be part of a more regional and global solution. That is a pretty hard task, but we ought to accept, once and for all, that this is a long-term problem and one for which we ought to provide a long-term solution. We should not just duck-shove people off when there is a political incentive but do something more for the longer term. Yes, that will cost money; yes, that will take time, and, yes, we have to do it right. We hear from those opposite the repeated chorus, 'Stop the boats, stop this, stop everything.' They never take into account the fact that when the boats stop the planes arrive and that when the planes are not arriving the boats are coming back. They do not take into account the fact that when there is turmoil in regions in this part of the world an increased number of people seek refuge. We see that every day on our television screens. We ought to be a little bit more realistic about those things and about how we play our part.

We have said that we want to provide a proper system that is supported publicly by the UNHCR. We want to make sure that the proposed arrangements are a step forward and that there is better protection for refugees in our region. If we do not do that, people smugglers will continue to bring people across, whether it be by boat or by plane. There is always risk, but particularly for people who come by boat. There is no greater reason for us to do this than to prevent people getting on those boats holus bolus. No-one should get on those boats. The message ought to be clear that we will not be part of people trafficking and smuggling in our region. We will do what is necessary to break that business model. We know that the negotiated solution we have on the table is the way forward and is the right thing to do. We will make sure that asylum seekers are treated with dignity and respect and that they are treated in accordance with the human rights standards that apply to them. That clearly means they will not be caned, or treated otherwise inhumanely, while in Malaysia. Any asylum seeker who is transferred to Malaysia will be processed by the UNHCR and will not be an illegal immigrant. That is an important point. We are putting a solution on the table. We want to be part of a long-term solution. The opposition should support that rather than have its usual chorus of voices. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.