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 unfolding failure of the Government’s border protection policy and the urgent need for it to be transparent with the Australian people on how they are dealing with this matter.

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

It is almost eight weeks since 7 May, when the Prime Minister made the announcement of her proposed people swap deal with Malaysia. In fact it will be eight weeks this Saturday. Late on a Saturday afternoon, just after 2.30—the usual time for ministers to make very important announcements of government policy—she gathered the media together to announce this proposed agree­ment. She was so excited about this agreement that on 7 May she twittered: 'Have reached agreement with the Prime Minister of Malaysia to tackle people smuggling in the region.' She was so excited about it that, on 8 May, she twittered again: 'We're a generous country. We'll do what we can to stop the evil of people smuggling.' And then again on 8 May—she was not finished—she twittered again and sent a message for people smugglers.

Every since then there has been absolute and complete twitter silence from the Prime Minister when it comes to updating the Australian people on where the government is up to with this agreement. I did go and check the other tweets as to what she might have been talking about since then, and she was happy to talk about a whole range of matters. I noticed in particular that the Prime Minister retwittered the Treasurer, 'Swanny DPM'. She was happy to retweet the Deputy Prime Minister, but when I went through all of those 30-odd tweets since her first one, there was one member of the government that she had not retwittered. I wonder who that was. I wonder who it was that the Prime Minister did not want to retweet. There is one minister in the government that the Prime Minister did not want to retweet, and that was the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There was no retweet for the Minister for Foreign Affairs that talked about the progress that they were making and the efforts that the Minister for Foreign Affairs had been making to get this historic agreement with Malaysia over the line. We could not find it because the foreign minister had not been doing it and, even if he had, the last person on earth that this Prime Minister would retweet would be the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

So, after the celebrated announcement on that day, the Prime Minister said: 'We will be working to finalise the agreement over the coming weeks.' That is almost eight weeks ago. And then on 2 June the minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in response to this question from Tony Jones, 'Are we talking weeks or months?' said, 'We're not talking months, Tony.' Jones: 'Weeks?' The minister: 'Yes, we're talking weeks.' That was about 20 days ago. So we will see whether it is weeks or months, but we will see. At least the minister at the table—and here I give him credit—was prepared to talk about time frames for the completion of this significant agreement.

On 9 June, just a few days after this, Fran Kelly was interviewing the Prime Minister. She asked the Prime Minister: 'Prime Minister, when will Australians see this deal? Has the UNHCR signed off on the Malaysia deal and when will it be finalised?' Prime Minister: 'Well, we're working with Malaysia to get all the details of the agreement right, the discussion et cetera, et cetera.' Fran Kelly: 'Days, the weekend?' Prime Minister: 'Fran, I'm not here to announce time frames. We are working very well with our Malaysian counterparts.' Some weeks before she was very happy to talk about time frames. She was very happy to talk about imminent announcements, but some eight weeks later this deal has still not been done and this government is not being upfront or transparent with the Australian people about what is involved in this agreement.

This is a significant agreement because it will have real implications for people's lives, as I know the minister across the table understands. This is a difficult area of policy and the decisions you make in this area of policy have significant implications for individual human beings. All of us, I expect, understand this and understand it only too well. But what is a problem here and what concerns me is that when this agreement was entered into and rushed out the door late on a Saturday afternoon before the budget, critical issues had not been addressed, and critical issues had not been resolved. These fundamental issues included the question: 'Will people be caned?' The minister made all sorts of comments about what he may have said—weeks and weeks and weeks after the event. But, at that time, there was no indication at all that the issue of caning had been resolved.

There are still a multitude of questions to be answered. Those questions have been put in this parliament, as they should be—they have been put in the Main Committee and in here, the main chamber. The Australian people want answers about this arrangement. Among those questions are the following: would children who were sent by this minister to Malaysia under this agreement go to public schools in Malaysia? It is a pretty basic question. I put that question to him only last week and there was no response. With the 800 who are sent to Malaysia, where will they receive their hospital treatment? Where will they go to hospital? How long will they stay in Malaysia? The minister at the table is all too quick to talk about how long people spend in detention, even though under this government's administration the average time spent in detention has increased threefold. No wonder we average three critical incidents every single day in our detention network. The time in detention has tripled. This minister is all too happy to talk about time spent in detention, but I have a simple question for the minister: how long will people stay in Malaysia under this agreement? Also, how long will the funds provided for under this agreement last to support those people while they are in Malaysia? Is the answer six weeks? Is it six months? Is it six years? Is it 20 years? The minister well knows that it is an actual consequence that could take place as a result of the agreement that he has brought into this place, and that is something which the minister needs to be upfront with the Australian people about. He needs to be transparent with the Australian people about the real implications for individual human beings from his decision to enter into this agreement.

There is another area he needs to answer questions on, and the member for Macquarie raised this in question time today. The member for Macquarie asked the Prime Minister about the activities of what is known as the RELA Corps. According to research undertaken by the Refugee Review Tribunal, the RELA Corps is a volunteer paramilitary force whose members now number in excess of half a million. RELA members have the right to carry arms and arrest anyone reasonably believed to be an undesirable person, an illegal immigrant or an occupier. The regulations authorise RELA members to question suspects and enter premises, either public or private, without obtaining a search warrant, where there is reason to believe suspects are housed. Should a suspect refuse to answer questions, produce requested identification or comply with reasonable requests or should they make a statement or produce a document that the RELA member believes may be false—so it is up to the RELA member to determine whether documentation or tags are true—then RELA personnel may arrest them. No warrant is necessary. The same amendment referred to here in this document gives effective legal immunity to RELA members so that they cannot be prosecuted for any act or omission done in good faith in their capacity as RELA officials.

They are very significant powers. It is half a million of these volunteer officers that the minister at the table—the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship—is relying on to ensure that, in any arrangement he puts in place, people who are sent to Malaysia will not be subject to any human rights abuses. He is relying on 500,000 people. I refer the minister at the table to a report by the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which it was found that most RELA personnel had not been trained and that those trained had followed only a one-day orientation course. I asked the minister in the Main Committee just the other day how much of the funds that he is putting into this agreement are actually going to go to support the training of these people to ensure that any procedures he puts in place will be carried through and that he can have confidence about those arrangements.

I also draw the attention of the minister at the table to comments by Amnesty International's refugee spokesman, Mr Graham Thom. He is well known to both of us, and he is a very good man. He says this about the situation in Malaysia:

Refugees are copping it every day. Once they are arrested, their documents are often disregarded or destroyed, and they are charged with being illegal and are caned …

This is the report from Amnesty Interna­tional. This is the desk evidence that is there and available to us, and these are the questions that I still cannot get an answer to from this minister. Frankly, if the minister is not prepared to answer these questions in this place for the Australian people, then I am prepared to try to go and get those answers for myself. I am prepared to go to Malaysia and find out from my own on-the-ground research and to see the circumstances into which people will be sent under this government.

The response of the minister at the table and the government's response to my intention to visit Malaysia has been nothing less than hysterical. Never has a government been so obsessed with an opposition as this government has. We have a Prime Minister obsessed with the Leader of the Opposition. We have a minister for immigration obsessed with the shadow minister for immigration, constantly craving my praise for his initiatives as he walks in here saying, 'Why won't he praise me?' I will tell you why I will not praise him. I will tell you why this opposition will not praise this minister. It is because he is overseeing an absolute farce. In his rush to this deal, in his anything-but-Nauru strategy, the minister at the table knows that he is embracing the unthinkable in Malaysia. So we will go to Malaysia and we will seek to understand the circumstances for those who will be sent there and those who will live there.

This is a government that is so obsessed with the opposition, that is so keen on telling the opposition how to do its job. The Australian people would love to give this government a chance to see if it can do opposition better than this opposition can, to see if this government can do in opposition what it thinks it can do in government, because this government is obsessed with the opposition. I am quite happy for this side of the chamber to give the government a chance to be the opposition it truly wants to be. That is what the Australian people want, and if the minister wants to have a chat with the Prime Minister then I am sure that can be arranged at an election at some time soon.

So I will go there, but it is not just me who has these questions. Here is Lawyers for Liberty adviser Eric Paulsen talking about this deal in the Malaysian press:

"We don't know much about it," he said. "Will asylum seekers be allowed employment? Can their children attend public schools? Will this information trickle down to law enforcement officers on the ground? Will a future group also receive the same exemption?"

Then we have the refugee advocate Irene Fernandez, the executive director of the local human rights group in Malaysia:

Diplomatic assurances from Australia would not protect them, she said. And no one could find out anything about the swap deal because all such matters come under the Official Secrets Act, "sparking a lot of rumours". Her organisation had obtained a meeting on the issue with the Australian High Commission a week ago, she said. "But they were unable to tell us anything."

The Australian people are in the same shape. They do not know what is in this deal, but the more they know about this deal, the more they do not like it. The more they see about this deal, the more they see how desperate this government is. They understand that there is better alternative than what this government has put forward.

When I go to Malaysia, my argument will not be with the Malaysian government. The Malaysian government have a right to act within their borders to address the challenges that they have, according to their laws and according to the international obligations that they have signed up to. That is for the Malaysian government. My problem is with this government. My problem is with a government that has decided to send 800 people into that situation. In that situation we need to understand what it will mean if we are going to take that decision. I encourage the minister to undertake exactly the same visit I will undertake this weekend. I will go there to understand, and I will take the advice that Mr Thom gave to the Prime Minister when he said:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard should educate herself on the type of harassment faced by refugee women in Malaysia.

The minister might think it is a stunt to go and understand the situation faced by refugee women in Malaysia. Graham Thom, the head of Amnesty International on these issues, does not think it is a stunt when it comes to understanding the conditions faced by women in Malaysia, and neither do I. This government has a better alternative available to it, but it simply refuses to take it up, for no other reason than political pride. Nauru and temporary protection visas are more cost effective and more humane and, as the government and the Australian people all know, it is the proven alternative. Pick up the phone. (Time expired)

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

( I have to break a few things to the shadow minister. Firstly, I break it to him that I am not obsessed with him. I know he might be disappointed about that. I have many interests and I do not think the honourable member for Cook is a bad man, but I am not obsessed with him. He might be disappointed to hear it. But we do know, with all due respect, that he has some obsessions. I think what we are seeing here is that he is concerned that some of those obsessions might be adversely affected by this government's progress in developing a regional framework, reaching bilateral agreements under that regional framework—

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

The honourable member for Wannon does not appear to be in his seat.

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

and breaking the people smugglers' business model while improving protection outcomes across our region. What the opposition is really concerned about is that when you pull the rug out from under the people smugglers' business model you pull the rug out from under the business model of cheap slogans. You pull the rug out from under the business model of one-liners. You pull the rug out from under the business model of no substance and all slogan. That is what this shadow minister is really concerned about.

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

The honourable member for Wannon is warned.

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

He knows that this policy could break the people smugglers' business model. He knows that this policy says, 'If you get on a boat in Malaysia, take a boat to Indonesia, get another boat to Australia'—as the majority of asylum seekers who arrive by boat do on that journey from the Middle East—'then you will be taken back to Malaysia where you started the boat journey.' The question that asylum seekers and people smugglers would have to ask themselves is, 'Why would I pay the money and risk my life to be returned to where I began that boat journey?' That is why this proposal from the government breaks the people smugglers' business model in a way that no action taken by the Liberal Party ever did when they were in office. Nothing the Liberal Party did when they were in office could remove the guarantee of being resettled in Australia.

If you ask the Liberal Party about a problem, they will say the answer is Nauru. But the opposition had the chance—again, 15 minutes—to answer some fundamental questions on Nauru. We will come back to that. Again, we saw those questions unanswered. The opposition have said for years that Nauru is the answer, but they have not provided any details or substance to that. What we saw is more hypocrisy from the shadow minister for immigration.

Let us go through the hypocrisy, because there are several elements to it. Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister say: 'It is outrageous that we would take 4,000 people out of Malaysia. It is unfair. Why would we take so many refugees from Malaysia?' The Leader of the Opposition said in this House at the dispatch box last week:

The problem with the Prime Minister's people swap with Malaysia is that it is unfair to our country. Why should we take five times the number from Malaysia that they are taking from us? It is unfair and it is costly.

That is the view of the opposition—we are taking too many refugees from Malaysia. They think it is bad; they think it is unfair. We would say that it is unfair not to. We are proud of the fact that we are taking 4,000 refugees from Malaysia who have been mandated by the UNHCR and who have been waiting patiently for resettlement, in many cases, over many years. Asylum seekers in Malaysia do face difficult situations. So why are the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition so opposed to taking 4,000 genuine refugees from Malaysia?

Let us get to the second element of my honourable friend's hypocrisy. The honourable member for Cook has the policy—I think this is still the policy—that they would turn back the boats.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The boat phone!

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

They would have the boat phone at Kirribilli House. 'Turn back that boat,' Prime Minister Abbott would say. 'Turn it around. Send it back to Indonesia.' Turning back the boats means that they would be sent to Indonesia when Indonesia have said they will not accept them. The Indonesian government said, 'We will not accept boats that are returned from Australia,' when the opposition made that policy. The shadow minister said, 'No, that was in response to your policy announce­ment.' When the opposition announced in the election campaign that they would turn back the boats, the foreign minister of Indonesia said, 'We won't take them.' That was not in response to anything the government said. It was in response to a policy announcement from the Leader of the Opposition that he would have a phone on which he would take control of the Navy and personally order the return of the boats. That is their policy—turn back the boats to Indonesia.

Here is a question for the shadow minister for immigration. If you are going to turn back the boats to Indonesia, what protections are you going to have in place for the people returned to Indonesia? When you drop them off at the jetty in Indonesia are the kids going to be able to go to school? If they need to go to hospital, where are they going to go? What protections are going to be in place? How long will they be there? All the questions that the shadow minister asked about Malaysia he cannot answer about Indonesia, which is where they would return the boats to—putting aside the fact that Indonesia have said they will not take the boats and that it would risk the lives of asylum seekers and our naval personnel.

The position of the opposition is that it is not okay to take people to Malaysia under an agreement which ensures that their status is protected, which ensures that they can have their claims for protection considered by the UNHCR, which ensures that they will not be returned to a country from which they are fleeing danger, which ensures that they have those protections in place and which also increases our humanitarian intake to its highest level since this side of the parliament was last in office in 1996. That is not okay and it is unfair, according to the opposition, but it is okay on the high seas to turn the boats around, risk the lives of sailors and asylum seekers and drop them off at a jetty in Jakarta and say, 'See you later,' with no protections in place whatsoever. That is the hypocrisy of the opposition.

Then we have what is, I must confess, my personal favourite from the member for Cook—the old Iran solution. We saw the member for Cook last night again on Lateline. He said that Iran are a signatory to the refugee convention. Oh, the government of Iran are a great human rights champion! They are champions of human rights over in Iran! We love them. The member for Cook loves them more. Last night we saw him with his shovel out on Lateline, digging away, digging himself out of the hole. He said:

It wouldn't be a bilateral deal involving Australia or even one that Australia would advance.

I thought that was interesting. Then the member for Cook said, 'Read the speech.' I will do better. I will read it to the House. This is what the member for Cook said in November:

In my view, Australia’s participation in a regional solution for Afghanistan should seek to trade off Australia taking more refugees out of the camps in countries of first asylum in that region in return for the ability to return those who have sought to advantage their asylum claims through illegal entry to Australia, to those same camps or other safe places established for that purpose, as part of the regional solution.

Sounds like something which involves Australia to me. The member for Cook's solution was proposed last November. He said, 'I've got this great idea: a real international solution that will involve Australia returning people to Iran,' because they are strong on human rights in Iran! Perhaps the member for Cook is about to announce a fact-finding mission to Tehran where he can outline the protections that are in place under his agreement. I would be interested to see it. I am not going to Iran because I have no interest in doing a transfer agreement with Iran. You do, and you can go to Iran.

Then we have the member for Cook saying he is off to Malaysia on the weekend to satisfy himself about the conditions there. He has appointed himself ombudsman for asylum seekers in the region. Our old friend the ombudsman, as the member for Chifley likes to call him, has appointed himself ombudsman to ensure their conditions are protected because he cares so much about asylum seekers. This is a man and a party who would send people to Nauru, a country that would not grant visas to people who wanted to monitor the situation when we had over 1,000 asylum seekers, who were Australia's responsibility, in Nauru. If a journalist wanted a visa—denied. If a lawyer wanted a visa—denied. Nobody else could go to Nauru but, while the member for Cook thinks it is so important that he goes to Malaysia, he was willing to send people to a country which would not issue visas to people interested in pursuing and monitoring the situation in Nauru. That is the hypocrisy of the opposition.

Then we hear them say that it is more humane to send people to Nauru than to Malaysia. That is something which really takes the cake. The opposition go around taking any opportunity to criticise the support and care that is given to people who are asylum seekers in Australia. They take any opportunity to say they are getting too much—their pillows are too fluffy, they get Foxtel, they get telephones so they can ring their family members. How outrageous that this happens!

Then we see the opposition crying crocodile tears about the human rights of asylum seekers. They say that Nauru would be more humane. The only way the Nauru option provides any disincentives to come to Australia is the fact it left people on Nauru for an inordinately long period of time. We saw the effects of that. People were assessed by psychiatrists appointed by the previous government as suffering great psychological harm.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

The honourable member for Cook has had his opportunity to make a contribution.

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

He gets a bit obsessed, Mr Deputy Speaker, so we give him a bit of leeway. And this is what they said about people who had been left in Nauru:

The nature of symptoms shown maintains their depression will produce an inevitable cycle of further deterioration. The most important symptoms in this regard are hopelessness, worthlessness and self-blame, cognitive impairment, withdrawal and sleep dependence. Instead, frustration and anger have turned inwards against themselves, contributing to the risk of self-harm and suicide. 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.

The shadow minister says, 'They will not be in detention; it will be an open centre.' The report states:

The fact that the centre operates as an open centre makes little difference to the mental health of the residents.

It goes on and on. For the opposition to say that Nauru was a humane solution, that Nauru was a solution which was good for asylum seekers, is the height of hypocrisy.

Then they say that it would be a good solution because it would break the people smugglers' business model. I invite the shadow minister to take any opportunity that he chooses to tell the House or the Australian people where people transferred to Nauru under the opposition's proposal who are regarded as genuine refugees will be resettled. Which country? Name the country. Will you go to the UNHCR, which did not cooperate with Nauru last time and which said that it will not cooperate with Nauru this time, despite the claims of the opposition? Where would they be sent? The answer is that they would be sent to Australia—unlike the Malaysian agreement which means that people transferred to Malaysia would not be resettled in Australia in the terms of the agreement. It breaks the people smugglers' business model in a way the previous government could never do.

There are some members opposite who recognise that. We know that the member for Cook moved a motion in parliament last year supporting the so-called Nauru solution. We know that there were two members of the opposition who were paired from that vote, and they still lost that motion. They say that the parliament is sovereign. They still lost the motion on Nauru, but apparently that is a different standard. We saw the members for Pearce and McMillan not vote in that division, and the shadow minister says: 'There is nothing in that. They are okay. It is not because they did not support the Nauru option.' The member for McMillan is a good man and I like the member for McMillan a lot. He is a decent man and he is an honest man. We saw on 17 June—

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

Be careful.

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

The member for Cook says, 'Be careful.' The member for Cook might disagree with me, but I think he is a good man. He said, 'I don't think the parliament would support the Nauru solution for many reasons.' He also said this:

Temporary protection visas didn't work before and I don't believe they'll work again. We will only end up with a whole other people that are held here with no future.

That is what your own backbench things about your policy—the member for McMillan belling the cat and saying what he thinks about your policy.

What we have is a situation where this government has entered into an agreement with Malaysia under our regional framework negotiated in Bali—something the previous government could never have achieved—in consultation with the UNHCR, which ensur­es that people transferred from Australia to Malaysia will be treated with dignity and respect. I have said this before and let me make it clear again to the House and the member for Cook: people transferred from Australia to Malaysia will not be illegal immigrants. There is a regime in place for Malaysia which deals with illegal immigrants, and it is fair to say it is a hard regime. But people transferred from Australia to Malaysia are not illegal immigrants; they are people transferred with the agreement of the Malaysian government.

The honourable member for Cook can visit detention centres, but these people will not be held in detention centres. He can make all the allegations he likes. They will not be caned. They will be treated with dignity and respect, and they will have protections in place. What we are doing is pulling the rug out from under the people smugglers' business model because—and I agree with the member for Cook and I think he agrees with me—people smugglers should not make the decision about who comes to this country. People who come to this country for resettlement should not have to risk their lives on a dangerous boat journey to come to Australia. If I am obsessed about anything, it is breaking the people smugglers' business model to ensure that we do not have people risking their lives on people-smugglers' boats. It is about time the shadow minister for immigration had the same obsession. (Time expired)

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

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has just had 15 minutes to outline to the parliament some of the arrangements that he believes need to be put in place for the people who are sent to Malaysia and to answer all of the questions that the opposition and many others in the community have asked—legitimate quest­ions about what the fate of people who are transferred from Australia to Malaysia is going to be if this deal is actually ever concluded by this government. He was not able to touch on or answer how people who are sent to Malaysia will sustain themselves. He was not able to answer whether the children who are sent there will go to school. He was not able to answer any of the basic questions about the protection of their human rights. He came in and he gave his usual rant. He professed that he was not obsessed with the opposition spokesman for immigration, the member for Cook, and then proceeded for 15 minutes to talk exclusively about the member for Cook. There is probably a therapist he could call for that, but perhaps he would be best off concentrating on his portfolio and explaining to the Australian people what is going to happen if this Malaysia deal ever does come to pass.

Amongst Labor's extensive failures in their four years in government, border protection is surely one of the most disastrous. On coming to office, they found themselves with a situation where the people-smuggling trade had been destroyed, there were four people within our detention network who had come here illegally by boat, and the administration of that detention network was costing the Australian public millions and not billions. But, within the space of four years, they have managed to push the people smugglers back into business, they have cost taxpayers literally billions of extra dollars, they have trashed any semblance of a coherent regional foreign policy and they are currently presiding over the essential collapse of our immigration detention network. Things have been so bad in border protection that Julia Gillard was forced to knife Kevin Rudd—

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

The Prime Minister, I think you are referring to.

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

and she cited Labor's border protection catastrophe as one of the reasons why she was required to do that.

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

Order! The member for Stirling will refer to the Prime Minister by her title.

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

I will do in future, Mr Deputy Speaker. But, as with two of the areas that she nominated as reasons that the government had lost its way—the carbon tax and the mining tax—she has managed to take a bad situation and make it worse. One of the first things she did when she came to office was to axe the border protection committee of cabinet. This Prime Minister was so concerned about border protection, so concerned that the government had lost its way on border protection, that she abolished the highest level decision-making body that they had for dealing with the problem. That body was not even a year old. It had been announced by the former Prime Minister as a central part of Labor's response to people smuggling, and they had shelled out $2.8 million of taxpayers' money on it. When the Prime Minister was asked about that in the parliament today, she said: 'I prefer to just send these things to the National Security Committee of Cabinet.' I think her record of attending that National Security Committee of Cabinet speaks for itself. Clearly that shows how she prioritises border protection.

Secondly, she came up with the so-called East Timor solution. This is probably right up there with the people's assembly on climate change as one of the silliest ideas that has ever been floated by an Australian Prime Minister. It was announced in the heat of an election campaign without anyone within the government of East Timor having been consulted, and they rightly killed the policy from day one. Whilst Australian foreign policy professionals had to trawl around the region exposing themselves to extreme ridicule, the government pretended that there were still ongoing negotiations with the East Timorese, when everybody with even a vague familiarity with this problem knew that that just was not true.

Then came the PNG solution. The Labor Party were going to reopen Manus Island, something that the Papua New Guinean government was apparently well disposed towards, but they still managed to bungle that by sending up such a low-level member of the government—because we know the Minister for Foreign Affairs would not deign to touch these issues. They sent up the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs. The fact that he was such a low-level emissary from the Australian government so offended the Papua New Guineans that they refused to make any progress on the arrangement, even though both sides of politics there were apparently well disposed towards it.

Then the Labor Party came up with the Malaysian people-swap deal. In a deal that highlights what savvy negotiators the Labor Party are, they have managed to get the Malaysians to take 800 of ours for 4,000 of theirs and we will get to pay the total cost. According to the Prime Minister and her hapless minister, this was a done deal with only minor details to be sorted out. It was announced on a Saturday eight weeks ago. Since that time, the immigration minister has been out there briefing journalists that it is about to be signed. They briefed journalists that the Malaysian Minister of Home Affairs would be on his way down within the next few days. That was a few weeks ago.

Why Labor announced an arrangement before they concluded it is a great mystery. It was an incredibly silly thing to do because it completely undermined the very little leverage they had with the Malaysian government. They made a desperate negotiating position even worse. They had a position that was so weak they could only arrange a five-for-one people-swap. Then the government went further and they undermined any possible leverage that they could use through a panicked public announcement of these half-baked arrangements.

They have spent the eight weeks since then—and the minister has done it again today—congratulating themselves on 'breaking the people smugglers' business model'. I have news for the minister and for Labor: they are the people smugglers' business model. If they want to destroy the people smugglers' business model, the best thing they could do is resign. People smuggling had been destroyed when they came to office, and they took a defibrillator and reinvigorated it—they zapped it back into life. The people-smuggling community are probably about the only ones left supporting this Prime Minister. The people smugglers have this government's measure. They understand that the Labor Party are all spin and no substance on tackling their evil trade. That is why, since this announcement was made eight weeks ago, they have actually sent more people illegally to Australia than arrived in the last six years of the Howard government. The people smugglers have seen how these guys opposite operate. They do not take them seriously, which is something they share with most of the Australian people.

The worse things have become, the more Labor has resorted to spin and misinformation in trying to hide the true state of affairs from the Australian people. After 15 minutes the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was completely and utterly unable to provide this House with even the most basic details of the ongoing negotiations with the Malaysians. What exactly has been going on for the past two months? Why has this minister been briefing journalists, saying that an agreement is imminent? What is actually going to happen and how is this deal going to operate? Labor cannot even tell the Australian people what is going to happen to the people who have arrived since this deal was announced and who are currently detained on Christmas Island. The government insists they are going to be transferred to a third country, but it cannot say if Malaysia is going to accept these people or if Malaysia will have the right of refusal over people who arrive here. It cannot say if Malaysia will accept people who arrive in Australia without documentation, which is a pretty important point considering that about 80 per cent of people who arrive here illegally do not have any documentation.

The minister has been briefing the media, saying that the people who are sent to Malaysia are going to be tagged somehow. He is seriously telling people that he believes that is going to protect their human rights. The government has absolutely no idea what fate is going to befall the people it sends to Malaysia. It does not know how they will be fed or how they will sustain themselves. People there do not have work rights. Imagine if you were sent there and had a family—what would you do if you could not work? What would you be required to do to support them? You know that your children will not be educated. The government certainly cannot guarantee that people will not be subject to corporal punishment. These are legitimate questions, which the Australian people are right to ask, and the government should be providing answers to them.

We do not even know basic details about how people will be transferred to Malaysia. In the wake of the Oceanic Viking debacle, when asylum seekers were able essentially to hijack an Australian government vessel, we must wonder what would happen if that were repeated on a charter flight or an Australian Air Force flight that was flying people from Christmas Island to Kuala Lumpur. The government has not provided the Australian people with any details about the security that will be provided on flights. Will it be provided by the Australian Federal Police? If so, what powers will they have, particularly once that plane lands in Malaysia? Will the Malaysian authorities be responsible for taking people off if they refuse to get off the flight? I asked the Minister for Home Affairs exactly that series of questions last week in the House. His response was so vague as to be worthless. Quite frankly, he should just have stood up, shrugged his shoulders and stopped wasting everybody's time.

It was once possible to give these guys the benefit of the doubt about some of these policy questions. But when they have such an astonishing record of failure and incompetence, the time to provide the benefit of the doubt has well and truly passed. The eight weeks of silence since the Malaysian deal was announced show that it has gone completely off the rails. There is certainly a better way, and I ask the government to— (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A few weeks ago I visited Christmas Island with two members who are in the chamber now: the member for Moreton and the member for Stirling. I had never been to Christmas Island and I found that it does take a considerable amount of time to get there. I went there as part of the Joint Select Committee on the Christmas Island Tragedy. While obviously I am limited in what I can discuss in reference to the deliberations of the committee in relation to those terrible events of 15 December, I can say that the trip was revealing to me in many respects and helped to form new approaches and perspectives on this issue.

As all members do, from time to time I receive emails from people who feel strongly about either side of this debate. During the course of the last two weeks I was prompted to respond to someone who felt strongly about the whole issue and—speaking candidly to the House—about the issue of Malaysia. I reflected on my experiences on Christmas Island and, in particular, talked about the visit we undertook to the place where those 30 people who had attempted to come to Australia perished on the rocks. I talked about the 20 people presumed dead and about the video that we had seen as part of the committee hearing. That video was taken from the perspective of the Royal Australian Navy and detailed the efforts being undertaken by the RAN to save those people. I talked about the responses the RAN personnel gave about the film of diesel that covered the water off Christmas Island that day, and about the fact that whenever a member of the RAN was trying to lift somebody out of the water and into the boat, the forearms of the people who were trapped would slip through the fingers of the RAN personnel because of the diesel that covered the ocean and those people.

I remember the trauma that was still evident in the faces of the first responders, who appeared before the committee, who were forced to witness what happened that day and were helpless to assist people who were only a couple of hundred metres from shore and trying in all desperation to get ashore. Some of those first responders, including residents, said that they had thrown ropes to people in the ocean but that just as people were about to scramble over the top of the jagged rocks the swell would take them back out and then crash them back into the rocks. That would trigger a response from the people climbing up, who would let go of the rope and fall into the water. It was not just a case of those people coming back up over the rocks. As was put to us, any person who had a life jacket survived; anyone who did not have a life jacket did not survive. Forty-two people survived, 30 did not and 20 are missing, presumed dead. If you fell into the water without a life jacket, you were gone.

I do not think, as the minister said at the dispatch box, that anyone should make that journey. In some quarters there is a view that idealises people smugglers and tries in some respects to portray them as heroes. These people are profiting from the misery of others. They are profiting from misery and desperation. They do not adhere to the traditional view of people who are supposed to be in command of vessels—masters of vessels—that they should transport people only when they know full well that their vessel is safe and secure and that they can vouch for the welfare of the passengers on that vessel. They cannot do that. From my own perspective, I appreciate that there will be people that are moved by a concern that is, I would say, founded on an improper belief—that is, that sending people to Malaysia under this arrangement would put them in harm's way. We have heard what the minister has said—what clearly many of us regard as sacrosanct—which is that, with the benefit of guidance and input from the UNHCR, people being sent to Malaysia will be treated with dignity and respect.

But, most importantly, can I just say: it is a far better situation than having people in desperate circumstances make that trip across the ocean at their peril. Admittedly, the events of 15 December were highly unusual, as people told us on that day—in particular, some said that in living memory they could not recall the conditions being as bad as on that day. But no-one should be put in the position where they take that trip—two days across the ocean, 500 kilometres out from Jakarta, and take a risk that they will just land and they will find sanctuary—when in actual fact the people smugglers will not vouch for their safety. The people smugglers will not guarantee that safety and they are simply profiting from, as I said previously, the desperate plight of others. That is why I think it is important to place on the record that I do support the solution being advanced by the government. I believe it is a necessary one to deter people from making that decision to put their lives, the lives of their children and the lives of their loved ones in a terrible position where they risk all to come here.

The other reason I support what the government has put forward is that we are doing something qualitatively different, which is to significantly increase the number of people who are able to come to this country via Malaysia as refugees. They are denied the false and misguided belief that, if they hop on the boat, it is a quicker path here. We liberate and, for a group of people who believed they would not have hope, give hope for a second chance at establishing themselves in a new country and improving their lot. Those 4,000 refugees who will be admitted to our country, and the people I have spoken of warmly in this place who have set themselves up as model citizens, because they have been given the benefit of a second chance, will be able to benefit from the arrangements the government is putting forward.

I know there will be people, even those who support me, who will fundamentally disagree with the position I am advancing. But all I can say to them is that I wholeheartedly, and deep within me, believe that the solution we are putting forward is in the best interests of those who would contemplate making this trip and those who currently are stuck in another country, chiefly Malaysia, who seek a better life, who have sought refuge and who we can provide that refuge to.

In terms of the opposition putting forward this notion of transparency, it beggars belief that this could be advocated through this MPI. If you review the history of when they sat on this side of the House, when they were urged to be transparent, when they were urged to correct their approach, the only time they took action was when people within their own government refused any longer to tolerate the litany of mistakes and errors and the fractured nature of the system as it was under the former government, and they tried to force change. As I have previously recounted, we only need to go through, for example, the circumstances of Vivian Solon, who was unlawfully removed to the Philippines in July 2001. Four years later it emerged she had been deported and the government had known of the mistake at least two years earlier. It was never transparent in this House on that fact. Then there was Cornelia Rau, who was an Australian permanent resident unlawfully detained for a period of 10 months in 2004-05. Peter Kazim was held in detention for seven years. There was also the mother and daughter Virginia and Naomi Leong. Virginia Leong, a Malaysian citizen, was arrested and placed under mandatory detention in 2001 for attempting to leave Australia without the correct papers.

All these people suffered under the previous arrangements administered by the former government—no skerrick of transparency or openness. The other side, not willing to abide by the notion of transparency, now advocates that others should be transparent. We have provided the detail on 1,200 questions submitted by the opposition through the Senate estimates process. We have opened ourselves up to transparency. We are prepared to do the right thing by people who would tempt fate and travel over the seas to get here. We have done a far better deal for those people than what those opposite ever imagined they could do. (Time expired)

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance today because I think we might have found another recruit for this side of the House in the member for Chifley. He indeed strikes me as a fine, upstanding moral citizen. I am a little worried that some of his strategies to achieve a given outcome are odd, perhaps even way out. But his intent of stopping people getting onto leaky boats at high monetary cost and at potentially the cost of their lives and the lives of their families is exactly the intention we have on this side of the House. The proof of our ability to achieve that, of course, is now recent history. When the Rudd government took over in this place there were four detainees in Australia—just four detainees. Years prior to that there was a great influx of illegal people-smuggling vessels. And we, through effective policy, stopped those boats arriving. Through the member's own admission, that is exactly what he wishes to achieve as an individual, he says. For goodness sake, why does he not say to his current leader, 'Simply put in place policies that will reverse those policies put in place in August 2008 and go back to a working system as introduced by the Howard government that stopped people declaring themselves as refugees, paying people smugglers to engage in their horrendous, often treacherous trade resulting in death at sea'? It is so simple.

Over a number of years the Howard government put in place policies that stopped the boats. Those policies, of course, included offshore processing of refugees and they included the issuing of temporary protection visas. Temporary protection visas, to the satisfaction of the UNHCR, gave refuge to those persons who were persecuted in other countries until such time as those conflicts had been put to rest. Those policies—very simple, humane, effective and sympathetic policies—put an end to the flood of boats arriving on our shores with people seeking refugee status. These people had put their lives and the lives of their families at risk to get onto those boats. Families paid their hard-earned dollars to a people smuggler. It stopped. The member for Chifley ought to come across and join us, because our endeavours are exactly the same.

The point that we make, however, is that the processes that are being proposed presently have very, very little chance of success. We believe they will have no more success than the policies that have been put in place since the Rudd government came to power. Of course, all those policies did was effectively to say to the potential arrivals on our shore that would pay people smugglers: 'Come on down; the gates are open. The welcoming committee is here for you.' No-one, no rational person in the government today, can stand up, hand on heart and say to the Australian people, 'We have policies that secure our borders and are effective in stopping the flood of illegal persons to these shores.' You cannot do it and therefore your credibility is shot—shot as in so many other areas. The Prime Minister herself, Ms Julia Gillard, back on 27 June last year was explaining to Laurie Oakes why she had knifed Kevin Rudd for the leadership. She said:

… I took control to get the government back on track.

It is interesting to reflect on that statement, given today's polls. She said also:

I'm obviously concerned about asylum seekers, about boats. I've indicated that concern, and I think the Australian community feels it.

Well, I can assure her on that point she was dead right. The Australian community feel it, all right. They want the flow of boats stopped and I believe they want a government that will do just that, and they have no faith in the current Gillard government to stop that flow of boats. She said also:

I believe in doing the effective things to manage our borders.

By that the people of Australia thought she would manage the borders to make them secure, to make them non-porous, to create a barrier between those that would come to this country illegally, unannounced and often unwelcome and those that would come instead as refugees through the formal process. What the Prime Minister in fact meant was: 'I will manage our borders in a way where I will conduct the traffic, I will regulate the traffic and I will direct the traffic. I will not slow the traffic. I will direct the expenditure of Australian taxpayers' dollars. I will do it in a way to increase the budget from $1 million to $1 billion of Australian taxpayers' money per annum to look after refugees that come here through a process that risks their lives.' It ought to be through a process which is condoned by the UNHCR and which is done in a regulated manner so those persons are checked, have their credentials verified and come to our shores in a regulated manner. Why on earth would somebody be on that side of the House as part of a government with failed policies when they express a point of view in this place that they sincerely desire a satisfactory outcome where people smuggling stops and people are not tempted to take to the sea in leaky boats? It is frankly beyond me.

We call for transparency of process. More importantly, of course, we would like the cessation of the arrival of the boats. But we have asked today for you to explain why there is transparency lacking in your process, specifically in relation to the deal you are trying to cook up with Malaysia. That is a very interesting thing. I understand that the Malaysian proposition has been formulated on the basis that the easy approach to this problem—accommodating refugees and processing them in Nauru—was unacceptable to the Prime Minister because Nauru was not a signatory to the UN convention. It may be of interest to anyone that ever hears or reads my comments to find out that Malaysia is not a signatory to that convention either. Is it not interesting that Nauru was unacceptable, even though readily available and almost instantaneous, but Malaysia—in the same category of not agreeing with the UN convention—is acceptable? It beggars belief. I recall the member for Chifley mentioned something about our MPI surprising him. I suggest that it is beyond belief that the Prime Minister can find cooking a deal with Malaysia to be satisfactory, Malaysia not being a signatory, but doing an easy, instant deal with Nauru is not considered because they are not signatories. As a matter of interest, in regard to signing that convention, the Nauruan government has signed an instrument of accession to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, formally beginning the process of its ratification of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. If the past is any indication of the time it will take in the future, by the time the Prime Minister is in a position to actually announce a signed deal with Malaysia, I suggest that Nauru would possibly be a signatory. She ought to phone Nauru now and get the deal going that will make them part of the process that will stop those boats coming here, which after all is what the Australian people expect of a government. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great pride, I rise to speak on this matter of public importance and thank the member for Durack for what I guess we would call a contribution. Firstly, I want to point out how complex this problem is. Border protection is a very complicated issue. We know that we are a large continent. We know that our borders are quite significant. The member for Durack has a large electorate, and the previous one was an even larger electorate, and he would know how difficult it is cover a large area. In terms of border protection, Australia has to patrol an area equivalent to 11 per cent of the world's oceans. Australia does not have 11 per cent of the world's population, but we have to patrol 11 per cent of the world's oceans to make our borders safe—1.54 million square nautical miles.

I would like to commend Rear Admiral Tim Barrett and all the ADF personnel, the Customs personnel, the Federal Police and all the people involved in the Border Protection Command. They do a fantastic job. As the member for Chifley stated the other day, we have been involved in the inquiry into the Christmas Island boat tragedy. Not only have members of the Border Protection Command appeared before the inquiry; they assisted the committee when we visited Christmas Island, where we met high-ranking officers as well as those doing the work on the ground and out on the ocean. They are all incredibly professional. I want to commend them for what they do, and I want to take issue with the suggestion in the MPI that somehow they are falling down. The reality is that, since the Gillard and Rudd governments have been in office, approx­imately one per cent of illegal vessels are arriving, whereas previously approximately 10 per cent arrived. We have gone up to 99 per cent protection, you could say. With the reality of patrolling 11 per cent of the world's oceans, we will never get it perfect. The radars in Hollywood movies just do not exist. The reality is that small, wooden boats are almost impossible to detect with radar from any great distances, even if the ocean is flat and calm. When there are hurricanes, cyclones and the like, it is even more difficult. Unfortunately, we saw that outcome with the boat tragedy.

Once upon a time, there was a season when people smugglers put people into boats. Before we made the Malaysia announcement, there was a rush of people coming down here in all types of weather and we saw the tragedies that unfolded there. As I said, I commend Rear Admiral Tim Barrett and all the ADF personnel for what they are doing. Also, I read in the paper the other day about the endeavours of some other Australian agencies that operate beyond our borders that have had success in intercepting people before they pay the people smugglers and get onto boats and make those dangerous journeys. The efforts of those agencies are great to see.

I am proud to be part of a government that has more assets patrolling our borders than any other governments in our history. Now up to 99 per cent of boats are being stopped, whereas previously it was about 10 per cent. The Gillard government invested $1.2 billion in the 2010-11 budget to bolster our border security. This is building on the $654 million border protection and anti-people-smuggling package announced in the previous budget. We have eight new Bay class patrol vessels. We met some of the Navy personnel working with those. We have 18 vessels and 17 aircraft, which operate out of South Australia and Darwin, doing some great patrol work. It is boring and monotonous work but work that keeps us safe in our beds at night.

We also gave extra resources to our regional partners. We are going beyond our borders to wreck the people smugglers' business model. We announced $24.8 million in extra funding to law enforcement agencies in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka for funding extra patrol boats, surveillance aircraft and communications equipment, helping the Indonesian National Police detect and disrupt people—as we saw the other day—and new land based policing surveillance and investigative equipment for partner law enforcement agencies in the region. We are working with our neighbours, understanding that we are connected to the rest of Asia and this part of the world. We gave $5 million to develop new computer forensic capabilities with the Indonesian National Police. These are great initiatives that are good for our nation as a whole and obviously making our borders more secure. In November last year, Minister O'Connor announced a $2 million package for the new maritime radio communication system to help Indonesia combat maritime threats. These are the practical solutions and practical realities that show that the Gillard Labor government are working to protect our borders. We are being transparent about this. All of these announcements are in media releases and in the budget packages. There is nothing secretive at all about this.

The reality is that those opposite are taking a punt on a stunt. We saw that in Nauru, which was a total waste of money. We see that in the foreshadowed visit to Malaysia. Nauru never did break the people smugglers' business model. Where did 90 per cent of the people who ended up in Nauru finally put down their roots? They are either in Australia or New Zealand. There is something there that people smugglers can sell. Obviously we need to break that business model. As the member for Chifley stated—he is on the same inquiry—we should do so not only because it is good common sense for Australia but also, and more importantly, because it will save lives.

We saw a few months back a big story in the Age and Daily Telegraph about a missing boat with perhaps up to 100 people gone. That is horrible, but what is even more horrible is watching people drown, which is what the Australian Navy personnel have had to do, as well as the people on the parliamentary inquiry looking into the SIEV221 and the 50 deaths that are associated with it. The reality is that we need to do whatever we can to save lives.

I will be the first to admit—or the second to admit, because I think Minister Bowen said the same thing—that Malaysia is tough. It does not have the same justice system as Australia. It has the same roots but it has evolved slightly differently. It has provinces that have sharia law. Malaysia is a country of contrasts; we know that. It has a proud history. Some say that, if the Macassans had had flags, maybe they would have claimed Australia when they came here in the 1500s and 1600s to trade with Aborigines. It has a proud history, but it is a country of contrasts. I would suggest that the Petronas Towers are the most beautiful buildings in the world. I know that is a big call for people who have been to Paris and New York and other places, but for me they are the most beautiful buildings in the world. Then you can go to other provinces in Malaysia where there is strict, harsh sharia law embedded in the justice system. So Malaysia is a country of contrasts and it will be hard to protect every single person who goes there. I hope the member for Cook gets out of there safely; I am sure he will. The reality is that Malaysia does have a slightly different system to Australia, but I go back to the member for Chifley's point: if we can save lives with this exchange of 4,000 for 800 and also give those people who have been sitting patiently in the Malaysian refugee camps a chance to have a another life, that will be a good thing. When you weigh it up, if we can save lives and stop those horrific tragedies occurring again, that will be a good thing.

We have got maybe 800 days left until the election day. No doubt every day for the next 800 days will have the Leader of the Opposition coming in here and doing a stunt or going out in the media doing a stunt. Every day for the next 800 days he will trot something out. Maybe he will look to the past, especially today when we are looking at events of a year ago, but we will look at the future.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You keep going back to Work Choices.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we are not going to back to Work Choices. That is your embryonic policy. I will take that interjection. The reality is that we are not interested in Work Choices. The first things we did were to ratify Kyoto and get rid of Work Choices because we believe in working for the future.

I will go back to the past a little bit and look at the member for Cook's suggestion of having a Malaysian solution, except it was not in Malaysia; it was in Iran. I do not know the President of Iran as well as the member for Cook— (Time expired)

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

Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.