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

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

The failure of the government to maintain an effective border protection policy.

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—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary performance we have seen from the Prime Minister today. The Prime Minister of this country is demanding that someone who is alternately a 'precious petal' and someone who is a person of 'monstrous arrogance' should help her out of a problem of her own making. Let me say this: it is not the opposition's job to support bad policy from a bad government. It is not the opposition's job to save the government from a mess of its own making when there is an alternative, and when that alternative has been proven to work.

I am not so inclined under the circumstances of today's performance by this Prime Minister to rescue her from her own difficulties. It is not the job of the coalition and it is not the job of the opposition to rescue a failed and failing government. It is interesting that the first sign of discomfort from this Prime Minister—the first sign of gracelessness from this Prime Minister, whose every day in this place betrays a bearing unworthy of the high office she holds—was when she started talking about the visit to this country of President Obama. Let me make it absolutely crystal clear that the coalition welcomes the visit to this country of President Obama. We will always welcome a visit to this country by the President of the United States. The big question is: will this Prime Minister be around to welcome the President of the United States when he gets here?

The coalition has a very, very clear policy. It is a policy that has been proven to work. Our policy, in a nutshell, is offshore processing at Nauru, it is temporary protection visas and it is the option of turning boats around where that can safely be done. Our policy is a policy that has been shown to work.

It did work. It did work in the past; it can work and it will work in the future. When the coalition's policy was put into practice by the former government between 2002 and 2007 we averaged just three boats a year in this country. Just three boats a year! Since that policy was junked by members opposite, led by the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister, we have had at some stages no fewer than three boats a week. Three boats a year under the coalition's policy and three boats a week under the government's policy. I say to the government: go back to the policy that worked. Drop the stubbornness, forget the pride, drop the 'anywhere but Nauru' policy and go back to the policy that worked. If you had any respect for the welfare of our country, if you had any respect for the safety of boat people and if you had any concern to preserve good relations with our neighbours you would go back to the policy that worked. That is what members opposite should do.

The Prime Minister used to delight—when she had another job, and in another time—in putting out press releases. The press releases were invariably headed 'another boat, another policy failure'. There were not very many press releases, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because there were not very many boats. Since this government and this Prime Minister changed the policy there have been 240 policy failures; 240 boats and more than 12,000 illegal arrivals in this country—all the fault of this government.

It is all the fault of this government because this government was not magnanimous enough to leave well enough alone. All the riots in detention centres and all the terrible tragedies that we have seen have arisen because this government was too arrogant, too proud and too stubborn to accept that its predecessors had it right. This is a disgraceful government—a really disgraceful government—and nothing better illustrates that than the squirming that we see from them now.

What have we seen from this government? We have seen a government find a solution and create a problem. We hear constantly from this Prime Minister the demand—she says she is asking—that the coalition adopt a particular policy. The Prime Minister is abusing us to adopt a particular policy. If she wants a bit of cooperation, what about facing up to some facts? The only reason the people smugglers have a business model is that this government created it. This government created the people-smuggler model when it abolished temporary protection visas and dismantled the Pacific solution.

The Prime Minister constantly says, 'Take the expert advice'. I have two responses to this: what did the experts say to her before the High Court decision? What advice did she get before the High Court decision? If she was following expert advice, the expert advice turned out to be not very expert. The other question I have for the Prime Minister is: what did she do with the expert advice, that she was given repeatedly in 2008, that to dismantle the Pacific solution would put the people smugglers back in business? Why did the Prime Minister and her former prime ministerial colleague the now foreign minister, completely ignore the expert advice at this time?

What we have seen from this government is complacency followed by panic. First of all we had the processing freeze which just caused the numbers in detention to go up and up and up. Then we had the lurch to the right that the former prime minister so presciently warned us about. Shortly after the member for Lindsay's jaunt round Darwin Harbour on a patrol boat, we had the East Timor solution—the solution that got lost somewhere in the Timor Sea. Then we had the Manus solution, a solution that was announced before it had been negotiated and which has never come to pass, followed by the Malaysian solution.

Let me say of the so-called Malaysian solution that yet again from this government we have had bad policy based on a lie. It is so typical of this government that we have had bad policy based on a lie—whether it is a carbon tax, whether it is boat people—

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the word 'lie'.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bad policy based on a deception. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may care to listen to and mark these words of the Prime Minister spoken on 8 July last year, in the middle of the election campaign:

I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

I am not going to call that a lie, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was certainly a gross deception—yet another gross deception. Now this Prime Minister wants the coalition to connive at a policy based on gross deception. We will not connive at policies based on gross deception.

The Malaysia people swap is a thoroughly bad policy. What sensible government would go to another country and do a five-for-one deal? What decent government would send boat people to a country where they could be exposed to caning? Malaysia is a friend of Australia, but their standards are not our standards, and it is very wrong of Australia to send people who have come into our care, however briefly, to a country whose standards are so different from ours. Most of all, it is a policy that just does not work, has not worked and will not work. Look at the facts: this so-called deterrent has not deterred 1,000 illegal boat people from arriving on our shores since it was first announced. Four hundred have arrived since it was signed. Why should the coalition consider supporting a policy which has so comprehensively failed?

Malaysia is a proven failure. Nauru is a proven success. Let us be crystal clear: this is a Prime Minister who came into this House and did not tell a lie, but did say something that was grievously untrue. She came into this House yesterday and said 90 per cent of those who went to Nauru ended up in Australia. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Prime Minister. If you cannot get your facts right in this House, how can we expect you to get your policy right for the country? Some 1,500 people went to Nauru under the Pacific solution. Fully 30 per cent of them were repatriated to their home countries, 27 per cent went to countries other than Australia and only 43 per cent came to Australia. Some of them came to Australia after a very long wait in Nauru and that is why, in conjunction with other policies, it was such an effective deterrent.

This Prime Minister just cannot help herself. There is almost nothing that this Prime Minister says which is consistent with what she has previously said. She was against offshore processing: it was 'costly, unsustainable and wrong in principle'. Now we must not have offshore processing but offshore dumping, because that is what will happen to the people that she wants to send to Malaysia. Back in 2002 she actually supported turning boats around. She said:

The navy has turned back four boats to Indonesia. They were in sea-worthy shape and arrived in Indonesia. It has made a very big difference …

Last year she said:

… 'turn the boats back'. This needs to be seen for what it is. It's a shallow slogan. It's nonsense.

She supported turning boats around, she opposed turning boats around, but it is okay. Now she supports a virtual turnaround of boats. Just as Al Gore invented the internet: whatever policy she wants, she invented it.

First of all she supported temporary protection visas. Back in 2002, Labor's policy was that an unauthorised arrival with a genuine refugee claim would in the first instance get a short temporary protection visa. At the beginning of last year she said, 'The Rudd government is proud of its reforms in abolishing temporary protection visas and in closing the so-called Pacific solution,'—which, at least in respect of Mannus, she wants to resurrect.

The Prime Minister was ferociously against more onshore detention centres during the election campaign. Since the election, in the absence of the BER, the only thing that she wants to build is onshore detention centres. Of course, we were never ever under any circumstances going to send boat people to countries that had not signed the UN refugee convention, but now she cannot wait to get people forced onto planes and off them in Malaysia, a country that has not signed.

This is a floundering, desperate Prime Minister at the head of a divided and directionless government. It is her responsibility to get her legislation through this parliament. She is the government.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the national interest?

Honourable members interjecting—

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

The member for Melbourne Ports will remain silent, as will members on my left.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She should appeal to the other members of her government to support her. That is what she should do. If she is incapable of getting the members of her government to support her and if she is incapable of getting this government to get its legislation through the parliament, there are other options that are open to her and she should take them. I repeat, our responsibility is to support good policy. That is what we will do. Good policy is Nauru, temporary protection visas and turning boats around. That is the policy this government should adopt. (Time expired)

Mr Danby interjecting —

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I request that the member for Melbourne Ports withdraw his comment.

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

I did not hear the comment, but the honourable member would assist the chamber were he to do so.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition that this government is not strong on border protection. Indeed, it is a high priority of this government. That is why we dedicate more resources than ever before to ensuring that our borders are protected. That is why, for example, in relation to irregular maritime arrivals, we have interdicted vessels more successfully. There have been far fewer mainland arrivals that went undetected under this government compared with the Howard government. Almost one in 10 irregular maritime arrivals landed on the mainland of this country under the Howard government. They landed in places like Darwin or near Cairns. In fact, even the state of New South Wales received vessels undetected under the Howard government's regime. I have to say, in defence of Customs and Border Protection and those great agencies that do such great work for this country, that they have indeed managed this issue very well.

Of course it is true to say that we are dealing with a significant challenge—a challenge that also confronted the Howard government and the Fraser government. It is a challenge about dealing with the movement of people globally, the displacement of people and their efforts to come to First World nations. Australia is one such nation—a nation which will indeed be a target for people who seek asylum—because we are signatories to the refugee convention. This is a country where people seek to come as they seek to go to Europe, the United States and other such countries. The fact is that we have been dealing with this issue for some time. It is true to say that this has been a very significant challenge for the government. What we are asking the opposition to do now is put the interests of this nation ahead of the interests of the Leader of the Opposition's career. What we are after the opposition to do now is join the government and ensure that the executive government of the day has the capacity to provide the best possible deterrent against allowing people-smuggling to continue in such a manner. That is all we are asking the Leader of the Opposition.

After the decision of the High Court it appeared, at least at that point, that the Leader of the Opposition was showing an uncharacteristic inclination to consider the situation by saying that he believed that the government of the day should be in a position to enact effective border protection policy. Unfortunately, since the time that he uttered those words he seems to have been walking away from his obligations to protect the interests of this nation. And that is a crying shame. We think that on this issue, where the Leader of the Opposition seeks to convince the people of Australia that he cares about border protection, he would join the government to ensure we have the best possible deterrent against the scourge of people smuggling, that we have the best possible deterrent against people being lured onto unseaworthy vessels on perilous journeys, that he would work with the government to ensure that we protected the interests not only of those desperate passengers on those vessels but also the personnel of Customs and Border Protection. That is what we would have expected a responsible and honourable Leader of the Opposition to do, and we still hold out some hope that sanity will prevail within the opposition to ensure that this government has the capacity to put in place the most effective deterrent as advised by experts—the same experts that advised the Howard government when they were dealing with such a challenge.

But to date we unfortunately have not heard that level of consensus. I know that by inclination and reflex the Leader of the Opposition will oppose, but I think he has now an opportunity to show that he does put this country's interests ahead of his own. What worries me most, and what will worry the people of Australia, is that the Leader of the Opposition will not support the government legislation to enact the Malaysian plan not because it will not work, but because he believes it will work. What would worry the Australian people is that this opposition leader would put his interests so far ahead of the national interest that he would prevent a plan that he has been advised would be the greatest deterrent to endangering the lives of desperate people, to allowing the people-smuggling trade to continue and to endangering the lives of Customs and Border Protection personnel.

As minister responsible for those operational agencies I can say that it worries me every day when Customs and Border Protection personnel are on the high seas, interdicting vessels in the dark and in very serious sea states. They are placing their lives in danger. We saw in April 2009, with SIEV36, that an explosion that killed five passengers could well have also killed members of our Customs and Border Protection personnel. Indeed, we saw on 15 December last year that awful tragedy with the foundering of SIEV221, the vessel that was holding people seeking asylum. They foundered on the rocks of Christmas Island, and up to 50 men, women and children perished. That was a very awful tragedy—a tragedy that would have been worse if it were not for the heroic efforts, dedication and professionalism of Customs and naval personnel who went to the aid of those who were still in the water and saved 40 people, plucking them directly from the sea. To do that took great acts of courage, and it worries me still that we will see more deaths if we do not stop these arrivals. I believe that the government—and, indeed, every member of this House who has a capacity to change the arrangements to ensure a greater deterrence—has to take some responsibility if we increase the capacity for vessels to arrive in this manner. It worries me that we have men and women in these vessels surveilling thousands of kilometres of water and indeed dealing with very serious challenges. And I do believe it is incumbent, certainly upon the government but also but upon the opposition, to consider that what we do or do not do has some bearing on the lives of our Customs and Border Protection personnel. I think that to date we have been fortunate that we have not lost a life from one of our agencies at sea.

I arrived on Christmas Island on 15 December to be told of that awful tragedy. And if not before, certainly from that day, I and of course other parliamentary and ministerial colleagues believed we had to put our entire focus on an arrangement that would lead to the greatest deterrent possible in order to prevent more men, women and children dying and that would prevent our Customs and Border Protection personnel from endangering their lives any further.

Indeed, for some considerable months the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in particular, engaged with the government of Malaysia to embark upon what I believe is a very innovative approach to having the strongest possible deterrent and to stopping the people smugglers from being able to lure people on vessels with the promise that they can get to Australia. It is that lure, that enticement, that leads to these tragedies.

If the Leader of the Opposition will not to listen to the advice of the department that says to him that this is the most likely way we will see a decline in, and a cessation of, vessels arriving in this way then it worries me that the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition themselves are putting their base political interests ahead of not only the national interest but, more specifically, the lives of men, women and children, and the personnel of Customs and Border Protection, who are confronted with these situations each and every day.

The Leader of the Opposition can continue to assail the Prime Minister and can continue to argue about what might have happened 10 years ago and five years ago. What we know is that in the last number of weeks—indeed, most recently last week—the Leader of the Opposition has been provided with the best possible advice that the government has received, which says to him that Nauru will not work. Whatever deterrent it may have had in some limited way at some point before the people settled in Australia, that is not an option now. The people smugglers see the Nauru option as the Christmas Island option, just closer to the mainland of Australia. Unfortunately, that cannot work, if it ever did.

I can run through all of the reasons why there were major deficiencies in that option. I can also, of course, point to the fact that there were thousands and thousands of people who arrived on our shores after the introduction of temporary protection visas. Right now, however, the most fundamental issue that the parliament has to consider with respect to border protection is whether we are going to have consensus around whether executive government should have the capacity to put in place the most effective deterrent to prevent the people smugglers continuing their trade.

We have to make sure we come together and put in the most effective approach to reducing the chances of men, women and children perishing at sea and ensuring that the chances of any of our own personnel losing their life at sea are reduced as much as possible. These are the things that now concern me as the minister responsible for the operational side of this public policy area, and I do not believe that it is incumbent upon the Leader of the Opposition to continue to play politics with this issue.

It is now time that the Leader of the Opposition thinks about what he is doing and considers the ramifications of not entering into an agreement to allow the passage of legislation that would give executive government in this country the opportunity to accept the advice of the experts from the departments who have dealt with this issue. That is something that I believe that the opposition leader must turn his mind to. If he is serious about wanting to be perceived in this country as a leader, as a person who puts the interests of the nation first, then he has no alternative, I would argue, than to stop putting his political interests ahead of the national interest.

So I have to disagree with the Leader of the Opposition; I do not believe it is the case that the Nauru option is viable. It did not work effectively, in my view. It also coincided with the greatest repatriation of people because of the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and indeed the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It was a combination of factors that led to some of the repatriation that occurred, but the fact is that the people smugglers know that those who were not repatriated were settled either here or in New Zealand. That is not a deterrent. That is not something that is going to deter one person seeking to get on a vessel in Malaysia to come here.

I think, in his heart of hearts, that Tony Abbott knows that. In his heart of hearts the Leader of the Opposition knows that the Malaysian plan is the best possible plan. In knowing that, I think it is reprehensible and unconscionable conduct for the Leader of the Opposition not to allow the government of the day to enact the most effective plan that will protect the interests of this country, protect the efficacy of our borders, protect the interests of those people—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not going to happen; you're wasting your time!

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjection by someone who supports onshore processing, which I do not think the Leader of the Opposition would be proceeding with. Mr Deputy Speaker, if I could continue without the interjections—

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

Order! The honourable member will remain silent.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has been an area that has unfortunately ripped through the nation. There has been serious discord in our society for many a year as a result of this issue. It is one that we should never play politics with. The lives of men, women and children, of course, are endangered if we do not find the most effective approach to protect them, and the best way to protect them is to smash the business model—which is, of course, to allow people smugglers to say to them, 'Get on that vessel and you will get to Australia.' If we do not do that, and if the Leader of the Opposition does not support the government in that approach, then Tony Abbott will rue the day if he did not accept the proposition that we have to put the greatest and strongest deterrent in place to smash the people-smuggler model and to protect the interests of men, women and children; protect the interests of the personnel of Customs and Border Protection; and, indeed, protect the interests of this nation.

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

Before calling the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I would remind the minister that under the standing orders he is supposed to refer to the Leader of the Opposition and all other members by their title and not by their name.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debacle that is this government's border protection policy is a sorry tale of gross incompetence with shocking consequences of the type that has come to define this Labor government. The sad truth is that it was all avoidable: the revival of the people-smuggling trade; the overcrowding of the detention centres; the capsized boats; the deaths at sea; and the blow-out in costs as the government lurched from crisis to crisis. This was all of their own making. There was no shortage of advice—expert advice—warning this government that weakening the coalition's strong border protection laws would result in a boost to the people-smuggling trade. The boat arrivals had virtually ceased under the Howard government. The people-smuggling trade had been disrupted. But the government could not leave well enough alone—oh, no. They had to dismantle the Howard government policies that had worked.

Documents released under freedom of information laws to News Limited showed that on 25 February 2008 the government was officially warned by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship about weakening the Howard government's policies. The government was formally, officially warned by its own department that closing the processing centre on Nauru would lead to an increase in people-smuggling, and the government went ahead in any event. We know that the Australian Federal Police warned this government that changing the laws would make Australia a target for the international criminal syndicates behind the people-smuggling trade, but this government dismissed that expert advice. It could not resist the temptation to change the laws, such was its smug confidence that the coalition had got it wrong.

The government so took for granted the fact that the Howard government had stopped the boats and that there were about half a dozen boat arrivals in our detention network at the time the Rudd government took over that the government ridiculed and denigrated the Christmas Island arrangement. The member for Melbourne Ports, in July 2008, visited the Christmas Island detention centre, and this is what the member for Melbourne Ports had to say about the Christmas Island detention centre: he declared it to be akin to a stalag—a German prisoner of war camp—and to be an 'enormous white elephant'. One wonders how the member for Melbourne Ports views the camps in Malaysia to which this Prime Minister intends to send people who are seeking asylum in Australia. How does the member for Melbourne Ports describe the camps in Malaysia if that is how he described Christmas Island? Presumably the member for Melbourne Ports will vote against the Prime Minister's Malaysia five-for-one people swap. How could he—or any member of the government who criticised Christmas Island, Nauru and Manus Island—now support this Prime Minister's desperate and despicable attempts to cling to power by sending asylum seekers to Malaysia?

Within weeks of the visit by the member for Melbourne Ports, the government weakened the laws that had been in place since 2001, which reduced the boats to a trickle—in some years there were no boats. And then what happened upon Labor's dismantling of the coalition policies? The boats started arriving almost immediately, as the government had been warned. The government reacted with assurances that the boat arrivals had nothing to do with the change in laws. Labor ministers argued that it was a coincidence that the changes in the laws occurred at a time when there was an increase in push factors. The driver, they argued, was push factors in other countries—factors beyond the control of the Australian government. But the boats kept coming, and in increasing numbers. Before long the 'enormous white elephant' on Christmas island had to be reopened, and still the boats kept coming. The number of arrivals soon swamped capacity on Christmas Island, and then work began on opening detention centres on the mainland. That was in clear breach of Labor's pre-election promises and commitments. And still the boats kept coming.

The pressure from the people smugglers had grown and grown and grown on this hapless government. The impact of this government's decision to weaken Australia's border protection has started to impact on international relations, and that was an obvious consequence. Australia's relationship with Indonesia was still recovering from this government's arrogant handling of the Oceanic Viking crisis in October and November of 2009 when this Prime Minister announced her ludicrous East Timor solution without informing the government of Indonesia. Given the blundering of her predecessor in this area, one could reasonably have expected the new Prime Minister to tread far more carefully and diplomatically in the regional minefield of people-smuggling and processing of asylum seekers. But not only did she not warn Indonesia of what she planned to do; she did not bother to tell East Timor. The Prime Minister clearly took no expert advice. She certainly did not take any advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who had warned her on the very day that she took his job that plans to build a new regional processing centre in East Timor for asylum seekers would be very badly received in East Timor. But, with breathtaking ignorance and arrogance, the Prime Minister announced to the Australian media that East Timor would host a regional processing centre. Members will note that she pointedly singled out East Timor because it was a signatory to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. In her speech, with the original title of 'Moving Australia forward', the Prime Minister spoke of East Timor as the place for a regional processing centre because it was a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. She did make one quick call to President Jose Ramos-Horta but was ignorant of the fact that the president was not the head of the government of East Timor. It might have come as a surprise to some, but the fact that the Prime Minister made only one phone call, and to the wrong person, just brought this government's ineptitude to a new level. It might have made her a laughing stock in East Timor, but at least the Prime Minister of East Timor showed the diplomatic skill that this Prime Minister lacked by quietly distancing his government from this proposal.

Then the Prime Minister revealed her really tricky side after it became clear that the East Timorese were impressed by neither her plan for their country nor the manner of its announcement. She claimed that she had not referred to East Timor as a location for the centre at all. This was too much for most people, even veteran press gallery journalist Laurie Oakes, who said:

Julia Gillard just looks silly and slippery and slimy and shifty in all that and it is a very, very bad start to her prime ministerial career.

It has only gotten worse. The Prime Minister attempted to back down from her back down, insisting that she was in fact in discussion with East Timor but with no other nation. Then the parliament of East Timor passed a unanimous resolution rejecting the Prime Minister's proposal. The East Timorese representatives made repeated statements, using careful diplomacy, that they did not want this regional processing centre foisted upon them, but the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge these concerns. Her behaviour verged on bullying as she maintained for months that negotiations were underway. One commentator dubbed it 'zombie diplomacy', an initiative that is technically dead but which the government is unable to officially kill because of the embarrassment and political fallout. Like Monty Python's parrot, the Prime Minister insisted the East Timor solution was not dead, merely resting.

This government has been caught out doing precisely what the Prime Minister said she would never do. She said that the government would reject any sending of asylum seekers to a country that was not a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. In fact, the Prime Minister ruled it out prior to the last election. Now she has announced the Malaysia solution. Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. This is no solution. It is temporary. It is not legally binding. It is a one-off arrangement. It represents no long-term solution to ending the people-smuggling trade at all. It will be exhausted once 800 people are sent to Malaysia. This is such overwhelming hypocrisy. She ruled out sending any asylum seekers to a country not a signatory to the convention before the election and now she wants to only send asylum seekers to a country that is not a signatory. There are 144 countries that are signatories to the UN convention on refugees and this Prime Minister chooses Malaysia, which is not a signatory.

The Prime Minister once stated a belief in onshore processing, but now she is embracing offshore processing. The Prime Minister ruled out sending asylum seekers to a country that is not a signatory and now that is all she is doing. (Time expired)

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance debate goes to the heart of the power of executive government. It is a debate that has arisen in the context of a decision of the High Court where the High Court has overturned what was believed to be the position of an act that was passed by this parliament. When an act is passed by this parliament—I am not going to lecture people on the separation of powers—the courts will interpret matters in an appropriate way. When this parliament decides on a course of action it has democratic legitimacy.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

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

Order! The honourable member for Kooyong does not appear to be in his place.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he's an idiot!

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

The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat and I require the Minister for Home Affairs to withdraw that statement.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

I thank the minister.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the member for Berowra introduced a bill which was duly passed by this House and which gave the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship certain powers those powers were exercised in good faith in the knowledge that the parliament had supported the position—the course of action that was being taken. That had the democratic legitimacy of any act of parliament that passes through this place and the other. When a court takes a decision to overturn that, particularly on a question that goes to the heart of the ability of executive government to protect our borders, then it raises considerable questions for the executive in the first instance but also particularly for the legislature. The legislature has to come to terms with whether or not it intends to amend the legislation so that its original intention is to prevail. That is indeed what this government intends to do.

There is a whole range of excuses that are being offered by the opposition—and it has not yet made its decision— as to why it says it may not go down the path of supporting this government in its efforts to ensure that the executive government has the ability to take the necessary action to protect our borders. There are two wings within the opposition on this question: there is the wing of respectability, those that feel the need to make a respectable argument, and then there is that wing led by the Leader of the Opposition that simply says that this is a question of how best to wreck a government and the very institutions of governance, and that is what it is going about doing. The Leader of the Opposition came in here earlier this afternoon and said, 'It is not the responsibility of the opposition to get the government out of trouble.' I tell you it is the responsibility of the opposition and every single member of this parliament to act in the national interest. In the same way as the member for Berowra brought forward that legislation before a previous parliament, members on all sides—and on our side of the chamber back then—joined with the member for Berowra in passing that legislation.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The member for Forde and the member for Forrest are not in their seats.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did that not because they saw that they were getting the government out of trouble; they did that because they saw, as elected members of parliament for their community, they had an obligation to act in the national interest. That is the challenge that each and every member of this parliament faces on every bill that comes before them. The challenge for the opposition will soon be upon them, and they will have to make the decision as to whether they go down that path.

The Leader of the Opposition came in and said: 'We will wreck. I don't care about what this does for future governments when it comes to the ability of executive government to act, and to act decisively, to secure our borders.' In a desperate pursuit of short-term gain, which must only be about trying to bring this government down short of its term, he said he would do that rather than empower the executive government to do what every Australian would believe to be its first and foremost responsibility—and that is to protect our borders and to manage our migration program. That is what is at stake.

The Leader of the Opposition came in here and said, 'We've got to get the facts straight,' and he pointed out a fact that he believed the Prime Minister had got wrong. Can I point out that the Leader of the Opposition said that 1,500 people were taken to Nauru under the Howard government's Pacific solution. He ought to get his facts straight, because 1,322 people went to Nauru and 315 went to Manus Island. If you cannot get your facts straight, do not come into this place and start accusing others of not getting their facts straight.

I mentioned there are two wings in the coalition. There is the 'let's wreck and bring the House down' wing. And then there is the wing that seek some fig leaf of respectability, and they argue that they cannot support Malaysia because it is not a signatory to the convention. I think the member for Cook likes to consider that he is the leader of that wing within the coalition, and we will hear more from him shortly, but those in that wing come forward and say, 'We cannot allow Malaysia because they're not a signatory to the convention.' I note that when this point was raised in relation to Nauru in the past, the member for Cook said it was a furphy. The Leader of the Opposition used the same word, saying it was a furphy. If that is the standard against which this government and any future government, an executive government, acting to secure the borders of this country, is going to be judged, then you should think very carefully about what that might mean for any future government when they seek to do what governments in the past have always sought to do and what governments in this country will always need to be able to do into the future.

The member for Cook, who likes to talk about how terrible this Malaysian arrangement is because they are not signatory to the convention and who is now holding up whether or not a nation is a signatory to the convention as being the key test—

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

The honourable member for Cook will have his opportunity.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

is the same person that, back in 2000, actually suggested that there are better solutions. He mentioned Pakistan. I must have missed something, but Pakistan, as far as I am aware, is not a signatory to the convention.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

The honourable member for Cook will remain silent for the rest of the parliamentary secretary's contribution. The parliamentary secretary has the call.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

His so-called solution was to do what he now calls a 'people swap' with Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan is not a signatory to the convention. Iran might be a signatory to the convention, but the member for Curtin, who just had a bit to say in this debate, said at the beginning of last year:

Iran continues to face domestic turmoil with ongoing security crackdowns on political dissent and reports that thousands of citizens have been detained while the media has been greatly restricted.

So Malaysia is such a terrible place and this arrangement is such an outrageous arrangement that they would be prepared to come into this place and strip the executive government of the power that it needs to act decisively on this matter, but they would be happy to see a similar arrangement entered into with Pakistan or Iran. These are the people who come into this place day after day talking about mandates. Well, an overwhelming majority of the members elected to this place went to the last election wanting to introduce offshore processing. Indeed, each and every one of them not only wanted to introduce offshore processing; they wanted to introduce offshore processing in a country that was not a signatory to the convention. So do not come into this place and lecture us about the human rights side of this debate.

We as a government believe that it is entirely appropriate for executive government to act to try and provide the disincentives that will stop people from hopping on boats and taking that treacherous journey . We think that that is important. We believe that the Malaysian arrangement will work. If those on the other side are serious about their obligations to serve their communities, to serve this country and to serve the national interest, then they should ensure that the legislation is amended to give effect to what they sought to put in place when they were in government, what this government needs to be put in place so that we can achieve the outcomes that we want, and what any future government will need if they are to effectively tackle this question of irregular movements of people in our region. (Time expired)

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

It is my understanding, and I think that of most people around this place, that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, after the recent decision of the High Court, offered his resignation to the Prime Minister. The member for Lindsay—the 'Commander', as he is known—may have just failed his audition to take his place. It is totally understandable that the minister would have offered his resignation, given the bungles and the disasters that have occurred in his portfolio, only equalled by those under his predecessor. However, it is not for his failure to have a crystal ball on the High Court that I believe he should chastise himself; it is for his failure of policy.

It is understandable that the Prime Minister did not accept his resignation because the Prime Minister would have well understood that the minute the minister walked out the door she would have to follow him straight afterwards. She was right not to make the minister for immigration the scapegoat for this government's failed policies, because she was equally culpable as the architect of this government's 'anything but Nauru' strategy that has taken them to this cul-de-sac, this dead end, of policy failure. It really matters little though who the minister is, or even who the Prime Minister is, in this government when it comes to managing this issue of border protection because the result is always the same: it is just one big mess and that mess continues. As people outside of this place speculate about who will be the Prime Minister of this country or who will be the minister for immigration, one thing is certainly true: you can shuffle this Labor deck all you want, every time you will pull out a joker.

The government say they want to break the people smugglers' business model. What they refuse to admit is that since the Rudd-Gillard government abolished the Howard government's border protection regime—against advice that they now come into this place and pretend is sacrosanct—Labor have become the people smugglers' business model in this country for the past three years. If you went to people-smugglers'' boardrooms, you would find the pictures of the former minister and Prime Minister joined more recently by the current Prime Minister and the current minister. They would be the most popular policymakers in the people smugglers' fraternity throughout Indonesia. Where was the apparent respect for this advice, which this government now claims it has, when they were presented with the facts, when they were told, 'If you dismantle this you will encourage the people-smuggling business again'? There were just four people—less than the number of fingers on one hand—in the detention network who had arrived illegally by boat. Under this government it has exceeded 6,500.

Since they abolished the Howard government's regime, 12,262 people have arrived on 241 illegal boats, the most recent of which was the Prime Minister's own personal tonne of policy failure as the hundredth boat on her watch arrived and is now being unloaded at Christmas Island. What we have seen from this government, after it abandoned the processes and the policies that had worked so effectively, has been a procession of policy failures. Firstly, the asylum freeze, which they have gone very quiet about on that side. This was the most discriminatory immigration policy introduced to this parliament since we had the White Australia policy. That is what came from members on that side. That is what this government did. They introduced a policy which said; 'If you're Sri Lankan, if you're an Afghan, we will not process your claims. Your nationality would determine your assessment status before the Australian government.' And they have the hypocrisy to give lectures about non-discriminatory immigration policy! That was a very black day for Australia when the previous minister for immigration and the previous Prime Minister—supported by a cabinet that included the then Deputy Prime Minister and now Prime Minister—implemented that disgraceful policy. That was strike one.

Strike two was the East Timor farce, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has gone well into in her remarks here this afternoon. That was just simply embarrassing. Regional leaders were forced to endure the polite conversation of failed policy time and time again. Serious issues for our region had to be put on the backburner while this Prime Minister went through this farce, this zombie foreign affairs as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned in her remarks. The East Timor farce became yet another policy failure.

Then, of course, we have the Malaysian non-solution. This solution, as it was described, has become exactly the opposite. Four hundred people have turned up on an 800 cap since it was signed and almost 1,000 since it was first announced. Why and how this government thought it was a good idea to announce this arrangement before completing any negotiations is beyond this side of the House. It really took the incompetence of negotiating to a whole new level and betrayed their complete incompetence as a government.

These failed policies have led to what we have seen: a detention network which has descended into chaos and riots. More than four critical incidents, which include self-harm, violence and even death, occur in the detention network every single day. We have had budget blow-outs. The government tried to lecture us on budgets on the weekend. This is a government that took a policy that was costing less than $100 million a year and turned it into a policy that is costing $1 billion a year—and they want to lecture this side of the House on how to manage these matters and how to manage costs!

The former minister and the current minister ignored warnings time and time again as the boats arrived. I would really like to know this: after how many boats did it take for this government to finally work out that it had to, as they like to say ad nauseam, break the people-smugglers' business model, which is code for to reverse the pull factor effect, the magnetic effect, of their failed policies. After what boat was that? Was it after boat two? Because after boat two, the Canadian government introduced temporary protection visas. Was it after boat 100? Was it after boat 200? Was it after boat 230? After which boat did they finally work out that their policies were responsible for the mess that has happened on their watch?

They also ignored the warnings in our detention network. Last week I was part of the detention committee inquiry on Christmas Island where we learnt in October the minister, this minister, was on Christmas Island and was warned that the security fence connecting the two major compounds needed to be upgraded and CCTV cameras had to be put in the Aqua/Lilac compounds. That was the advice from Serco, from the Australian Federal Police and from the minister's own department. When riots broke out on 11 March that fence, which Minister Bowen did not fix, was the one they broke through. That fence was the one they fashioned weapons from. In that compound the CCTV cameras did not exist. And this is the minister who likes to lecture those on this side of the House about the need to listen to his department and take its advice. The Malaysian solution is being presented to this place and those opposite are expecting this parliament to overlook the policy failings of this government, the policy failures that are within the construction of this proposal, and simply give them a legislative blank cheque. I would consider that this minister has already abused the discretion he thought he had with these protections. These protections are an important principle within the Migration Act. It did not say that you could just declare a country and send them anywhere you like. It said there had to be protections in place. This is a minister who has sought to come back to this place and say, 'I do not need any more protections'—and in fact he said this in the House yesterday—'The protections are satisfactory.' He is happy with the protections that are in place, which see 94,000 people share one clinic and children who are sent there not going to public schools, and he is happy to see them go to a country where for five years 16 people were caned every single day, on average, for immigration offences. But he is happy with the protections. This is what he wants to put in place.

He came back to their caucus and to this parliament and said, 'I am not going to fix the policy; I am just going to look for a legislative excuse to deal with it.' And the zombies on that side of the House, as they paraded into the caucus the other day, simply rolled over on their Prime Minister and let her do whatever she wanted. We are not going to necessarily give this government a legislative blank cheque on protections. They need to address their policy failures, and they are manifest. (Time expired)

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard the word 'necessarily' from the member for Cook and was quite excited by his slip of the tongue. Yesterday we announced that we would seek to amend the Migration Act to allow for offshore processing. If passed by the parliament, these changes would—to use the rhetoric of the opposition—help to stop the boats. Given their past rhetoric, those opposite should support such legislation. After all, they campaigned for it at the last election. Who can forget the tawdry leaflets with the red arrows coming down, produced by the opposition—'Real Action on Immigration'! It reminds you of something from the 1950s.

Of course there is a place for offshore processing in Australia's migration policy. The former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser had offshore processing in Hong Kong and Indonesia when we had the great surge of Vietnamese boat people. Offshore processing has its place in a comprehensive migration policy. It seems, however, that the opposition leader and his immigration spokesman, the member for Cook, who have huffed and puffed about stopping the boats, now will not support such legislation. Maybe his slip of the tongue in here, with 'necessarily', is an indication that they will.

This is despite the fact that the High Court has made a decision which should lead any cautious person—anyone who had the slightest doubt put into their mind by that decision—to at least change their mind, to think about it, to think that supporting such legislation might be necessary in the interests of the country, including the opposition's long-term interest.

Today the Editor-at-Large of the Australian, Paul Kelly, argued that refusing to support this legislation will mean that offshore processing will be doomed. Mr Kelly argued:

This week's Immigration Department briefings mean the onus falls on Tony Abbott to decide whether his aim is to stop the boats or merely sink the Gillard Government ... What is required now is obvious: Labor and the Coalition need to amend the Migration Act to restore power to the executive government to negotiate offshore processing arrangements in the region. It is an open and shut case—except for the politics.

What we effectively have now is the opposition in alliance with the Greens, saying that they will sink this legislation here or in the Senate.

Mr Kelly was not alone in his assessment. Yesterday, the Foreign Editor of the Australian, Greg Sheridan, wrote:

In rejecting legislative change to allow the Gillard government to revive its Malaysia deal for asylum seekers, Tony Abbott is making the biggest policy mistake of his life ... Abbott is in danger of performing a too-clever-by-half trick on himself, making sure that if he does become prime minister he will not have the legislative and administrative tools to fulfil his pledge to stop the boats.

The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, refuses to accept the proposed changes to the Migration Act, because instead of thinking about the national interest, indeed his own long-term interest, he has only one thing on his mind: short-term politics—'How can I best and most quickly get into the Lodge?'

Just this year the member for Warringah and the member for Cook wanted to play the game of fear rather than actually proposing a policy in the national interest. We heard the comments of the members for Warringah and Cook early this year on those who perished during the Christmas Island incident, with both making inappropriate and insensitive remarks about the funerals of those who died. These are the people who claim to be great humanitarians now, who are outraged about people being sent to Malaysia. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? 'It does seem a bit unusual that the government is flying people to funerals,' he told Melbourne Talk Radio on 15 February.

In an article from the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 February, it was reported that the member for Cook said that the Liberal Party should capitalise on the dislike of some of the boat people that were arriving in Australia. Mr Morrison told the shadow cabinet meeting of 1 December at the Ryde Civic Centre that the coalition should 'ramp up its questioning of "multiculturalism" and appeal to deep voter concerns about Muslim immigration and "inability" to integrate'. The Liberal Party's faux concerns about human rights and humanitarian conditions explained today are laughable given their history of using fear and their leaflets during the last election—the ones with the red arrows—about those people coming to our shores by boat.

We all remember the opposition's extraordinary ad with red arrows, indicating that hordes of people were coming to our shores from Asia and the Middle East. This was the official Liberal Party ad, 'Real Action'. Remember 'Real Action' from last year's 2010 federal election? I bet you that, if I asked my friend the member for Goldstein if I could table it, he would not let me table it. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, to table the Liberal Party's ad from the last election.

Leave granted.

Excellent, thank you. Mr Abbott has claimed that his policies were necessary to prevent a 'peaceful invasion'. That is what he said in the Australian on 16 October 2009. An invasion? This kind of hyperbole is designed to win a few political points. It does not solve the complex national policy issues involved with border security and immigration. Those opposite do not seem to understand the complexity involved in this immigration policy. It is much more nuanced than just stopping the boats. Their solution, as outlined by Mr Morrison, the member for Cook, is to send those who come here to Iran and, as we heard today, Pakistan or to drag the boats back to sea.

Even more laughable is that the member for Warringah claimed during the last election campaign that he would have a 'boat phone' to ring border security as soon as a boat entered Australian waters. But even more astonishing is what the member for Cook said when interviewed by Leigh Sales on 7.30on 28 June this year after he had visited Malaysia. He proceeded to criticise the Malaysian government. Leigh Sales said:

You have just been in Malaysia and sat here and given me your assessment of the conditions there, in effect you are saying the Malaysian Government cannot guarantee the human rights of these people?

Mr Morrison said:

Well this is the practical reality, Leigh … and the Australian Government should not be going down this path when they know that that is the case. Now if they don't know that is the case then they should do what I've just done and I'm happy to share my experiences with them—

He is talking about the government. He continued:

I've been to Nauru and Malaysia and I know which is the more humane, cost effective and I know which is proven.

Unauthorised boat arrivals are an issue, but it is far from the end-of-days issue painted by the opposition.

Now we come to the business end of this issue. Will the opposition act in the national interest or will they pursue narrow, short-term objectives? The question is whether the opposition want to come together with the government. As the Prime Minister said, the executive arm of government has the right to make decisions on immigration and foreign policy. If the Leader of the Opposition does not believe this, he must explain to the Australian people why he is running away from his own announced policy. Why is he putting the immigration policy of Australia into total turmoil?

Our policy is about ensuring that Australia retains its rightful role in welcoming a reasonable number of the world's refugees while maintaining the security of our borders. In fact, we have a wonderful immigration policy under which we admit more than 100,000 people to this country. I strongly believe we are sent here to parliament to legislate not only for today but also with an eye for the future. We have a responsibility to look beyond short-term advantage and beyond the elections.

The opposition roared today with concern when I raised the prospect of the Liberal-Green alliance in the other place sinking this legislation. Plainly hatred of the Labor government outweighs any cool, rational examination of this issue, even from the point of self-interest by the member for Warringah. The member for Curtin was full of invective in her contribution today. The member for Warringah kept citing the following words, 'It's not in the opposition's interest to get the government off the hook.' But it is in Australia's interests, as Mr Kelly and Mr Sheridan pointed out. Neither the member for Cook, the member for Curtin nor the member for Warringah addressed the implications of the High Court decision. What happens if boats leave from Indonesia now without any legislation being in place to deal with the boats sitting in Indonesia about to come to Australia? The media and the people of Australia will judge the Liberal Party on this issue whether they back short-term interests or the national interest. It is a ridiculous situation when they are looking only at their own short-term interest, not at the national interest. (Time expired)

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard some grandiose language from those opposite today, from the member for Curtin and the member for Cook. We have heard phrases such as the 'dead end of policy failure', 'gross incompetence' et cetera. We have heard since the High Court decision comments by the self-styled and self-opinionated shadow Attorney-General about Nauru. For all of the opposition's criticisms leading up to the High Court decision, I do not recall the shadow Attorney-General pontificating that it would fail legally. I do not recall them saying that they knew the law, that they had expertise in that area and that it would fail on those grounds.

We did have the member for Cook parading around with a video outside some purported camps in Malaysia. This is the same man who in a Lowy Institute speech on 30 November 2010 put an alternative about Australian immigration. He talked of sending people back to Iran. I am not here today to defend Malaysia. It is, however, a democracy by any standards. It is a multicultural society. It is a former member of the Commonwealth and has some nuances of its court systems. We saw that a former minister who was victimised at least had some legal rights. We see these people parading around saying how dreadful it would be that people go back to Malaysia.

Obviously this government negotiated with Malaysia to ensure some protection for the people who were being sent back, but on 30 November last year the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, said to the Lowy Institute that he would send people back to Iran and Pakistan—that he would have a 'returns policy'. They have the effrontery today to say that Malaysia was the end of Western civilisation. I think the kinds of associations we have with Malaysia, for all its faults, are such that they would lead us to say that it is a preferable policy to that which he put forward. They talk about dead ends of policy, but I wonder where we would be if he had had the chance to operate those kinds of policies back then.

We also had them come in here today with crocodile tears about people drowning at sea, about people who are self-harming and about people who are rioting. Somehow they have forgotten about Cornelia Rau and they have forgotten about Solon; they have forgotten about the millions of dollars the Australian taxpayer has had to fork out for those kinds of failures in detention. They are ignoring, as they well know, the kinds of reforms that were instituted at the beginning of the new government in relation to what happens in detention. The problems we still have in maintaining conditions there because of the numbers arriving are not easy for Labor or Liberal governments, but, as they well know, the kinds of protections that have been brought in since the change of government are very significant. Another point I would turn to is this disgust at the dismantlement of their policies. They think everything has collapsed because we got rid of temporary protection visas and Nauru.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to cite the member for Murray, a friend of the person interjecting opposite, who was their spokesperson at one stage. On 1 December 2008 she said, and this is a very timely comment I have to agree, 'The closure of Nauru and Manus Island … of course they had basically—what shall we say—outlived their need … I do not think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we've got of course Christmas Island.' Today they are saying that this government must operate Nauru and no other alternative in the whole world. Back then, as I said, on 1 December on 2SM, a reputable station, she made the comment that Nauru had outlived its time.

Mr Entsch interjecting—

If the member opposite is not satisfied with that—there might be some mistake in that quote, I do not think there is—she went further on 16 April 2009 in the Australian, a reputable source according to the member opposite. She said about the Pacific solution:

We no longer have that requirement because we've got an alternative place which is in our excised migration zone, Christmas Island.

Today and in the weeks past the opposition will not cooperate with this government to get a policy to have some controls on the entry of boats to this country, because we will not go along with Nauru, and yet in 2008 and 2009 there was no need for this alternative.

They were getting very excited today about whether or not the Prime Minister had said that 90 per cent of the Nauru people came to Australia or whether it was 70 per cent to Australia and 20 per cent to New Zealand. What a minor issue that is in this broad nationally important issue. Quite frankly, as members on this side have said, it was no disincentive to those claimants to be sent to New Zealand. We all know, for instance, that Fijian Indians predominantly went to New Zealand to come to Australia because of New Zealand's more liberal immigration policy on recognising claims from Fiji. We know, despite some toughening up in social security in recent years, that vast numbers of New Zealanders, which they would become, would eventually come to Australia. Even if for a moment we give them some concessions with regard to that statistical irrelevancy then it certainly would mean that most of those people came to Australia. They talk about a blow-out of costs; they talk about deaths at sea. I do not recall any concern by them when many people died under their policies.

The other point is that this government, like any government, needs to have some controls over immigration policy. If we are to have a humanitarian refugee intake which reflects the problems of the time then we, the Australian government, must have some controls about who is coming in in that 13,750 people each year. If we do not, if the opposition does not cooperate with us in getting the government some control in this policy area, again this country cannot respond to the United Nations or even the UNHCR when they come to this government and say to us, 'These Bhutanese have been in camps for 17 years in Nepal. Will you help us take some?' Australia, Canada, America and New Zealand can say: 'Yes, we will help you because we have some control. We will determine some of the people in that intake.' Australia turned around and took 1,000 Bhutanese over a three-year period.

To give credit to those opposite, equally when the UNHCR said: 'Australia has not been interested enough in Africa. We have crises in Congo, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone. We have many widows with large families that have no protection,' the previous Liberal government could turn around and say, 'Yes, we will set aside one-third of Australia's refugee humanitarian intake for Africans.' Similarly, in the last year or so, the current government has reacted to the request, again from the UNHCR, that we should take Burmese. In years past the government of this country, when requested by the UNHCR—by the way, the UNHCR says this country has the best settlement process in the world—could turn around and say that we will take some Burmese Rohingya who have been in camps in Bangladesh for long periods. We cannot do that if the opposition is making sure that we cannot do anything about boat arrivals. If they are digging in in some arrogant attempt at partisan politics to avoid supporting the national interest by giving the government of this country, Labor or Liberal, executive power to determine where we can negotiate agreements to send people offshore, then it is on their head. For all their rhetoric about security and migration policy which has international legitimacy, it is on their head if they do not cooperate with this government in making sure that the executive can indeed have power in this area.

We have seen, as I said, much rhetoric today from them. They talked also about non-discriminatory policy. They complained that for a period of time this government said that we would look at the situation in Afghanistan and in Sri Lanka before we will examine some cases. I know that during the election before last they went around to Middle Eastern Christian communities in the presence of migration department officials and they said to those very biased, very bigoted groups who have had a bad experience in the Middle East, 'If you elect us, not one Muslim will be let in from the Middle East.' They knew that they could not legally do it, but they went around saying that they would determine our immigration policy on a discriminatory basis. They have the hide to come in here today and say that—because there were conflicting views from various NGOs about the situation of human rights in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and we thought there was a need to slow down processing to see what the state of their internal human rights was—that is discrimination when they went around before that election— (Time expired)

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

Order! Before I call the Chief Government Whip, I note in the gallery a school from my constituency, the Nanango State High School, setting a great example of behaviour as well. I commend them for that and welcome them to the gallery. With those few words, I call the Chief Government Whip.