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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that Nauru, a country that has signed the UN convention on refugees, is ready, willing and able to reopen the Australian built offshore processing centre from today. Why won't the Prime Minister swallow her pride, pick up the phone to the President of Nauru and restart offshore processing right now?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a very clear reason for that: the government has been advised that it will not work and that it will cost $1 billion, and I am not intending to waste $1 billion of taxpayers' money on an outcome that we have been advised will not work. The Leader of the Opposition takes constant reckless attitudes to taxpayers' money. That is how he has got himself into a $70 billion black hole. Presumably, he now wants to make that a $71 billion black hole. But, as the Leader of the Opposition knows because we have made the relevant briefings available to him, we have the clearest possible advice from the same experts who advised the Howard government that Nauru will not work and that it is an incredibly costly solution costing up to $1 billion.

The Leader of the Opposition has come in today with this fig leaf because he knows that the Australian people can see that, when he was challenged yesterday to rise above the politics of the moment and deal with an issue in the national interest, he was apparently unable to deal with a question in the national interest. Given a choice yesterday between the nation's interest—that is, working to ensure that our nation can process asylum seekers offshore—or taking his narrow political interest, he chose his narrow political interest over the national interest. I think Australians are looking at this parliament and at the Leader of the Opposition, and Australians want to see us work together to ensure that there can be offshore processing and work together beyond politics-as-usual to resolve this issue and put it behind us. The Leader of the Opposition in turning his back is not turning his back on me; he is turning his back on the nation's interest. He ought not to do that. He should reconsider the reckless path he set himself on yesterday.

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

Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. How can the Prime Minister say that Nauru will not work when it did? How can she say that Malaysia will work when it has not?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition comes into this place day after day and the one constant thing is that he denies that facts are facts. He asked for a briefing from the government's advisers—the same people who advised the Howard government—and, when he received that briefing, he was told by those advisers that in their professional and considered opinion Nauru will not work. That is because people smugglers, having seen the example of Nauru once—and, of course, when it was first instituted it had shock value, and many people believed that people who went to Nauru did not have the chance of coming to Australia or going to a place like New Zealand—know for certain that the way in which Nauru worked was that people were processed there and resettled here and in New Zealand. Consequently, they are able to say to the people on whom they try to prey, 'If you are processed in Nauru, you will eventually get to Australia.' That is the message that has been sent up the people-smuggling pipeline.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The former minister for immigration is now yelling that somehow that is all our fault. But the truth is that that is the outcome of Nauru, and people smugglers now know it. The professional advisers to government have said to the Leader of the Opposition that they do not believe that Nauru will work and that it will be incredibly expensive—it will cost up to $1 billion. In contrast, those same expert advisers who advise us and who advised the Howard government have said to us and to the Leader of the Opposition that they believe that the Malaysia arrangement has the strongest deterrence message associated with it—that is, it has the best chance of being the policy that will work.

Why would the Leader of the Opposition, if he were motivated by the national interest, deny this government and this parliament the ability to put in place legislation which will enable the nation to put into place the policy that we have been advised has the best chance of working? In all of this, the government has never sought for itself greater freedom of action than the Howard government had when it was in office—a time during which the Leader of the Opposition never concerned himself about questions like the refugee convention. He never thought about it once when the Howard government was putting people on Nauru.

So let us be really clear about what is going on here. The national interest requires us to work together to amend the legislation. It requires us to have legislation which will enable us to put in place the policy which we have been advised will be the most effective. There is only one reason that the Leader of the Opposition did not agree to that yesterday, and that is he is terrified that the Malaysia arrangement will work. What he wants to see for this country is more boats because he believes that will serve his political interest. I say again: the Leader of the Opposition is not turning his back on me; he is turning his back on Australia's interest and he should reconsider this reckless, negative position.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the government continue to ensure the integrity of offshore processing of asylum seekers? What process will the government undertake to pursue legislation on offshore processing in the national interest?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Petrie for her question. It invites me to talk about the government's policies for offshore processing. It also invites me to talk about the process the government has been involved in, particularly since the High Court case was announced. Since the High Court case was announced, the government has worked to bring legislation to this parliament which would enable executive government to make decisions about offshore processing—that is, to bring legislation to this parliament that would give this government and future governments the same freedom of action the Howard government had when it determined that it would have asylum seekers transferred to PNG and Nauru—one of those countries being a refugee signatory country and one of those countries not being a refugee signatory country.

In the process since, we have sought to keep the opposition advised and informed. First there was a question of what the High Court case meant. So the government obtained the opinion of the Solicitor-General on the High Court case—in fact, two separate opinions: its meaning in general and its meaning in relation to unaccompanied minors—and released them publicly. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was saying, 'If the government have legal advice, let them release it,' and we did. Then, of course, the Leader of the Opposition was saying that he was trying to work with me at that point:

I am trying to give her—

the Prime Minister—

the chance to give this country a border protection policy. The ball is in her court, I hope she’ll return it.

Then I wrote offering a briefing and the Leader of the Opposition wrote back saying he would like to have that briefing, and it was made available for him in Brisbane at his request.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fail to understand how the Prime Minister can directly, relevantly answer a question on the government's policy on offshore processing when there is not a government policy on offshore processing.

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

Order! That is not a point of order; that is a debating point and the member for Sturt is warned. The only permissible point of order concerns whether the Prime Minister is being directly relevant to the question, and she is being directly relevant. The member for Sturt is warned.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then, having facilitated that briefing, the Leader of the Opposition sought a briefing on the legislation, so we made that available at his request in Melbourne on Friday evening. Then he demanded publicly a meeting between him and me to discuss this question, and we facilitated that request and had the meeting yesterday. Then, out of that meeting, the Leader of the Opposition said he would consider the new amendments the government had put to him, new amendments which were worked through because he, amongst others, had expressed concerns about the question of protections. At every stage the government has sought to work with the opposition and to give the opposition its ability to work in the national interest. At every stage we have sought to put the politics to one side and to work with the opposition on restoring to executive government the powers it needs for offshore processing.

We have responded to every utterance of the Leader of the Opposition. A policy briefing—he wanted it; it was given. A legal briefing—he wanted it; it was given. A meeting with me—he wanted it; it was given. Amendments to the legislation on better protections—we worked on those amendments and those amendments were made.

In response to all of that and in complete denial of the national interest, the Leader of the Opposition went out yesterday and announced that he was on a strategy to end offshore processing in this country. He made that announcement publicly with no advice to me, no coming back to the government and no genuine intention to ever work in the national interest. All of this conduct by the Leader of the Opposition is because he has judged his political interest in front of the national interest. He is terrified that the Malaysia arrangement will work and that is not in his political interest. He wants to see more boats.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. How many asylum seekers have been processed outside Australia by this government since the government closed the Howard government's Nauru processing centre and abolished the Pacific solution?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that question. Perhaps she might want to supply the answer to the question: how many asylum seekers will not be processed offshore because of the reckless negativity of this opposition? You are right: on the strategy you are wrong. The opposition stands for zero when it comes to offshore—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

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

The Prime Minister has concluded.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The member for Cook is warned. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.

Mr Hawke interjecting—

The member for Mitchell will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Mitchell then left the chamber—

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

My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Will the minister update the House on the government's response to the recent High Court decision on offshore processing? Why is the principle of non-refoulement an important part of border protection policy?

Mr Hockey interjecting—

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

The member for North Sydney is warned!

Mr Abbott interjecting—

The Leader of the Opposition! The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was asked a question. He has approached the dispatch box to respond. He now has the call and he will be heard in silence.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for Werriwa for his question. The government's response to the High Court decision is to legislate to give the government of the day the ability to act in the national interest. This week the parliament had an opportunity, an opportunity to work together in the national interest—

Mr Simpkins interjecting—

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

The member for Cowen is now warned!

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

an opportunity to send the clearest possible message to people smugglers that, although the two sides of the House may have their differences, although we may disagree about methods and about tactics, we agree that people smugglers should not be able to run the migration program into Australia. It was an opportunity to send the message that we would act as one in the national interest and an opportunity to send the message that we would act to provide a disincentive for people making the dangerous boat journey to come to Australia. But instead what we see is more politics as usual from the Leader of the Opposition.

The government believes that the Malaysia arrangement is in the national interest, because all our advice tells us that it would be the most effective deterrent to making the dangerous boat journey—and that advice has been provided to the opposition. If the opposition wilfully ignore this advice, the Australian people are entitled to conclude that the opposition have done so simply because they are afraid it will work. They are afraid it will work—and they will stop at nothing in their own political interest. They are afraid it would not be in their political interest for this to happen.

I am asked about the importance of non-refoulement in the border protection policy. It is a very important and fundamental tenet of the refugee convention. That is why we have painstakingly negotiated non-refoulement clauses into the Malaysia agreement. It is important that any arrangements entered into by Australia reflect that importance. That is one of the reasons this government has rejected the policy of turning back boats on the high seas. There are some in this House who say it is okay to send boats to Indonesia with no protections negotiated but it is not okay to send planes to Malaysia with protections negotiated. That is another reason the Australian people are entitled to conclude that what we are seeing from this Leader of the Opposition is cheap opportunism and hypocrisy, because his opportunism and hypocrisy speak for themselves. The cheap and feeble excuse from the opposition for this inconsistency—

Mr Laming interjecting—

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

The member for Bowman is warned!

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

is: 'Oh, it's a different section of the act which governs turning back the boats.' And they are right—nobody has suggested it is the same section of the act—but it would be open for the Leader of the Opposition to walk into the House today and move an amendment to that section of the act to say: 'If you turn back a boat, you could only point it towards a refugee convention signatory country.' It would be open to the member for Warringah to do that today. Are we going to see that, Tony? Are you going to move that amendment today or will we see more cheap hypocrisy from you?

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

Order! The minister will refer his remarks through the chair and will refer to members by their titles.

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

Will we see more cheap hypocrisy from the Leader of the Opposition? Let the honourable Leader of the Opposition stand at the dispatch box with his hand on his heart and say that he stayed awake at night worrying about the people we sent to Nauru, because they were not going to a refugee convention signatory country. Let him stand at the dispatch box and argue that it is okay to send people to Zimbabwe, the Republic of Congo and Iran, as the member for Cook would like to do, because they are refugee convention signatory countries. We all know the Leader of the Opposition is a weathervane, but the weathervane always points to his own political interest and not the national interest.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement by former Western Australia Labor Premier Geoff Gallop last Friday:

I'd be talking to the Liberals about getting Nauru to work. I think that's the only sustainable position.

If Dr Gallop and members of the Labor caucus admit that the best option to restart offshore processing immediately is Nauru, why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept her own colleagues' advice?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. The answer to the member's question is: I have been advised, and I am relying on that advice, that Nauru will not work and will cost a billion dollars. The people who live in the member's electorate may want to pay more tax to fund a failed solution that the Leader of the Opposition has been directly advised will not work. The member might want to go to families in his community and say, 'Do you mind paying a billion dollars more tax so the Leader of the Opposition can put into place a processing centre on Nauru that he has been told will not work?' You may want to do that, but can I suggest to you that the better course would be to go to the Leader of the Opposition and say, 'There are national interest questions here. There is something beyond politics that matters here. The Australian community is looking to this place and saying, "Find common ground; sort it out; move on; get this issue resolved for the nation."' The Australian people are looking at this place and saying they do not, in this important area, want to see politics as usual, which is why we have been driven by the national interest every step of the way.

We have facilitated the Leader of the Opposition and his team getting full access to information when they sought it—full access to a briefing from departmental officials and full access to a briefing from legal experts and representatives like the Solicitor-General. The Leader of the Opposition may not be being frank with the members of his backbench about what happened in those briefings, but the Leader of the Opposition was told that the Malaysia arrangement has the best deterrent value, that that is the best policy option available now, that that is the policy option that should be pursued, and that the appropriate thing is to amend the legislation to enable this government—indeed any executive government—to put in place the policies that it believes in. The Leader of the Opposition probably has not told you about that paragraph of the Solicitor-General's advice which talks about his doubts and the need to legislate for Nauru. This furphy being used by the opposition today that Nauru could be reopened tomorrow stands in the face of the Solicitor-General's advice, stands in the face of the legal advice the government has, stands in the face of the practicalities of opening a centre in Nauru, stands in the face of the costs and stands in the face of the expert advice that it will not work. I reiterate that I do not ask members opposite to endorse the Malaysia arrangement.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! Some members should be reminded of their status.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have always asked of members opposite is that they get up in the morning and spend five minutes thinking about the national interest, that they suspend for just five minutes their constant obsession with their own political interest. We ask that in those five minutes they ask themselves, 'Is it appropriate for executive government to have the powers that it needs, the same powers that the Howard government used, to have people processed offshore—yes or no?' The answer to that question is yes, and that means the member who has asked the question, and all of the members who sit alongside him, should come into this House and defy the recklessness and political opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition and vote for the government's amendments. Every vote will be recorded by every member.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. In the decade after the Vietnam War, Australia took in around 90,000 Vietnamese refugees and their families, many of them boat people. We did not tow them back out to sea and we did not send them to other countries. We took them in here and it was a resounding success. Prime Minister, if the government and the opposition do not reach agreement, will plan B be a policy of processing refugee claims onshore?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. In terms of the history of some of these big waves—and he refers to some of the big waves that have involved refugees and asylum seekers from Vietnam—successive Australian governments have had to deal with these questions. There was a big wave in 1976 and there was a second big wave in 1989 that involved mainly Cambodian, Vietnamese and Chinese nationals. Since 1990 we have seen refugees and asylum seekers on the move around the world and in our region from the Middle East, and since 2008 we have mainly seen people from the Middle East and South-East Asia.

The member has specifically asked me about the question of Vietnamese asylum seekers. Overwhelmingly, they were brought to Australia from offshore under the Comprehensive Plan of Action. That is, it was a regional solution that our region worked on to create a circumstance where people would be able to have their claims processed offshore from Australia but developed nations, including Australia, would step forward and take a fair share of the caseload of those refugees. We have done so, and many of us would represent electorates in this place that are home to either refugees from those original waves or their sons and daughters, and they have made a remarkable contribution to this country. We get the opportunity on various days of celebration for the Vietnamese community to make that point directly to them and their community leaders.

I believe this causes us to consider that the appropriate way of dealing with refugee and asylum seeker questions is to work in the region, and that is what this government has done—we have worked in the region. We went to Bali when the countries of our region came together and we negotiated a new regional framework. That was very important. That new regional framework spoke of transfer agreements, and under the auspices of that new regional framework we have negotiated the arrangement with Malaysia which we have the clearest possible advice has the maximum deterrence effect.

I understand the member who asked me the question is of a different view on a number of these issues. That is, of course, his right in this place of democracy where people will come and put different views. But I believe every member of this parliament, including the member who asked me the question, needs to consider the national interest as the government presents amendments to this parliament to enable this government to process asylum seekers offshore and to transfer asylum seekers offshore. That obligation is on all of us. It is certainly on the Leader of the Opposition, which is why when he turned his back on the national interest yesterday he was doing the wrong thing by the people of Australia. He ought to reconsider the nation's interest.