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

I have received letters from the honourable Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Kennedy proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which in my opinion is the most urgent and important—that is, the matter proposed by the Leader of the Opposition—namely:

The loss of confidence in Australia's border protection system.

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

We saw from the Prime Minister in the parliament earlier today anger, frustration, vituperation and thwarted pride. I respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that she should be directing her frustration towards her own failures and those of her government, not towards an opposition which has a proven record of success on border protection in this country.

This government closed down offshore processing in February 2008 and have not been able to restart offshore processing for the best part of 15 months. Now they say that the real enemies of offshore processing are the people who invented offshore processing and who have been in favour of it all along. The Prime Minister should not project her faults and her failings onto others. It is a serious psychological weakness in this Prime Minister.

Let the House take note of the facts. They are that the coalition under the leadership of the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, found a border protection problem and created a solution to it. It was not easy—it took time and very unpopular decision-making—but we found a problem and we created a solution. This government, on the other hand, found a solution and created a problem. The current problem is all this government's own work. Let the record show that the problem we now have on our borders is all due to the fact that this government gave the people smugglers a business model. They did not have a business model for the best part of eight years, but this government gave it back to them. By doing so, this government caused the problem that this country now faces.

This coalition have been totally and absolutely consistent for a decade. There is a solution to the problem of border protection and the problem of people smugglers, and it involves three essential ingredients: offshore processing at Nauru; temporary protection visas; and keeping the option of turning boats around where that can safely be done. That solution, which the former government put in place, worked. From 2002 to 2007 there were fewer than three boats a year. Since that solution was unravelled by the current government there have been almost two boats a week.

The Prime Minister says that she has expert advice that the Malaysian people-swap is the only option that will work. But there have been 1,000 boat arrivals since it was announced and 400 illegal arrivals by boat since it was signed that say she is wrong. In contrast, the lack of arrivals under the coalition's policy show that the coalition is right.

We have seen a desperate and floundering government who are too proud and too stubborn to admit that the coalition has it right; they are too proud and too stubborn to admit that John Howard had it right. Ever since the beginning of 2009, the government have been desperately floundering around for some kind of policy of their own. Last year they brought in the processing freeze on people from certain countries. That was rightly described by my colleague the shadow minister as 'the most discriminatory immigration policy since White Australia'. Then they brought in the so-called East Timor solution, which they had not even discussed with the East Timor government. Then they announced the Manus solution, which they had not discussed with the right people in the PNG government. Finally, back in May we had the Malaysian people swap.

The government could have had offshore processing at any time in the last 12 or 15 months. They could have had it whenever they wanted. All they needed to do was to pick up the phone to the President of Nauru and it did not happen because of the pride and the stubbornness of this Prime Minister and the pride and the stubbornness of a government which did not have the magnanimity to leave well enough alone. That is the truth.

Let us go through the Prime Minister's own inconsistencies on this whole question of border protection. On every single element of policy, whether it be turning boats around, temporary protection visas or offshore processing, this is a Prime Minister who has had every position and no position. In 2002 she said it was right to turn boats around. Then in 2010 she said it was disgraceful to turn boats around. Now she says it is all right to turn boats around as long as it is a virtual turnaround through Malaysia. Back in 2002 she said that temporary protection visas were a good thing. Now she says that temporary protection visas are an almost diabolical thing. The Prime Minister said repeatedly that offshore processing, the Pacific solution, was 'costly, unsustainable and wrong in principle'. Now she had not only done a 180-degree turn but she is also accusing the people who have a patent on offshore processing—the inventors of offshore processing—of somehow being against something that we have always been for and have always been prepared to facilitate.

Then, of course, we have the Prime Minister's attitude towards countries that have or have not signed the United Nations refugee convention. Oh, yes, this is what is gnawing at the consciences of members opposite. This is what is eating at what is left of the consciences of members opposite. The Prime Minister said, 'I would rule out any countries that are not signatories to the UN convention'—a commitment now as notorious as her commitment that there will be no carbon tax under a government she leads, and just as much betrayed.

Let us not just focus on the Prime Minister. I remind the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, who is at the table, what he said not very long ago at all—hardly a year ago:

Now, from our point of view, we’ve said … that the regional processing centre would need to be, for the sake of decency, at a country which is a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

This is a very important statement. I want to repeat this.

An opposition member: He should resign!

I can understand why he wants to resign. Let me repeat his statement:

… from our point of view, we’ve said … that the regional processing centre would need to be, for the sake of decency, at a country which is a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

No wonder this is a government which is dying of shame. No wonder members opposite, left-wing members of the caucus, left question time today rather than listen to the stuff they were getting from the Prime Minister. I say to the minister at the table: how do you justify now doing that which you said, for the sake of decency, you would not do?

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

It's a furphy!

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

We have the minister at the table trying to throw this back at us. I know the minister at the table, when he is in trouble, lifts the volume. When he is in trouble he lifts the velocity so you can hardly hear in the torrent of words that this minister gives us, but I would respectfully, politely, genuinely ask the minister: how does he justify what he is doing with what he has always said in the past? You owe it to this parliament; you owe it to the Australian people to give us an answer.

The coalition has been entirely consistent for the last 10 years—absolutely and entirely consistent at every point over the last decade. We have supported Nauru, temporary protection visas and turning boats around where it can safely be done. The only position that this Prime Minister has not had is the one that works—and she has had a few. This is a Prime Minister who stands for everything because she believes in absolutely nothing at all, and that is what we have seen repeatedly from this government on this particular issue.

Lest there be any doubt, let it be clear in this chamber that late last Friday in Melbourne my senior colleagues and I were given the government's preferred legislative arrangements. Those legislative arrangements completely stripped out the human rights protections that the Howard government had deliberately and self-consciously built into the Migration Act where offshore processing was concerned. That is what they did. This minister, who once said that as a matter of decency there had to be protections, had completely stripped them out of the legislative amendments that they gave to us on Friday. That was not offshore processing; it was offshore dumping. My colleagues and I were very honest with those officials. We said that our reaction to what the government proposed was that it was a serious detraction from human rights. That is what we said.

When I went to see the Prime Minister on Monday, I said, 'We will give your bill a second reading but we will move amendments to it because we believe that, as it stands, it betrays the human rights standards which a decent country like Australia should always observe and which the coalition has always believed in.' Then, what did the Prime Minister do? She said, 'Oh, the policy that I put to you on Friday has not even survived the weekend; we now have a new policy. The new policy writes back in those standards but does not make them compulsory.' These are the Clayton's obligations—the obligations you have when you do not have any obligations.

Then we went to probably the best lawyer in this country on these issues—former Solicitor-General David Bennett QC. We did not reject the government's proposals out of hand. We went to David Bennett QC and we got his opinion. His opinion is that the government's proposals, both of them, continue legal risk but strip out protections. By contrast, our proposal, as far as is humanly possible in this uncertain world, restores certainty and restores the ability of the executive government to make these decisions but does so in a way which is entirely consistent with human rights protections. What this government has done is pay lip-service to human rights protections without guaranteeing them. That is the disgrace of this government. That is why they had such a fractious caucus meeting today. That is why this government is now so totally ashamed of itself—because it has betrayed every principle that it has ever claimed to believe in.

We have a report today—the Left of the party quoting one of the Left's caucus spokesmen:

The Left of the Party does not believe we should go back to Howard-era politics.

Well, they have done something which is far worse. The Howard government would never have done what they are now attempting to do. This is a Prime Minister who now expects the opposition to rescue her from the disastrous position that she has put the government in because of her own failures of principle. I say: if she cannot get a majority in the parliament, she has options available to her. A government which has lost control of our borders does not deserve to stay in office. (Time expired)

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

There is something ironic about the Leader of the Opposition proposing a matter of public importance on border protection the day after he decided to put his own short-term political interests ahead of the national interest on border protection—the day after he decided it was more important to care about what he assesses is in the best political interest of the Liberal and National parties, ahead of what is the best policy to stop people making the dangerous boat journey to Australia, the best policy to get a proper regional framework and the best policy to see more people resettled in Australia.

The Australian people expect our political parties to have robust debates. They expect a full contest of ideas. They expect the Australian political parties to be very forthright in putting forward views and having different views. That is how the Australian political system has always worked. But they also expect that, where political parties agree on objectives and principles, they put aside partisan difference and work together in the national interest. It is in the national interest that we do not have people risking their lives to get to Australia by boat. It is in the national interest that we never again have to go through what we have been through as a nation. It is in the national interest that we have offshore processing as part of a properly developed regional framework. Sometimes it is hard to bridge the partisan divide; sometimes the gulf is just too big; sometimes the differences are just too fundamental—and that is appropriate, but this should not be one of those times.

From the beginning, the government tried to make it easy for the opposition. From the beginning, the government tried to give the opposition a pathway. We made it clear that we would not ask the Liberal Party to support the Malaysian agreement, that we would not ask the Liberal Party to endorse it and that we would not hold them accountable for results—that we would be held accountable for the results. All we put to the Liberal Party was that the government of the day, whether it be a Labor government or a coalition government, should have the opportunity to implement its policies, and the Leader of the Opposition agreed. He went out and said, 'I think the government of the day should have the right to implement its policies, and I would work with the government to achieve it.' I am not sure what happened after that, but what happened was a very significant change.

We tried to make it easy for the opposition. We said that clearly, in our view, it was important to change the law to enable the Malaysia arrangement and enable offshore processing in Papua New Guinea and enable it in Nauru, despite us feeling that it would not be an appropriate policy, but we recognise that if the Liberal and National parties were ever elected as the government of this nation they should have the right to implement that policy and they should be clear in the law.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

They say that they will, but what they do not recognise is the legal consensus that shows that the legislation should be changed to enable it to happen.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

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

The honourable member for Mayo will now remain silent.

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

It is appropriate we go through the reasons for the opposition's approach. They say that processing should now only occur in countries that are signatories to the refugee convention. That is the opposition's position. They say that that has been a consistent position for 10 years. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'Our position has been consistent for 10 years.' Nauru wasn't a refugee convention signatory when they sent people to Nauru, but last year the Leader of the Opposition said:

Look, this business of requiring that they sign the Convention is simply a furphy …

The shadow minister has made similar statements—that it was not necessary for offshore processing to occur in signatory countries. It is very eloquent from the Leader of the Opposition when he says:

Look, this business of requiring that they sign the Convention is simply a furphy—

because it is a furphy. It is completely inconsistent, not just with previous positions.

Yes, the government has considered the position and in recent times has said, 'We should work in a regional framework with countries that are not signatories to the refugee convention and work with them to improve protection outcomes.' Yes, we have developed that position. Yes, governments and political parties do change policy. I do not necessarily hold the Leader of the Opposition to his position where he says it is a furphy. I respect that political parties are entitled to develop their thinking. But what they are not entitled to do is hold a completely inconsistent position at the same time. We all know the opposition's policy is to turn boats around on the high seas and point them in the direction of Indonesia. Guess what? I thought I might have missed something but I checked again today and Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. It is one thing to change position—all political parties do that from time to time—and it is another thing to have two completely inconsistent positions at the same time.

I saw the member for Flinders announcing on Insiders on Sunday that the Liberal Party was going to negotiate with Indonesia and that it would build in protections. Good luck with that one! I wonder how that is going to go. I do not know if it is going to negotiate that Indonesia sign the refugee convention—even better luck with that one. Apparently, it is not appropriate to send a plane to Malaysia when you have negotiated protections and when you have commitments from the Malaysian government not to refoule people, when you have commitments from the Malaysian government to allow access to education and health and when you have commitments from the Malaysian government to allow work rights. It is not okay to send a plane to Malaysia, but it is okay to send a boat to Indonesia with no protections negotiated whatsoever. But the member for Flinders is on the job, and he is going to negotiate these protections, apparently.

The Leader of the Opposition has the hide to call the Malaysian arrangement 'offshore dumping'. It is offshore dumping to send people on a boat to Indonesia, drop them off at the jetty and say, 'There you go.' That is offshore dumping, and that underlines the hypocrisy of the opposition.

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

You are yelling again! You are yelling!

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

The member for Mayo will restrain himself.

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

As I said in question time, if the opposition has really had a change of heart here—as I say, I accept and understand that political parties are entitled to change their point of view—it could move an amendment to the relevant 'turn back the boat' section of the Migration Act to say, 'You can only turn back the boats if they are going to end up in a signatory country.'

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where are your Greens buddies?

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

The member for Bowman will remain silent.

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

That would be open to the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder if he is going to do that.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where are your Greens?

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

The member for Bowman will remain silent.

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

Because of this hypocrisy, the Australian people are entitled to reach a conclusion that something else is going on here.

Mr Danby interjecting—

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

The member for Melbourne Ports will restrain himself.

Mr Laming interjecting—

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

Something else is going on here, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Order! The minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Bowman will remove himself from the chamber pursuant to standing order 94A. He will recall that he has already been warned.

The member for Bowman then left the chamber.

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

Australian people are entitled to conclude that there is something else going on here, because it does not make sense that the opposition has two positions at the same time that are completely contradictory. So when the Australian people look at this and say, 'What else is going on here?' I think they are entitled to conclude that the opposition has decided the risk of Malaysia working is just too great.

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

Where is everyone? Why can't you get everyone in here?

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

I warn the honourable member for Mayo.

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

The risk of the Malaysia arrangement actually providing a disincentive for people to get on boats to come to Australia is just too great. They cannot have that, because it would destroy their business model of cheap slogans.

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

One, two, three—

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

Order! The honourable member for Mayo will remove himself from the chamber pursuant to standing order 94A.

The member for Mayo then left the chamber.

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

The opposition says that the Malaysian arrangement has not worked because people arrived after it was announced. It says, 'Oh look, almost 1,000 people have arrived after it was announced, and Nauru worked.' I make this point to the opposition: the Malaysian arrangement has not even been implemented. It has had an effect—the number of people arriving in Australia has fallen as people looked at the Malaysian arrangement—but if the opposition is going to judge because almost a thousand people have arrived then let us look at how many people arrived after Nauru was announced. In the same time period since the announcement of the Malaysia arrangement, 1,998 arrived. So if you are going to apply the test you apply it consistently. Let the member for Cook explain how Malaysia does not work because 974 people arrived but Nauru was a great success because 1,998 people arrived in the same period.

The opposition says: 'The Malaysia arrangement is too expensive. We couldn't possibly approve that because it costs almost $300 million over four years.' Most of that is the cost of resettlement of people in Australia. Then we have this furphy from the opposition that Nauru is somehow going to happen for free. No charge! I'll throw in a set of steak knives! The Nauru detention centre is not going to cost the Australian people anything! It is not in their costings. It was not in their costings before the election and it is not in their costings now. It is a $71 billion black hole because Nauru will cost $1 billion over four years just in operational costs. That does not include capital costs—I am not going to allocate those because it would be hard to assess. The opposition says the centre is ready to go, despite the fact that it has not been used in a long time and is now a school. It says it is all ready to go and wouldn't cost a cent. I do not think that is quite right, but even if we just use operational costs it is $1 billion a year.

The opposition then says: 'This deal with Malaysia has got a use-by date—it's only got 800 people. I wonder what you are going to do when you run out of the 800 spots.' My question to the opposition is this: what are you going to do when you run out of your 1,500 spots at the Nauru detention centre? You have the advice that this is not an effective deterrent.

Mr Champion interjecting—

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

The honourable member for Wakefield will cease interjecting from outside his seat; otherwise, he will be outside the chamber.

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

The opposition knows that this is not an effective deterrent. The opposition has been told by the experts that it does not work.

Mr Keenan interjecting—

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

The member for Stirling will now remain silent for the rest of this contribution.

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

What we know is that the detention centre at Nauru will fill up just as it did last time, and the opposition has not indicated what it will do afterwards. To be consistent, if it requires the government to say what it is going to do after the 800 spots are filled then the opposition should explain what it is going to do. It should also explain what arrangements it has in place for the resettlement of people from Nauru. What discussions would the member for Cook have if he were minister for immigration? What countries would he negotiate with? Maybe he could send the member for Flinders, who is going to go and negotiate for Indonesia to sign the refugee convention. Maybe he could do a deal with them at the same time for some resettlement. Otherwise anybody who is regarded as a refugee on Nauru will be resettled into Australia. Why wouldn't they? Other countries around the world are going to say: 'That is not actually our problem. That would be your issue, because they came to Australia and you transferred them to Nauru.' What we negotiated with Malaysia was a very different set of circumstances, where people would be transferred to Malaysia.

Clearly, what we have here is an opposition who are so concerned that this might work that they are prepared to do anything to stop it. They are prepared to sit with the Greens in the upper house, in the coalition of convenience, to stop this arrangement proceeding. They have been prepared to send the member for Cook on a little holiday up to Malaysia with his little home video camera to try to criticise the Malaysian government; to stand outside detention centres and say, 'This is where they are going to come,' and to send home a little home video. That is wrong. Nobody sent to Malaysia under this arrangement will be sent to a detention centre.

The opposition are prepared to go out and criticise the Malaysian government, up hill and down dale, for their record on how they treat asylum seekers—and, in doing this, they were prepared to damage the relationship with Malaysia in a most irresponsible way. Thankfully, people here in Australia and in Malaysia see this for what it is. They see it for the cheap opportunism that this opposition have become known for.

If the opposition are really so concerned that the Malaysian arrangement would not work, if they really think it is not going to provide a disincentive and if they really think it would be the failure that they say it would be then, just from a political point of view, why would they not let us do it? Why would they not say, 'The government are on their own. We will let them do what they want, but if it does not work we will hold them to account'? If they really think it will not work, that would be the political calculation that they would make.

But, no; the member for Cook understands this policy area—I grant him that. He has looked at the situation, heard the advice from the experts and he has said, 'Mr Abbott, I think this might actually work. I think we have a bit of a problem here because the government's policy might actually work. We better stop this policy working because we know that when Nauru was operational that the majority of people arrived in Australia, so that won't work.' When they had TPVs over 90 per cent of those were granted permanent residency, so that is hardly going to work. And now we have the 'turn back the boats' policy. Apart from the evidence that we know of—that people will sink and sabotage their boats so that they have a rescue at sea situation and must then be transferred to Australia—they will not be able in any consistent way to transfer people to Indonesia because they will not be able to provide the guarantees that they have said are so important.

The Leader of the Opposition says that we are too soft on asylum seekers and then that we are too hard. He says he supports offshore processing and then he walks away from it and he sits with the Greens and votes against it. He claims the patent and then claims to kill it. At first he says that the ALP are too compassionate and then he says that we are not compassionate enough. The Leader of the Opposition wants to stop the Malaysian arrangement for one reason, and one reason alone: because he is terrified it will work. He is terrified that his cheap and opportunistic strategy will come to an end, and he knows how bad that would be for him. He is prepared to let the national interest slide so that he can keep his cheap slogans going. (Time expired)

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

I thank the minister for his continued interest in my various statements. He retains a very active interest, and I thank him for that. In 2008 the Rudd-Gillard government, against advice, abolished offshore processing and the Howard government's Pacific solution. Since then not one illegal arrival has been processed offshore in a third country by this government. You cannot continue offshore processing if you actually have not ever started it, which is where this government finds itself today.

Since they abolished the Howard government's Pacific solution more than 12,000 people have arrived illegally on 241 boats. For all of this time the Rudd-Gillard government demonised and chastised the coalition for its concerns over the government's border protection failures as every boat arrived. At one point Labor members even called us racists for having these concerns. That is how desperate they were, and that is how demonising they were in chastising the opposition for having concerns about the border protection failures on their watch.

When the Rudd-Gillard government abolished the Howard government's border protection policies they put the people smugglers back in business. That was the result of their policy initiative. And yet today they parade around this place, claiming to be champions of the national interest on border protection—a government that created the problem, denied its existence then and then repeatedly failed to address the problem in any successful manner. How many boats did it actually take—how many boats actually arrived—before this government worked out that they had a problem? Was it 50? Was it 100? Was it 150? Was it 200? You could even argue: was it 241? This is a government that have had a history of failed policy, as every single one of those 241 boats arrived on this government's watch.

This is a government that bungled the Oceanic Viking crisis. This is a government that introduced their failed and discriminatory asylum freeze. This is a government that gave us the embarrassment of the failed East Timor plan. And this is the government that gave us the already failed Malaysia solution, which has already rejected by both houses of this parliament and by the highest court in this land—already overwhelmed by the people smugglers, with 1,000 people having already turned up since it was announced and more than 400, half the quota, since it was signed.

This policy for Malaysia is fatally flawed in design and also fails the test of providing meaningful and practical protections. The five-for-one deal that the minister boasts of highlights just how desperate this government was and just how much the Malaysian government saw this minister coming. The deal has a use-by date of just 800 transferees, and this government cannot answer the question: what happens at 801? The answer is nothing; it goes back to the same arrangement there was before. They had no answer then; they have no answer now. What happens when the exceptions that the government will invariably have to make to their policy of not sending every single person who arrives illegally by boat to Malaysia are sold as the rule by people smugglers throughout the region? What happens then? There is no answer. This is a desperate and ill-considered arrangement and it is already a proven policy failure.

It is not the opposition's job to give an incompetent and divided government a blank cheque for more failed policy. The minister opposite just previously asked why we would not vote for a policy we believe is a failure. Those opposite might be very experienced and practised in voting for policy failures—they do it all the time in this place—but the opposition does not believe that it needs to join that arrangement. The opposition does not vote for bad policy. We vote against bad policy and that is what the government can expect of this opposition. When they get a good policy we might support it, but I am not holding my breath.

Our policy, as our leader outlined earlier, has three core elements to stop the boats. The coalition has held a consistent policy on border protection for a decade and it seeks to stop the boats and preserve the integrity of our refugee and humanitarian program by ensuring, as our former Prime Minister once said, 'We decide who comes to our country and the circumstances in which they come.' There are three elements. Firstly, turning boats back is a straightforward and uncompromising deterrent where the circumstances permit. This is not offshore processing; it is preventing entry to Australia. Secondly, there is offshore processing in a third country—namely, Nauru—subject to the clear protections we have always stood by. Thirdly, there are temporary protection visas for illegal arrivals who are found to be genuine refugees, but it denies them access to the family reunion program.

The coalition's border protection policy has always been tough, always been uncompromising, always been consistent and, most importantly, it has always been effective, and it remains so. Ours has never been a bleeding-hearts policy, but a practical and measured policy subject to reasonable safeguards with a clear objective in mind: to stop the boats and to restore integrity to our refugee and humanitarian program.

Labor's position, though, has been one of constant flip-flops and constant hypocrisy. Over the past 10 years, as the Leader of the Opposition says, they have supported and opposed turning boats back, they have supported and opposed offshore processing and they have supported and opposed temporary protection visas. The minister for immigration, previously at the table, famously said back in August 2006:

We say that asylum seekers should be treated the same regardless of how they land. We say that they should be dealt with fairly, swiftly and on Australian soil.

That is what the minister who was previously at the table said; that is not what his policy is now offering. The government's proposed changes to the Migration Act fail to provide the protections previously provided under the coalition's legislation and fails to properly quarantine ministerial discretion from being open to judicial interpretation. The parliament should not be giving an incompetent government a blank cheque for more failed policy. The coalition has proposed considered and practical amendments to strengthen the Migration Act with respect to offshore processing while ensuring that objective, reasonable and assessable protections are in place. The minister and the Prime Minister should get a little less cranky and a little more constructive in dealing with the bill that they seek to bring into this House.

The former Solicitor-General, David Bennett AC QC, has provided written advice on the two sets of amendments provided by the government to the coalition and looked at our alternative. His opinion is that the coalition's plan provides more protection for asylum seekers than the two government versions and is less likely to be the subject of complex judicial proceedings. That is the advice of the former Solicitor-General.

Our proposal would allow for illegal arrivals to be sent offshore for processing to one of 148 countries which are signatories to the United Nations convention or protocol—including Nauru, which becomes a signatory on 26 September. The coalition's amendment would enable this government to implement their policy to reopen the processing centre on Manus Island. Their choice to reject our amendments would be to vote against their own policy of reopening a processing centre on Manus Island. If Julia Gillard wants to stop the boats she should support the coalition's proposed amendments that provide her government and all future governments with clear discretionary and unchallenged powers subject to reasonable, universally accepted and objective safeguards.

The Prime Minister and this government have no authority, credibility or mandate to storm into this place and make demands on this parliament. The government's majority, upon which they relied to form government in this House, has deserted them over their handling of border protection in this country. They clearly do not have the requisite support to carry their own legislation. The coalition has offered them support subject to only one condition that would bind them and every other government that follows. The minister's angry rejection of the coalition's amendments during his panicked raid yesterday afternoon is not what is needed to resolve this situation.

In government, we will re-establish offshore processing at Nauru regardless of what happens here in the meantime. But what is clear is that this is a government that does not have the resolve or the consistency of policy to address this issue. They have been found wanting on this issue for three years. The Australian people know it and the people smugglers know it, and that is why we need the election option. (Time expired)

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

I rise to contribute to this matter of public importance debate and begin by referring to some comments that the Leader of the Opposition made in a press conference yesterday. In the press conference the Leader of the Opposition said:

For at least a decade the Coalition's position has been crystal clear.

The Coalition’s position for at least a decade has been—

to use the memorable words of former Prime Minister Howard—

'we will determine who comes to our country and the circumstances in which they come'.

When Prime Minister Howard used those words— (Quorum formed)At least when those words were uttered by the former Prime Minister they were said with some authenticity. When they were uttered yesterday I was left to reflect upon what a fake and a phoney the current Leader of the Opposition is. When he utters the words 'we determine who comes to our country and the circumstances under which they come' the 'we' is not the Australian government or the Australian people; the 'we' is the Liberal Party of Australia.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party have taken it upon themselves to try and determine the circumstances in which executive government is to exercise the power and the authority that has previously been understood to be very firmly in the hands of the executive. That has been under challenge because of the decision the High Court has taken, and the amendments that are before this House will give each member of this place the opportunity to restore that position. I understand there is some speculation that some on the other side intend to not restore that position. In fact, I understand they intend to move an amendment that seeks to introduce a requirement that offshore processing only occur in a country that is a signatory to the UN refugee convention. That is a new and high bar that has been introduced, and I make the point that had that requirement been in place back when the Pacific solution was first introduced then we, the Australian people and the Australian government, would not have had the capacity to send anyone to Nauru back in 2001, because Nauru was not a signatory to the UN refugee convention.

In fact, whilst it has taken steps in recent times, as recently as earlier this year, Nauru still has not signed the convention. Indeed, when the opposition went to the last election, committed to using Nauru as the venue for offshore processing, Nauru was not at that time a signatory to the convention. It is also worth reflecting upon the somewhat arbitrary nature of using whether or not a country is signatory to the convention as the perceived benchmark against which humanitarian protections can be gleaned, because it is interesting to see that around the world there are many countries that are signatories to the UN refugee convention that you would not necessarily think were countries where the Australian government could secure the safety of anyone that they were to send there. I am talking about countries like Afghanistan, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, Zimbabwe, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Somalia.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

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

The honourable member for Bradfield will contain himself.

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

These are countries throughout the world that are signatories to the convention. Are we seriously expected to believe that simply because they are signatories to the convention that they somehow will be venues for offshore processing in the future that can guarantee the safety of individuals who might be sent there? And that is in the absence of any particular arrangement such as the one that we have been able to enter into with Malaysia.

Mr Hawke interjecting—

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

The member for Mitchell has already been sin binned once.

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

It is worth having a look at the existing policy and indeed the policy as it stood at the last election for the opposition. We have heard all about turning the boats back. There are three elements to their policy. There is turning back the boats. There is the no compromise on offshore processing. That is what they went to the electorate with. They went to the Australian people at the last election saying, 'There will be no compromise on offshore processing.' But here we have an opportunity generated by the decision of the High Court for members of this House to make a very clear and unequivocal decision that offshore processing should be within the realm of executive government and to restore the position that we previously understood it to be the case.

I make the point that throughout the course of this debate and the debates that will follow over the coming days there will be people right around the world who will be watching them. In particular, there will people smugglers throughout our region who will be watching this debate, and they will be looking very closely to see the extent to which this parliament is prepared to show the resolve that is necessary to equip executive government today and into the future with all of the powers that it needs to combat irregular and unlawful people movements throughout our region. They are looking closely; they are looking for a crack. They are looking for Australia to blink. The opposition have the opportunity to stand side by side with this government, to demonstrate this parliament's resolve when it comes to tackling people-smuggling. Or they have the option of voting with the Greens to kill off offshore processing.

I would caution them about the dangers of going down that path because whilst I agree with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship when he says that he knows the reason why the opposition are opposed to supporting the amendment before the House—that is, because they are afraid that the Malaysian arrangement will work—I suggest that there a couple of things they should be even more concerned about. One is that the Nauru solution will not work. If we do not get our legislation through to ensure that executive government has the power to take the decisions it needs to take, then those opposite had better hope that Nauru works, because if they ever get a chance and it does not work, then they would not want to come back into this place asking a future parliament for all of the powers that we are now asking for. Turning the boats back has never worked; we know that.

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

We'll have a majority; don't worry about it.

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

I hear the arrogance of the member opposite. He will have an absolute majority in both houses! Don't count your chickens before they hatch. When it comes to border protection this government is interested in putting in place a proposal that we know will work. All the advice suggests that it will work, as opposed to the Nauru so-called solution, which was nothing more than a $1 billion stopover on their way to Australia. (Time expired)

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

I'm glad it's expired.

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

I do not need the assistance of the father of the House.

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

If this government was really keen to break the people-smuggling model then quite frankly they would resign. They are the people smuggler's business model. When they came to office the people smugglers had been broken. The people smugglers had tested the previous government and the previous government had shown the resolve that was necessary to stare them down. Subsequently, they could not bring people to Australia illegally anymore.

But then the government changed, and as a result we had a change in policy. Because of the enormous moral vanity of those opposite, who thought that they could make changes to our robust system of border protection without any consequences, we had the people smugglers going back into business.

If the people smugglers were a public company, Julia Gillard would be the chairman of the board, Chris Bowen would be the managing director, and the cabinet—

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

Order! The honourable member for Stirling has been in the parliament for a number of years. He would be well aware of the provisions of standing order 64. He will observe the standing order.

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

You are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister would be the chairman of the board, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship would be the managing director, and the cabinet ministers would be the board of directors. Labor has been so incompetent on this issue alone that it should be enough for them to be laughed out of office. They have held inconsistent positions on offshore processing, turning back the boats and temporary protection visas. Since August 2008 the opposition has been forced to watch in horror the missteps and the terminally bad judgment that has been displayed by those opposite. Following their border protection policies has been like watching a man falling down in slow motion.

I want to recap for the House the comedic farce that we have seen that has passed for a border protection policy since the government changed in 2007. Firstly, when they came to office they said that the Pacific solution, which was part of the robust system of border protection that they had inherited when the government changed, was morally reprehensible. They called the proponents of it in the previous Howard government racist. The Prime Minister, who was the architect of Labor's immigration policies during that period, said in parliament:

The so-called Pacific solution is nothing more than the world's most expensive detour sign. It does not stop you getting to Australia; it just puts you through a detour on the way while Australian taxpayers pay for it and pay for it.

She later went on in the same speech to say:

Labor will end the so-called Pacific solution—the processing and detaining of asylum seekers on Pacific islands—because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle.

This is what the Prime Minister used to say about third-country processing. Earlier in this House she spoke about what she called the 'so-called Pacific solution.' She said:

The so-called Pacific solution—stripped of the other policies that the government has scrambled around and tried to put in place since the Tampais really no more than the processing of people offshore in third countries.

That is what she said. She also said:

It is a policy that Labor does not support, because it achieves nothing and costs so much in so many ways …

You do not have to wonder why people have absolutely no idea what this Prime Minister stands for when she held such contrary positions on border protection policies.

The thing about the Pacific solution, and the other policies that the Howard government put in place, is that they were hugely successful. After 2001, when we were faced with a large number of illegal boat arrivals, once the government showed some resolve, once they took a principled stand, the people smugglers understood that the government was not to be tested and they stopped bringing people to Australia illegally.

That is why, when the government changed in 2007, there had been, on average, three boat arrivals per year and a total of 18 boat arrivals in the six years preceding the change in government. When the government changed there were four people in detention on Christmas Island, and those opposite dared to suggest that the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre was an expensive white elephant.

As I said, in a fit of moral vanity they went ahead and discarded the pillars of the robust system of border protection that we had when they came to office. Indeed, the then minister basked in the fact that he had been the minister that killed the Pacific solution. The then immigration minister, Chris Evans, said in a speech:

The major Labor policy commitment in my portfolio was to end the former Howard Government's discredited Pacific Solution. That was a shameful and wasteful chapter in Australia's immigration history.

He went on to say, in a speech in 2008:

The Pacific Solution was rightly criticised for seeking to shift our international responsibilities onto developing countries—when we should have been standing up and shouldering those responsibilities ourselves.

He also said that it was a waste of taxpayers' money. Finally he went on to say that it was 'morally wrong and outrageously expensive' and that it failed.

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

He's still a minister in the current government.

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

And he is still, unbelievably, the third most senior minister in this government. Of course, the response of the people smugglers was almost instantaneous. These announcements and the policy passed through the parliament in August of 2008. We started to have illegal boat arrivals within the space of months. They trickled through, initially, but the people smugglers, once they tested this governments resolve, saw how weak it was and how muddle-headed it was on border protection and increased the rate of illegal arrivals.

Labor provided an enormous stimulus package for people-smuggling. We then had the farce of the Oceanic Viking. We had asylum seekers literally take over an Australian government vessel and then stare down the government in what was surely one of the most shameful chapters in Australia's border protection history. The then Prime Minister, the now foreign minister, insisted that no special deal had been done to get the people on the Oceanic Viking off, when everybody knew that that was complete and utter nonsense. The farce culminated when the Labor Party sent a private plane to Indonesia to pick up people held in Indonesia, who ASIO had said were a threat to national security, and bring them to Australia. Unbelievably, because of the Oceanic Viking farce Labor chartered a private plane, flew it to Indonesia and brought back people to Australia who ASIO said were a security risk to Australia. Of course, because of this lack of resolve, because of this farce, illegal arrivals continued and the pace that they arrived in Australia increased.

Labor then goes into a massive panic. The Labor members start to understand how much damage this is doing to them amongst the Australian people, because the Australian people actually expect the federal government to protect our borders. Then the policy retreat beings. First of all we had the ill-fated and discriminatory processing freeze on Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum seekers. For periods of three months and six months they said that they were not going to process people's asylum plans from specific countries. As the shadow immigration minister said, it was 'the most discriminatory policy since the White Australia policy.' What happened after that, of course, is that our detention centres—astonishingly enough, when claims were not being processed—filled up to such an extent that order within the detention network started to break down. We had riots, we had mass breakouts, we had hundreds of critical incidents and we had the farce of the immigration minister being unable to tell this parliament how many people were detained on Christmas Island. They could not even successfully do a head count. We had radio announcers telling him that there had been a homemade bomb in the Villawood Detention Centre, which was something he had absolutely no idea about.

The culmination of these disasters was the knifing of the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, now foreign minister, and the replacing of that Prime Minister with the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. She nominated Labor's border protection farce as one of the reasons the previous government had lost its way. She said she was going to start offshore processing, something she had previously opposed and panned the Howard government for. She announced, without consulting the government of East Timor, that they were going to do it in East Timor. Astonishingly, the people and the government of East Timor were not receptive to that idea and did not think that it was particularly reasonable for the Australian government to announce what was going to happen within their sovereign territory. That was an absolute failure. They then went to Papua New Guinea. The Papua New Guinea government appeared to be receptive to the idea of re-opening Manus Island but, as ever, this government managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They sent the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, they grievously insulted the Papua New Guinea government and that proposal stalled.

We then had this Malaysia arrangement, the five-for-one people-swap deal, with the Australian taxpayer paying all of the costs. That was struck down by the High Court and we subsequently have the government flailing around desperate for the opposition's approval to get through amendments to the Migration Act that would give them unfettered carte blanche to do what they like within this area even though everything they have tried for the past four years has been an utter failure. If you cannot have a border protection policy, if you cannot get one through the parliament, then why do you continue to seek to govern? There is absolutely no reason why this Labor government— (Time expired)

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

I come to this debate with an abiding interest in many of the human rights issues that compel people to come to this land, I come to this debate with an almost daily opportunity in my office to interview people who are fighting refugee cases and I, also like the member opposite, come to this debate with the experience of Western Sydney where these issues bite deeply. One of the things I have learnt is that the Australian people, who to my mind are reasonably fair minded, want to have a government with control in this policy area. They want to have a belief that the government can determine which refugees from which lands enter this country. It then gives the opportunity for the government of the day, Labor or Liberal, to respond to the demands of the UNHCR, to look at the UNHCR's right in saying that this year we should look at the condition of the Rohingyas or at other Burmese groups. The people of Australia, on the other hand, can be dragged into an opposition to immigration, a concern with the process if they do not think that the government and its department of immigration have some say in the process.

We saw the experience in Europe last week when, in the Danish elections, a Left majority was re-elected after a decade of conservative government. Even then in that victory the conservative Danish People's Party, although they went down from 13.8 to 12.3, captured that percentage of the vote. We have the experiences in Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark. These are countries where the population has lost confidence that the government is actually having a say in the refugee policy. That is the way in which I approach this debate.

Last week the Prime Minister, in the aftermath of a court case and a result which was not predicted by Senator Brandis or any of the experts opposite, on behalf of this government said to the opposition, 'Let's try and negotiate an outcome here which gives us some certainty in regard to what we believe should be the outcome and would give the opposition some certainty as well if they were elected.' Of course, last week we had very loud contributions from those opposite saying, 'Nauru: it's covered, no problems. We're convinced that it's unchallengeable.'

This week there is a different tune. I heard Senator Brandis this morning indicating on ABC radio that perhaps Nauru is equally challengeable. The opposition was confronted with the situation on Friday and in the last few days that we could get together and get a policy which gives some guarantee that the government of the day and its department of immigration would have some say. It has been thrown back in the government's face. The pretext is the concern with whether countries have signed the UN Charter. This, apparently, is now paramount. They cannot agree with the government because the government is supposedly negotiating with Malaysia. Other speakers have been through this. It did not seem to concern them when they sent people to Nauru originally, and they have proposed it again—to a country which has the 23rd highest population density on this earth, a per capita income— (Quorum formed)

As I said, seemingly 'Nauru or nothing' is their attitude when they are asked to cooperate on a national solution to this. It is a country that has one of the highest population densities in the world and is amongst the poorest nations on this earth. It is a country where people would essentially have no work rights. They say that affiliation to the convention and Nauru is the be-all and end-all.

As other speakers have indicated, there is nothing apparently wrong with sending people to Indonesia, despite the fact that it is not a signatory. On last night's program the shadow minister, of course, said, 'Oh, that's not offshore processing; that's carting people there in a boat.' They talk about the signatories being the be-all and end-all. Many of the countries where we are receiving refugees from—Zimbabwe, which so affects many opposition members opposite, particularly from Western Australia; Sudan; Iran—are signatories. Speaking of Iran, we see the inconsistency of those opposite. Not only are they demanding that they be signatories in regard to this measure, but Iran itself was suggested by the opposition spokesman last year as being in some ways a better option than Malaysia. Quite frankly, Malaysia is a country which has recently moved towards reforming its internal security legislation and which is giving rights to not only the people that we negotiated for, the people that we were sending back, but also the rest of their claimants in the country.

We have a situation here where it is no surprise that they have tried to stymie a government proposal which they are dead scared is going to be an option which is going to be an effective deterrent. It is interesting to note that on Nauru, the be-all and end-all, the then shadow minister, the member for Murray, said on 1 December 2008:

The closure of Nauru and Manus Island…Of course they had basically—what shall we say—outlived their need…I don't think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we've got of course Christmas Island.

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

Who said that?

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

The shadow minister at the time. What we have here is a situation where a message has got to be given to Bob Brown, to the Greens in general, to the member for Cook, to the opposition leader—to all those who are now colluding in this attempt to undermine the government's solution to this matter: the Australian people want the government to assert control in this policy area. As I said earlier, they want to make sure that when people do come to this country, the UNHCR has had a say in that process offshore.

We have a situation where, as another speaker indicated, there is the question of this being a failure. The context of Malaysia was the approaching court action. If we look at the numbers coming after the Malaysian announcement for the same time period compared to Nauru—the possible panacea, the nirvana of solutions for those opposite—they are far fewer in the same time period than after Nauru. Yet, as I say, throughout the whole period people smugglers had the reality that this was being challenged in court. They had no confidence that this was actually going to succeed.

It is on the opposition's head. We know that some opposite feel that the integrity of the migration system is more important than the short-term political interest of the opposition leader. We know that there are some people that know that there is a need for an abiding, long-term solution. Voting with the Greens, basically going along with Senator Hanson-Brown's rather short-term, narrow market policy, is not the way to go.