Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continuing on from what I was saying before, it seems I am, yet again, a minority of one in this place insofar as I have a policy of: stay on the boats. If people choose to be self-smugglers then I do not think the government of Australia should assist them in that. I repeat, as I said before: if the government and the opposition persist in their policies, then people, like the people from my own electorate—the Sikhs from the Punjab in India—would be taking to the boats, and I think it would probably be a good idea for them to take to the boats as far, as I can see. It appears to me that 70 per cent of the people that get on a boat—we are receiving all sorts of figures and they are all different, ranging from 64 per cent up to 94 per cent of the people—end up in Australia. So we are not sure which set of figures to believe, but clearly the vast majority of the people who get on the boats end up as Australian citizens. One group of people who have proved themselves to be wonderful Australians is the Sikhs. They are very patriotic instant Australians who fit in immediately and are extremely popular. If you look at any of the demonstrations that I am associated with in North Queensland, you will see that among the people at the front are the people in the turbans, because people like them, and if the Sikhs are going along with the demonstration then it is a good thing to be part of. If we were going to take in people who come in on the boats, then I would think it would be highly preferable that people such as the Sikhs should be taken in. But this country does not have the wherewithal to take an unlimited number of people who walk in off the street any time they like. If you lead these people to believe that Australia can do that, you will do so at the expense of social welfare in this nation.

We had 15 meetings—which were just for our supporters, actually—in the year before the last election in 15 different towns, and in every one of those towns people raised the issue of electricity charges, which they could not afford to pay. It seems to me that, whatever solution we choose in order to deal with the question of people arriving on boats, we are still going to end up with thousands of people coming into the country every year. Other governments stop people from coming to their country, and clearly we should be doing something to stop people from coming to our country. Endeavours to do this have been made on both sides of the House, but they have fallen well short of proper and responsible government. If you want people to come into the country, I would say that you should by all means expand your immigration intake—I have always been very pro-migration—and I would plead with whoever is the government of Australia to look with sympathy upon the claims of people who will blend harmoniously with the greater Australian population. Once again I use the example of the Sikhs, from whom I get numerous and continuous requests, all of which I have enthusiastically supported, to come to Australia.

The issue of people arriving on boats is very difficult and complex, and I think that people on both sides of the House have worked extremely hard to come up with acceptable solutions to it. In fairness to the government's position, I must say that if a person is contemplating coming to Australia, and they know that 70 per cent—I will choose that figure—of people arriving on boats are going to get into Australia, then it is a pretty fair bet that they will get in too. If I were a betting man, I would say, 'That's not a bad bet—you've got a 3 to 1 chance of getting into the country.' If you are a husband, a wife and three kids and you are on social welfare, you will get pretty close to $80,000 a year, believe it or not, including rent subsidies and various other benefits. That is a pretty good deal, as far as I can see; you would be a mug not to have a go at it.

But the statistics are very deceitful, because we have been told—and I do not know whether this is correct; I am very suspicious of all the figures I am getting—that some 500 people have died trying to get into this country. It would be good if the government could get that message—'There's also a chance that you may not get here; you're going in very second-rate ships, and some of them are simply shipwrecked or sink, and some of you will die in your endeavours to get here'—out to the people who are intending to come to this country. It would also be good to get the message out that, if these people go to Malaysia, they will not be at the front of the queue but in a very, very big queue and that they will have to stand in line with 100,000 Burmese who are coming to this country.

So there is some definite appeal in what the government is putting forward here. It would seem to me that if you get to Nauru you are also in a queue, but you are at the front of the queue. The government's arguments would seem to me to be very cogent, but I find myself in a situation where neither of the options appeals to me even remotely. So I will stay, it would appear, as a minority of one in this place. Once again I make the point that if— (Time expired)

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

Earlier this week the member for North Sydney gestured across the House to ask whether in my heart I could support this amendment to the Migration Act—whether someone who is associated with human rights and has a close association with many migrant and refugee communities in this country could endorse it. Later in the week, my convictions were questioned by the member for Mitchell. He has nothing better to do with his time than to rush to his local paper boasting about how he has been thrown out of the House and that he had said as he departed: 'I remember when Laurie was a lefty'. These people are stereotyping this debate and making it extremely simplistic.

It is no surprise that today they were joined in their analysis of this debate by the member for Melbourne. As we know from listening to a previous speaker, in a recent radio program, Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, who does not believe in any offshore processing—and, of course, he is joined by Senator Hanson-Young and the member for Melbourne in that belief—indicated that the eventual outcome of this debate would be that offshore processing would be destroyed. Today, we are going down that road for certain.

The contribution of the member for Melbourne to this debate today was as infamous as his misunderstanding earlier this week of the history of the Vietnamese who entered this country. He said that they had all come by boat; he had no knowledge of the processing wait in Hong Kong and no knowledge of the situation of the Vietnamese in camps in the Philippines, which can be seen in the film In Limbo. Furthermore, he made the extremely erroneous allegation that Labor was advertising to the Australian people that it was sending people to be caned in Malaysia. He went on to say that poll after poll in this country has endorsed onshore processing. One poll, a recent Fairfax poll, has endorsed that position. The question has been rarely asked of the Australian people. Surveys from May 2009 to July 2010 from Morgan, Galaxy, Age/Nielsen and Essential Report showed that over 60 per cent of Australians said that they supported a tougher policy in this area. In one of those polls they actually asked about offshore processing, and 62 per cent of people said that they endorsed a stronger policy on offshore processing.

I refer the member for Melbourne to the work by Professor Goot, Population, immigration and asylum seekers: patterns in Australian public opinion 2011. He may get some worthwhile knowledge by reading that publication. There is nothing right necessarily about Australian public opinion. Basically, you should only utilise it when you feel it is right. But he has come here today and said that the Australian people want onshore processing. That is totally incorrect and he knows it. He has described this as a grubby debate and a race to the bottom. As with those Liberal members, he is making this very simplistic. There is nothing wrong with offshore processing, even if you support a strong humanitarian refugee migration intake. There is nothing wrong with endorsing offshore processing, if you are concerned about people being in the camps for two decades and are concerned about the people who live near the camps.

Essentially, there is a real moral question here and people can take different positions on it and understand it in different fashions. I strongly endorse offshore processing, and I do not think you are going to see too much inconsistency from me on this matter. At the same time, I do believe that the number of boats arriving has a relationship with events in other countries. It is not just about what Australia does. It is not just about how available the boats or the smugglers are. We do not exactly get refugee claimants on boats from all lands on this earth. At the moment we are getting the Tamils from Sri Lanka, Iraqis, Afghans et cetera, and there is a clear relationship with events in those countries.

The opposition is now coming forward, at a very late stage in this long debate, saying that the be-all and end-all is whether people have signed up to the international convention and that Nauru is justified because it has signed up and others have not. Earlier today I heard the member for Goldstein quoting Freedom House about the situation in Malaysia compared to Nauru. We all know that Nauru is not a long-term option. I spoke to a person this week who is very involved in refugee policy who has recently been there. I heard that part of the camp is currently being used for schoolchildren. There are water shortages. The water is cut off for a few hours every day. There is no work available on the island for the people if they are let out. The situation is chronic indeed. What are they going to do when 1,500 people are there?

Those opposite are talking about what a failure this has been because all the boats have come. If they did not think the boats were going to come—under either side in government—why did they spend $317 million of taxpayers' money on Christmas Island? If they had solved the problem, if boats were never going to come again, why did they build that facility? They built that facility because they knew there was always going to be a challenge to Australian immigration policy and the right of the government of the day to have some say in our refugee and humanitarian program and where refugees come from. When the laws were changed with respect to temporary protection visas—the new nirvana; the new glorious solution—those opposite stood there like stunned mullets and let the legislation go through. Dr Stone, the member for Murray, said at the time that it had outlived its purpose. And now, today, it is Nauru or nothing.

The member for Goldstein quoted Freedom House on the situation in Malaysia. Freedom House said that Malaysia got eight out of a possible 14 with respect to human rights—14 is the worst case; it got eight. Those opposite say that everyone has to sign the convention, and it is very interesting to look at the other countries that have signed the refugee convention. Those opposite say that we cannot send them to Malaysia. Malaysia have a court system. When Anwar Ibrahim was basically set up by the government, he could fight his way through the legal system. They have a democratic political system. They have recently legislated with regard to getting work rights for refugees in the country. They have got rid of their internal security legislation.

It is interesting to see who has else has signed the refugee convention—and we can send them there, those opposite reckon. Afghanistan got 12 out of 14, China got 13 out of 14, the Democratic Republic of the Congo got 12 out of 14, Iran got 12 out of 14 and Zimbabwe got 12 out of 14—and we ceaselessly hear opposition members, particularly those from Western Australia, telling us how bad Zimbabwe is. These countries which have signed the convention—which is the one thing those opposite think a country needs to have done for us to send people there—are the countries which we receive many of our refugees from. And those opposite are saying that those countries are good enough to send people to.

There has also been the statement that they can tow people back to Indonesia. The shadow minister's nice bit of language about this was: 'Oh, we can't send them to Malaysia because it has not signed the convention, but we can tow them back to Indonesia'—which is in a similar class. While supportive of reforms and change in Indonesia, I do not think there are many people here today who would say that Indonesia is that much more democratic, liberal or tolerant than Malaysia.

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

And there is no agreement with them.

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

And, as was indicated, we have no agreement with them. Nauru is a recipe for failure. Those opposite say that we have had so many boats and so many claimants since we suggested Malaysia. They know very well that in the same sort of period, after they suggested Nauru, the boats kept coming. The numbers in that lead-up period—a very similar time frame—were very strong.

Those opposite can argue that a lot of the people from Nauru eventually went to New Zealand and they did not all come to Australia. The fact of life is that the overwhelming majority went to New Zealand or Australia, and anyone who follows immigration knows that New Zealand is often the first step to migration to Australia. That is why Australia had some concerns a decade ago with regard to the huge number of Fijian-Indian claimants that New Zealand was taking because, in a very short time, they would be coming here afterwards. So the policy that supposedly stopped the boats led to most of these people eventually coming to Australia—the overwhelming majority of them. The cost of this has been assessed as $1 billion—$1 billion of taxpayers' money will be needed for this useless, senseless alternative with respect to Nauru. The situation is the same with regard to TPVs. Most of these people eventually came here, but it was after individual human suffering.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

It is right, member for Sturt. The overwhelming majority of them came here, but they were separated from their families for years on end. Basically, there was no effective retardation of the eventual success of their cases.

We do need offshore processing because, quite frankly, onshore processing is a recipe for people to have decades-long cases against the Australian legal system. In the last fortnight, a person walked into my office—admittedly, he had arrived by plane, but it is the same picture as when people get so much access to our system—who had been fighting the Australian legal system for two decades from a baseless case. I heard from a Hazara last Friday on a rejected spouse case. He had come by boat and he is now complaining that there are so many Hazaras coming by boat with fraudulent claims. This is the kind of situation we have. We do need to have a deterrent to dissuade people from paying people smugglers and to dissuade people from believing that they will be successful if they arrive.

People cite to me the huge approval rate of people who arrive by boat. I say that they are inflated figures. I say that the 90 per cent pass rate—and recently it was a 70 per cent rate—does not necessarily indicate the bona fides of cases. The reason the pass rate is so high is that many of these people cannot be sent back to their homeland, even when they are rejected. Even where we have agreements with countries, we return very few under Labor or Liberal governments. We find it difficult to disprove their cases because they either do not have identification or they destroyed it on the way here. The contrast for the people in the camps is that they are in situ. We can seriously look at their claims on the spot. We can investigate them more thoroughly.

I very strongly endorse the government's proposals that we must in some manner give people in the camps and those living nearby a bit of room in this intake. We cannot have the intake totally dominated by those who come by boats and planes. We have to ensure that the government of the day has some say and can respond to the UNHCR's request as to what it sees as the most needy peoples around the world at any point in time. If the arrivals are totally dominated by boats and planes, then the government of the day, Labor or Liberal, can have no say when it is said that we should react to the labour situation in Burma or we should have something to say with regard to Bosnia; we should respond and support what the UNHCR says is the demand of the day.

People criticise Malaysia. In recent times we have seen them get rid of the emergency situation and we have seen them agree to work rights. Perhaps work rights are of no interest to the opposition. I noted the comments of their then spokesperson in the report Immigration detention in Australia, when it was proposed that we give work rights to released claimants. Dr Sharman Stone, at 1.7 in the report, said:

As unemployment continues to climb, it cannot be assured that asylum seekers can readily step into and keep employment. As well the perception of additional competition in the work place will cause more stress to Australians in the workforce as they compete to gain or hold what work is still available …

Today, we see the alliance between the Greens, the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition—a desperate attempt to make sure that the government cannot operate the Malaysian scheme, which they are very fearful will succeed. They are very fearful that the number of boats will be reduced, that the rhetoric about the process being out of control will diminish and that the ammunition will disappear.

Quite frankly, the situation is that it is important in this country that the Australian people, who are fair but not stupid, can have confidence in the government of the day that is operating the system, and that the department of immigration is determining who are the humanitarian refugees. Every day of the week in Europe we are seeing growth in the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Old Finns, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, and other parties in Europe. There must be confidence that the government of the day can operate an offshore program and that it can determine that people will be dissuaded from attempting to come here. I strongly recommend the legislation.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge it is the end of a long two weeks of sitting and most members want to go home, but I also acknowledge that this is important legislation that government does need certainty on. I would hope that the House acknowledges the responsibility of dealing with it, no matter how long it takes this evening. I do not support the Labor Party or the Liberal Party or the National Party or the Greens on this issue in the way it has been framed to date. I do support and strongly back a nine-year regional cooperative process, started by Alexander Downer in 2002, known as the Bali Process. If we place an emphasis on that and codify that, we will start to clean up bad law domestically, which I think was reflected on and interpreted by the High Court ruling last month. I think it is the roadmap and the process for the future in starting to, in the long term, clean up bad law regionally.

It is for that reason that I flag that I will be moving an amendment to this legislation that does the following. Under subsection 5(1), I will be looking to insert a definition of the regional cooperation framework, with the following:

'Bali Process' means the process known as the Bali Process, established at the Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime held in Bali in February 2002.

I also will be looking to insert, at schedule 1, page 3, after item 4:

'Regional cooperation framework' means the framework agreed to in the co-chair's statement issued at the 4th Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime held in Bali on 30 March 2011.

I will be looking to insert at schedule 1, item 25, page 6, after paragraph 198AA(a)—

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

Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member for Lyne, but there will be an opportunity for the honourable member to move his amendments later.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand, but I will explain these. It is important. This is new for many members of the House. As to the reason why this legislation in its current form fits within the future direction and the regional cooperation framework, I will be looking to insert:

Australia's commitment to engagement through the Bali Process, including the implementation of the Regional Cooperation Framework, informs Australia's response to people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime …

Finally, at clause 198AI, I will insert:

The Minister must, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a report setting out:

(a) the activities conducted under the Bali process during the year ending on 30 June; and

(b) the steps taken in relation to people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime to support the Regional Cooperation Framework during the year ending on 30 June; and

(c) the progress made in relation to people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime under the Regional Cooperation Framework during the year ending on 30 June.

This has been a poor debate framed on the division of onshore versus offshore, of Malaysia versus Nauru, of Labor versus Liberal, of deterrents versus humanitarian issues and of the perception of many that we are being invaded by our neighbours versus those who are wanting to cooperate with our neighbours. Unfortunately, I think this House has been choosing a path of fear for fear's sake, of division for division's sake and of politics for politics' sake. In my view, it has been to date a fake disagreement when we already have a genuine process of real agreement that has been led by various immigration ministers since 2002. I am not sure whether this is about responding to dynamic slogans such as 'Stop the boats' or 'We decide who comes here and on what terms they come' but, even if that is the case, I hope we keep our eyes on working with our regional neighbours through the cooperative framework, a process that is working and delivering and that involves at least 33 countries. There are 43 countries engaged in this process, but at the most recent meeting there were 33, including Nauru and Malaysia. It is not an either/or debate that is being presented in this chamber and to the Australian people.

I urge people, using Google or any other means, to type in the words 'Bali process' and to have a look at the most recent document, the Fourth Bali Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime. I think it outlines a good policy direction for Australia. It is the road map for the future. I think, therefore, we should work on codifying it in law. In reading through the High Court six-to-one decision, I could not see any reference to the Bali process. I think it is a reflection missed by the six learned judges. In response to that, I think there is a need for this parliament to codify these agreements in law and, from that, to start a process of cleaning up domestic, regional and international law and working on a cooperative framework. The clean-up on domestic law is in and around some legislation from 2001—the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act and the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Act—that looks to be in conflict with what regional agreement was trying to achieve at the most recent meeting of the 33 countries, including Nauru, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and all who met as part of that nine-year process. I think there is a need to clean up some domestic laws. Hopefully, if we can codify this agreement as a road map forward, it can flow on the back of that agreement by the parliament. Our request to the executive is to focus on this document.

Likewise, rather than the slogan of 'Stopping the boats'—and I understand it and certainly acknowledge that it is an aspirational goal for all of us—I hope that, regionally, we can think about reframing this process and working on lifting the boats. We need to lift whatever the 43 countries involved in this agreement need, in a cooperative manner, to reach a humanitarian status that allows us to work on law enforcement and border security together. We need to do what we can with both genuine refugees and the not-so-genuine movement of people throughout the region, both in transit and at the source. It is through regional cooperation and regional agreement that we are going to deal with this issue, not through domestic politics and division and disagreement for partisan gain.

As I said before, I urge all members of this House to have a good read of those general principles from the most recent meeting on the Bali process and to reflect on their positions. Hopefully, as part of stopping the boats we can also stop the games that have been going on in this political debate. Those amendments will be moved shortly and I would hope to get as much support in this House as possible.

The only other point I would like to make, which I hope all of us reflect on, is that words and language matter. It is incredibly disappointing to listen to the debate and hear the way we make many parts of this very complex issue faceless in the way the law is written and language is used. Language is important in both our public and our private lives. It can shape the way we think about people and problems. All of us should think about the word 'processing', for example, when talking about asylum seekers and those genuinely seeking refugee status. This word, in my view, dehumanises these people. They are not products on a factory line. They are people who are seeking to have their claims for refugee status assessed by our country. I ask the House and the Australian community to think about replacing the word 'processing' with the word 'assessing' or some other more respectful word for what actually is going on in what is a complex area of public policy. I know it is a small step but it is an important one, in my view, in bringing some humanity back to this difficult issue.

As well, I hope we reflect on some other language in migration law. Terms such as 'offshore entry persons' completely dehumanise what is going on, remove the faces and allow us all to be emotionless about this very complex issue. With that in mind, I know the Commonwealth Ombudsman is on a plain English campaign. I will be writing to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to ask him to think about choosing the Migration Act as a starting point for that plain English campaign. Hopefully, he will take up that offer and we can start to put some respect and values back into the way we write law and the way we deal with all people in and around Australia.

I look forward to the support of the House in the regional framework. It has at various times in the last nine years had the very strong support of both political parties. It will be an interesting test of whether we are seeking good public policy or just some partisan politics. I hope it is supported for the long-term interests of better public policy. The regional solution, in my view, is the real solution. I urge the House to consider the amendments.

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

I rise to support the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill. Ours is a great country. It is a welcoming country, a warm-hearted country, but most significantly it is a country that has been built upon mass immigration. We are very fortunate to have one of the most successful and cohesive multicultural societies that the world has ever witnessed.

There is a number of important elements that have underpinned that very successful and cohesive multicultural society. I believe there are three elements that have underpinned the success of our society as a multicultural nation. Firstly, we are a generous people, but the control of people movements into our country has always been considered an important question of national sovereignty. Secondly, the power to do this, to exercise this control, has always been considered to be the prerogative of the government—the executive government. Thirdly, the exercise of such control has always been one of the most essential and the key ingredients of the very vibrant, non-discriminatory multicultural policy that we have. These not only are elements that are underpinning that which we as Australians hold dear but also are Labor values. That is why Gough Whitlam would, on the one hand, resist Vietnamese boat arrivals but, on the other, dismantle Australia's White Australia policy. That is why Bob Hawke embraced thousands of Chinese students post Tiananmen Square but resisted boat arrivals from Cambodia. That is why the Keating government could champion multiculturalism like no other government before it but, at the same time, introduce mandatory detention.

The question of control has been an important and an ongoing part of our immigration program. It is important because we believe that sovereignty is a key issue and that the very success of our multiculturalism relies upon us maintaining that control. When I look at the bill that is before the House I see that is very much consistent with these principles. Most significantly, it is about restoring the notion that control in these matters is within the hands of executive government. It should be the prerogative of executive government to determine the policies that are put in place in order to achieve that control and to maintain an orderly migration program. We all know that the High Court has taken a decision that overturned the position as we previously understood it. The opportunity now rests with this parliament to amend the law and to restore the position to that which was previously understood.

Much has been said in this debate from a number of members in their contributions about approaches that have been put in place in the past. There has been considerable attention to the efforts to manage the flow of people throughout the post-Vietnam War period. The flow of Indochinese people throughout our region and, indeed, in many cases to our shores was often held up as a great example of how these matters should be resolved. I think in some of this discussion people often misread or misrepresent what actually did occur back then. It is worth noting that at that time there were a number of boat arrivals to Australia. At that time people were accepted, processed and determined to be refugees. In total there were about 2,000 who came directly to Australia's shores by boat.

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

Order! Would honourable members on my left, if they are going to converse, do so quietly. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer has the call.

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

An important part in dealing with that challenge was that countries like Australia were involved in international efforts to resettle people who were displaced as a result of the Vietnam War and the regime that was installed as part of that war. If we have a look back into history, we see that at that time the Comprehensive Plan of Action was entered into and under that program Australia welcomed 16,800 refugees over a period of years. They were refugees that were accepted through an offshore program. They were not people who arrived by boat. They were people that this country, as part of meeting its international obligations and pulling its weight internationally, determined should be given an opportunity to start a life in Australia. I think that was an appropriate policy. It was appropriate because the Australian executive government was able to take the necessary steps in order to enact that program. That is the question that is up for debate in this bill: whether or not executive government should continue to have the ability to take decisions to control people movements into our country.

Significantly, in the context of the Vietnamese boat arrivals debate people often overlook the fact that thousands of Vietnamese people died on the high seas in the course of trying to make their way to countries like Australia. Estimates vary greatly but Elizabeth Becker in her book When the War Was Over cited UNHCR figures to suggest that some 250,000 Vietnamese people died on the high seas trying to flee their country and come to countries like ours.

The challenges that we face on the high seas and at our borders today are very different. In some respects it is easier for people to make it to the shore. It is easier for people to make it to Australia. There have been various technological developments that make it easier for people to sail even leaky boats and to get closer to Australia Even if they do not make the mainland because of our increased capacity to patrol our waters, there is a greater chance for people to make it by boat to Australia. In part that has led to an increase in the numbers of people that have been seeking to make it to Australia by boat.

I mentioned the Indochinese example of the 70s and 80s because I think the Malaysian arrangement that has been brought forward and put in place with the agreement of the Australian government and the Malaysian government is very similar in many respects. The fact that we are prepared to embrace and welcome an extra 1,000 refugees into our country each year but in doing so insist upon the ability to exercise some control over the flow of people in our region, indicates to me that this proposal is very much in keeping with the history and tradition of the way in which this country and the Labor Party have been able to manage people flows in the past.

The Malaysian arrangement has a number of key elements that protect the human rights of those that will be relocated to Malaysia to be processed there. I think it is important to acknowledge that. I know the debate that has occurred in this place around this bill has centred largely on whether or not there are sufficient protections put in place to protect the humanitarian interests of those that might be sent back to Malaysia. I also want to introduce into this debate the humanitarian interests of those that might be waiting in refugee camps in Malaysia already or those that might be waiting in refugee camps in other parts of the world.

I want to introduce into the debate the story of a Sudanese person in my electorate who has consistently approached me about the difficulties that they have been having to have a family member resettled from a refugee camp in Egypt—a person who has already been determined to be a refugee but has not yet been resettled. This has gone on for several years. I want also, on a more positive note, to reflect upon a Bhutanese refugee who, as a result of the decision of this government just a few years ago to increase our intake of refugees from Bhutan and from camps in Nepal, came to Australia. That person resides in Western Sydney as part of a growing Bhutanese community in the Greater Western Sydney region and has recently represented Australia as a soccer player. Importantly, in the latter case, I make the point that they arrived in Australia because Australia, through the exercise of control over its migration programs, has ensured that they have been given that opportunity. I think that these elements are important to preserve as part of the approach that we bring.

The principal criticism that has been raised about the arrangement with Malaysia is that it is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention. I will make a few observations on this point. Those making these criticisms were all too happy to send asylum seekers to Nauru when it had not been a signatory to the convention. They were all too happy to turn boats around on the high seas and not only risk the lives of Australian defence personnel and border protection personnel but also risk the lives of those asylum seekers—by turning them around and taking them back to Indonesia which, like Malaysia, is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention.

They are the same people who have suggested a range of other alternatives, which include sending some people back to Pakistan to process them. Pakistan is not a signatory to the UN convention. I make the point that being a signatory to the UN convention is not in itself a guarantee of human rights' protection. If we look at the list of countries that are signatories to the UN convention, we see ones that do not always have the best record on human rights. They are countries like Afghanistan, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Iran and Somalia. But what is even more instructive is the list of countries—in particular, those in our region—that are not signatories to the refugee convention. It includes Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and India. Many of these countries are source countries or transit countries for people flows in our region.

I think it is odd in the extreme to take the view that we would not be prepared to undertake offshore processing in those countries that are at the very heart of people movement challenges in our region. I understand the opposition has a policy on Nauru. I think the arguments have been very strongly made about the cost of Nauru and that people realise people smugglers are telling prospective customers of theirs, 'If you go to Nauru it will only be a short time before you end up in a country like Australia.' For these reasons I do not think Nauru will work in the way that some suggest.

Regardless of whether you support Nauru or support offshore processing in any other part of our region, to tell the executive government that they do not have the capacity to enter into an arrangement and process asylum seekers offshore in countries that are not signatories to the UN convention is to handcuff the executive government—not just the executive government of today but the executive government of the future. It means the government is not able to enter into reasonable or meaningful agreements with key nations within our region. You cannot have a regional solution if you take the position that only those that are signatories to the UN convention can be a part of it.

An important part of arrangements like the Malaysian arrangement is that it gives agencies like the UNHCR an opportunity to lift the standards available to those who are in camps like the Malaysian ones. A statement made on 25 July 2011 by the UNHCR on our Malaysian arrangement, says:

UNHCR hopes that the Arrangement will in time deliver protection dividends in both countries and the broader region. It also welcomes the fact that an additional 4000 refugees from Malaysia will obtain a durable solution through resettlement to Australia. The potential to work towards safe and humane options for people other than to use dangerous sea journeys are also positive features of this Arrangement. In addition, the Malaysian Government is in discussions with UNHCR on the registration of refugees and asylum-seekers under the planned Government programme announced in June on the registration of all migrant workers.

This is an opportunity to work with countries that are shouldering a very large part of the burden of people movements in our region. It is an opportunity for us to regain control of people movements in our region and into our country but to do it in a humane way and in a way that ensures we increase our refugee intake and deliver a strong program and a fairer opportunity for people to come to and contribute in Australia. (Time expired)

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This is an important piece of legislation for a number of reasons. The government's proposed changes to the Migration Act fail to provide the protections previously provided under the coalition's legislation and fail to properly quarantine ministerial discretion from being open to judicial interpretation. More importantly, rather than seek to uphold the protections that have been a feature of the Migration Act for over a decade now, this amendment bill gives people smugglers back their business model.

Under my colleague, then minister, and member for Berowra, the coalition established section 198A of the Migration Act to enable offshore entry persons to be processed in another country. Under that section the minister could make this declaration provided it had some essential safeguards in place. Those safeguards were very important. They were: access to effective procedures for assessing a person's need for protection; protection for persons pending determination of their refugee status; and protection to persons given refugee status while they awaited return to their own country or were resettled in another country. I hear the hypocrisy of those who speak on the other side about a humane way of doing things. It also made sure the standard of human rights was protected.

The government's response to the High Court decision has been to abolish these protections in this bill, to allow the minister to make a determination without any such protection. To support this bill in its current form the coalition would need to walk away from a decade of policy that has supported such protections contained in the act. We will not do that. Unlike this government, our policy has always been consistent and transparent. Our policy was proven to work and our policy had the experience.

This amendment highlights yet again a government failure. It flips, it flops, and it shows its inconsistency all over the place. More deeply, it goes to the heart of everything that is wrong with this government. It is not consistent, it does not have the courage of its conviction, in this area of migration policy it flops and changes its policy every second week and, deeper than that, it cannot be trusted to manage the borders of this country.

How do we know this? We know this policy does not work. It has not worked so far. We have had 241 boats turn up with over 12,000 people. So who do the Australian people trust to manage these borders? This government has had a consistent failure on record of boat arrivals. The government has embraced policy failure after policy failure and the government is now, again, coming to us, the opposition, and asking for a blank cheque for another policy that will be a failure. It wants to implement its already failed Malaysian proposal, which has led to 1,000 people turning up since it was announced. That is more than half the 800-person quota since the agreement was signed. We had a bizarre situation in parliament yesterday when the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship said to the shadow minister, the member for Cook, 'Well, if you don't think it's going to work why don't you vote for it anyway?' Have you heard of anything more absurd, more illogical and more stupid?

This government might be used to voting for very bad policy, but the coalition are not, and we are not going to vote for bad policy.

The only reason they want the bill in this form is so that they can implement the Malaysia solution. We have given them an amendment that will allow them to choose to open up the processing centre on Manus Island or on Nauru. They can choose from over 148—