Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. What steps is the government taking in the parliament to protect offshore processing of asylum seekers? Why is it important for this issue to be resolved in a timely manner?

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

I thank the member for Greenway for her question. As the parliament meets today, Australians are paying attention to what happens in this parliament; and so are people smugglers. They are looking to see whether or not this House of Representatives today sends a message of resolve to protect Australia's borders or whether it sends a very different message.

A little bit earlier this week the opposition appeared to understand that dealing with the amendments to the Migration Act was indeed a matter of some urgency, and they appeared to understand that it was the kind of matter on which the government and the opposition should work together. So, for example, we have seen the shadow minister for immigration, who represents the opposition on the question, saying in this place and beyond that they would be prepared to work with the government in order to deal with this legislation in an expedited way. Of course, that was the position of the opposition until it came to the moment to get it done; but now it is clear that the opposition will filibuster this bill, that they will drag it out and that they want to make sure that the message sent to people smugglers is that Australia is open for business. The opposition want to see more boats arriving on our nation's shores for the sake of their base political interests.

I am asked what the national interest requires in this circumstance. The national interest requires that executive government have the power it needs to implement the offshore processing arrangements that it believes to be the best. Throughout this whole issue, the government have never sought to say to the opposition that they should endorse the government's plan. But what we have said to the opposition consistently is that they should pass amendments to the Migration Act which would put this government in the same position that the Howard government was in, with the freedom to act that that implies. Instead of that, the Leader of the Opposition has engaged, of course, in reckless negativity every step of the way. He has been asked to choose between the national interest and his personal political interest, and on every occasion—including today—in the handling of this debate his personal interest has come first.

That is not leadership, and on an issue of this importance it is not what should be dominating the views of the opposition. What should be dominating the views of the opposition is ensuring that government can act to protect our borders and that our government can act to protect genuine refugees. The Leader of the Opposition at every stage has had the best of the expert advice to government, but despite that he continues to peddle a solution that he has been advised will not work. He continues to deny the expert advice that Malaysia is the strongest deterrence message we can send. Why is he doing that? It is not because he is confused; it is because he wants to send a green light to people smugglers because he wants more boats.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the following statement in today's Financial Review. It reads:

After a decade of policy failure, Gillard needs to reject this nonsense and embrace the proven success of the Howard government strategy: offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island and the reintroduction of temporary protection visas. As ever in public policy, what matters is what works.

Why does the Prime Minister continue to insist on the Malaysia people-swap deal when even former Labor leaders such as Mark Latham are able to see that it is an inferior policy?

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

I say to the Leader of the National Party that I agree with him: what matters is what will work. The Leader of the Opposition has sat with the same experts who advised the Howard government—and this cannot be denied, and the Leader of the Opposition has never denied it because he cannot deny it as it is an undeniable truth—and sought from them the best of their expert advice in the same way as this government does, and they have advised him that the Malaysia plan has the best deterrence value. So if, as the Leader of the National Party says—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the Leader of the Nationals' question was about the Prime Minister's views; yet for some reason she obsessively talks about the Leader of the Opposition, about whom she was not asked. Yesterday and all last week you made it clear that these answers—

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

The Prime Minister will respond in a directly relevant manner to the question.

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

I was asked about what works, and I am indicating to the Leader of the National Party what is the expert advice we have and the opposition have. So I ask the Leader of the National Party, if he is genuinely interested in what works: why is the opposition repudiating that expert advice? Why aren't they listening in opposition to the same experts that they listened to when in government? Why indeed do they go out and trash that advice and deny its force publicly? They cannot deny they have received it, but certainly through these questions and the things they say publicly they seek to deny the force of that advice? Why do they do that? There is only one answer, and that is that, in this debate, they are actually not at all concerned about what works; it never enters their mind what works. In fact, they want to make sure that the most effective policy this country can have today is denied this government, and they want to do that because they are motivated by their base political instinct.

The Leader of the National Party asked me about opinions in today's newspapers, and I thank him for that, because my eyes have gone to an opinion in today's newspapers, too. Former state Liberal leader Bill Hassell, in the West Australian says:

What seems to be possible now is to "stop the boats", to use the catchcry of Tony Abbott from the last Federal election.

Now the objective is within grasp it seems Mr Abbott and the coalition may stymie it.

That is, they spent all of the last election campaign saying that they stood—

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The Prime Minister will resume her seat. To moderate the behaviour of the whole chamber means that everybody has to moderate in every section of question time, and I would invite the Prime Minister to directly relate her material to the question asked.

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

Hear, hear!

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

Order! The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I was asked about effective policy and what works, and I am drawing the House's attention to a directly relevant statement in today's newspapers. That statement is from Bill Hassell, a former Liberal leader. He says:

The Opposition is baulking. It suggests that the only solution is the one it favours, which is offshore processing in Nauru.

It suggests, apparently in distinction from the Government's legal advice … that the Nauru solution can be achieved within the parameters of the High Court decision on the Malaysian solution.

The article goes on to say how false these views are and then says that the opposition 'should not seek to insist on an outcome which amounts to the implementation of coalition policy,' and:

The national interest demands a solution to the constant flow of boat people.

So I say to the Leader of the National Party that, if he is truly concerned about what works, he will direct members of the National Party to vote with the government and to vote in favour of the government's amendments to the Migration Act so that we can implement the policy that the experts who advise this government and the former government tell us has the maximum likelihood of working. That is what he should do in the national interest.

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

My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Will the minister outline the importance of the government's legislative amendments to the Migration Act for the delivery of effective border protection and asylum seeker policies?

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

Today the House is, of course, debating the amendments to the Migration Act, introduced by the government. We believe that this government and future governments should have the ability to manage Australia's borders in the national interest.

Today the House faces a choice: do we walk away from the progress made with regional partners over the last year or do we not? Do we walk away from the first opportunity in a long time to increase our humanitarian intake and give people who cannot or will not use a people smuggler the chance of a better life in Australia or do we not? Will we give the green light to people smugglers and say that it is okay for people who can afford a people smuggler or wish to use a people smuggler to feel that they will have a preferential chance of resettlement in Australia or do we not? Do we walk away from the regional framework negotiated in Bali or do we not? These are the questions facing the House today.

We know the Leader of the Opposition likes to say no. Today he can say no. He can say, 'No, we won't walk away.' The Leader of the Opposition can say that he disagrees with the government on so many things, as is his right and as is his role, but he agrees that people risking their lives on high seas is above politics and he can show leadership. He can say that Australia's national leaders should work together.

The Leader of the Opposition says, 'You can have any model of offshore processing you like'—provided it is his model. The Leader of the Opposition says the government of the day should have the power to implement its policies—providing it is a government that he leads.

The Australian people will judge a political party that says that it is okay to send boats to a country that is not a signatory to the refugee convention and with no protections negotiated, but you cannot send planes to a country that has given commitments and undertakings to the Australian government. That underlines the hypocrisy and the approach of this opposition.

Mr Simpkins interjecting—

The Australian people will be able to judge a political party that says that it cares about human rights but that it would be okay to send asylum seekers to Zimbabwe or the Congo or, yes, even Iran. The Australian people will judge a political party that says that it believes in offshore processing but it will not vote to make it law.

Mr Simpkins interjecting—

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

The member for Cowan will leave the chamber under 94A for one hour. If he believes that he can act like a foghorn on Sydney Harbour and not be disturbing the person with the call, I would like to see how he could argue that way.

The member for Cowan then left the chamber.

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

This is about every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the National Party walking into this chamber to vote against offshore processing. As the Prime Minister has said, today we have heard from Bill Hassell, the former leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. He disagrees with the Leader of the Opposition. He says:

… allowing the Government of the day to govern, to have the legislation that it put up adopted by the Parliament seems to me what should and must occur.

He goes on:

The Australian public will not thank the Opposition for more boats and onshore processing, the inevitable outcome of their unholy alliance with the Greens.

Every member of this House knows there is a time and a place for politics. We are all practitioners of that art. But there is also a time and a place for leadership in the national interest. That time is today and the place is this chamber.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise whether the government will continue to receive the additional 4,000 refugees at a cost of $216 million from Malaysia, regardless—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Bennelong has the call. He should be heard in silence and then I would be able to know what he was asking so that I could then adjudicate whether the response was directly relevant.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Will the government continue to receive the additional 4,000 refugees at a cost of $216 million from Malaysia, regardless of whether they are able to proceed with their Malaysian people swap? If so, will those refugees form part of the current humanitarian program or be in addition to the current intake?

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

I remain determined to implement our arrangement with Malaysia and, in that determination, I remain determined to give 4,000 genuine refugees, who are in Malaysia now and have been appropriately processed, a new life. Many of them have waited for years for a chance at a new life. But, yes, I do want to implement the Malaysia arrangement in its entirety—that is, I want to take the action we have been advised will be the most effective to deter people from getting on leaky boats, so that we do have the transfer arrangement with Malaysia and we do take 4,000 people and give them a new life.

To the member for Bennelong who asked this question, I do ask him to reflect on this: what is wrong with the government having the power it needs to implement the plan it believes is the best to give 4,000 people a new life, properly provided for, costed and appropriated within the government's budget? What is wrong with that? Apparently the only thing that is wrong with that, from the point of view of the opposition, is that it does not serve their base political interest. So the opposition, if it continues on the course that it is on now, will deny this country the ability to process asylum seekers offshore. The opposition will have on its conscience the increase in the number of boats that set sail to this country. They will have this on their conscience having facilitated people smugglers by sending them a message that this country is open for business. The government remains determined to implement the Malaysian arrangement. If the member is concerned about people who are genuine refugees getting a new life, he should vote for the Migration Act amendments.