Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I did check the diary today to see what day it was just to remind myself which particular section 75 debate we would have, because if you look at the record over the last several months one day per sitting we have had words very similar to those used today. I think there are three words that are different today but it is the same process.

Senator Cash interjecting—

I'm sorry; maybe you should check for the next sitting Tuesday so that we can get those words accurate—so we know, so we can get the rhetoric right. I have listened to the debates very carefully, I have taken part in a few of them, and it is really great to have the consistency of the rhetoric, even down to the point of making sure that someone, somewhere gets some guts. We are consistently reminded of that.

I really strongly believe that these issues are so important that we must continue to discuss, we must continue to find a solution that will be something that the whole of the parliament can share. But, in that process, what truly disturbs me is that, every time the opposition put up this motion, they begin with an announcement that we have to secure Australia's borders and the process seems to indicate, and we have seen it over many years, a visual picture of Australia being under attack, being invaded. They build up the fear, they build up the rhetoric and they put in place a view that any discussion of the serious issues of asylum seekers in our nation and in our world should be derailed by the premise that we are already in a warlike situation.

This is not new from the opposition. We have seen elections fought using this process. At no time has there been any attempt to hide the number of boats, to mislead with numbers. In fact, what we see is an agreed process whereby when a boat is found to be coming towards Australia that is announced openly to the world. We are told that a boat has been found, we are told how many people are on it and we are told what the process will be. It is not exactly a clandestine, secret operation. In terms of the numbers that have been thrown around in this chamber, we can determine exactly what numbers there were, how many people were involved. These are people who are seeking asylum; we must remember that. We are looking at that issue, and as a country and as a parliament we need to come up with a process under which we take due respon­sibility as a nation. We must take that responsibility. There is no doubt about that.

I cannot explain how pleased I was to have a lecture in this asylum debate today about compassion in processing people. I totally support that. That word, that process and that value should have seen a higher level of debate in this place over the past number of years. That needs to be on the agenda—treating people with compassion. Certainly that is something that will be part of any decision, of any agreement.

Once again, the rhetoric is very important. In the previous speaker's contribution we did not hear about international negotiations, we did not hear about discussions that were held openly between nations to come up with a solution, including at the recent Bali conference. That was a conference; it was not some kind of poker game where people were sitting around making deals. Again, colouring the debate, ensuring that instead of listening to what was happening, instead of understanding the seriousness of the issue, it is better to marginalise, to use rhetoric which takes the focus away from the issue, and also to give those quick one-liners that can be picked up so easily in the media, that can be used to scare, to terrify, to make people genuinely afraid.

What we have had over the period of the Rudd and Gillard governments is an acknowledgement that there is a real issue of asylum seekers in our region. We have also identified as a country that, based on international circumstances, it is an issue not only in our region. The issue of asylum seekers, people fleeing to seek another place to live because of conditions in their homelands, is something that countries are struggling with, making negotiations about and working to come to solutions on across the whole world.

It is no different in the Asia-Pacific region. In fact, what has been acknowledged in the Asia-Pacific region is that because of a number of key issues over the past few years in our region—including the continuing war on Afghanistan, the issues in Sri Lanka, what is happening around the Iranian issue and, most particularly in the past couple of years, the uncertainty in Pakistan—more people are fleeing into the Asia-Pacific area.

So what has our government done? We have said that we wish to work with the other countries in our region to come up with a regional solution. This is similar in some ways to the negotiations, the commitment that governments have made towards the good work that has been done in the past on trafficking and people-smuggling, where we have been able to work with other nations to make sure that everybody has acknowledged and accepted their own responsibilities. What has been referred to as the Malaysian deal, which is an agreement between two countries, is premised on the fact that there is an issue in our region. No-one denies that one of the key points in the journey that people take in this region is Malaysia. They have a significant problem. More than 90,000 people in the Malaysian Peninsula have been identified as seeking asylum.

There is a real need for all countries in our region to understand their responsibilities. We have made a commitment that we will, as a signatory to the international conven­tion, work within that framework to come up with a solution. It is true Malaysia and other nations in our region have not yet signed up to that convention, and that is a serious gap in the process. Labor was absolutely scathing of the coalition government and our policies, especially the Pacific solution, and vowed to end them in government. The fact is they worked. We controlled our borders and it was the Australian government who decided who was to come to Australia. An the infamous words from some, but for us a statement of how it is, I can recall John Howard's words:

We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.

Of course, we look back now. That is not the case at all, is it? It is not only the people smugglers that are going to make this decision nowadays—we know that the responsibility has now gone to them—but now it is also, I understand, the Malaysian government. They have obviously done a pretty good deal on this.

I would like to touch for a moment on the contribution from Senator Moore in regard to our policies and that somehow they lack compassion. I would remind Senator Moore and those on the other side that I do not think there is a lot of compassion in a policy that allows people to place the lives of women, children and men on boats that we saw demonstrated at Christmas Island in December on that fateful, tragic day. As a consequence of getting on their boat, so many lives were lost in a pretty horrific way. I do not think you can say that it is not compassionate to ensure that under the UNHCR those people with the highest priority in the world come first. That is the idea. There are 50 million people seeking a migration outcome. We must give the priority to those most in need, and we have identified those people who are leading in abject poverty and misery in the Horn of Africa. The majority of those refugees on boats are not priority refugees, because they can least afford to get on a vessel and to pick a forum.

So what is the latest bumbling attempt to empty our detention centres with the proposal to ship 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia? Well, in return we are going to receive 4,000 refugees picked for us specially in Malaysia. If this plan were cooked up by anyone else, people would have dismissed it as a bad joke. Unfortun­ately, it is real and only could be put down to a desperate and incompetent government. A one-off deal: 800 out, 4,000 in and, by the way, we get to pay every single way. Who could possibly have sat down and said, 'This is in Australia's national interest. You can have 800 of ours, we'll take 4,000 yours and we'll pay everything that is going for.'? I mean, really, spare me.

I understand that the media originally said that this was going to be a two-for-one swap, but such was the strength of the negotiating capacity of the Labor Party, we actually managed to back it up to five to one! If that is not an act of desperation I don't know what is. Malaysia seriously saw the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen coming. That is a complete act of desperation. They have actually got to settle 4,000 refugees in another country at no cost and only had to take 800 people in return, with Australia also footing the bill for that process. Wouldn't it be great if we could do a deal like that?

I can recall them saying that this is going to stop the boats. I can tell you what it will do. It will make sure that boats arrive in a different place—called mainland Australia, mark my words. This is a sophisticated place to play in and you need sophisticated policies that are able to respond. They will not be going to Christmas Island; they will be coming to mainland Australia. If you live where I live—in Darwin—or in Broome in Western Australia, they will be the sort of things to look out for. I am not sure, again, that that is in our interests.

It does appear to be that, once again, it is only really pride and vanity that prevent this hopeless, incompetent, weak and indecisive government from picking up the phone and actually doing a deal that has been there forever. Ring up the President of Nauru. They have the facilities—again, run by IMO. We have a senator shaking his head on the other side—'No doubt it is because they are not actually a signatory of the convention.' Well, sir, neither is Malaysia.

I think the meltdown of the borders is completely emblematic of the government's weak, indecisive nature. You are not capable of making a decision—we know that right across the board. But even when it you come to make decisions you give away our national interest in the process. Weak and indecisive. It will never do. (Time expired)