Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance is terribly sad. It has been perversely amusing watching those opposite try and justify their perverse and somewhat illogical arguments associated with justifying this ridiculous matter of public importance discussion before the Senate this afternoon. It is terribly sad because it claims that the government does not have a humane border protection policy and is promoting people smuggling. That could not be further from the actual case. In fact, the government's amendments to the Migration Act that we sought to move through the parliament were particularly aimed at the issues: a more humane approach by prioritising those who are refugees waiting in UNHCR camps throughout the world, increasing the number of humane refugees that we take through our annual intake and providing an effective deterrent to the insidious trade of people smuggling.

The other perverse issue associated with this matter proposed by the opposition this afternoon is that in effect they are saying, through their actions in opposing the changes to the Migration Act, that they are opposing the principle of re-establishing offshore processing as an option for governments in Australia, be that in Nauru or Malaysia. So they are opposing the principle that we seek to re-establish in the Migration Act. This is a very emotive and very difficult issue of public policy and it is an issue that requires leadership. With the recent amendments to the Migration Act sought by the government, there was an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite to show some leadership on this very important issue. What did they do? They did what they have done in every other public policy area that has affected this country: they just said no. It was a chance to show the type of leadership that was shown by the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, in 2001 when he did support sensible amendments to the Migration Act to ensure that there was an effective deterrent to people smuggling to this country. But, no, we do not get that sort of leadership from those opposite. We just simply get 'No, no, no'.

In the wake of the High Court decision, the government took the advice of experts and sought to re-establish the principle of offshore processing as an effective deterrent to people smuggling and we did not specify a location for offshore processing in the amendments. The principle would have been re-established that the executive government of this country has the right to determine its migration policies and its border protection policies. We sought to ensure that offshore processing became legal again, so we sought to re-establish that principle. We did not specify Malaysia or Nauru or anything like that; we simply sought to re-establish that principle, the principle which could have been used by future governments, if they were to so choose—despite the fact that they have been previously advised that Nauru will not work—to establish that they could use Nauru as an option in the future. Yet the opposition opposed it. They voted against their rhetoric and their public comments about Nauru as a viable option. They voted against that principle, simply because they say no to everything and they are only out to try to attempt to damage the government.

The government took the approach that it did, in recommending those changes to the Migration Act, because we sought the advice of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Andrew Metcalfe, the head of the department, gave evidence in estimates hearings that Malaysia was the most appropriate plan to deal with this issue. And, of course, we saw the evidence of Chief of Navy, who said that Nauru and other issues might not be an effective deterrent. We did this because we know that we need to stop people getting on boats and we need to stop it being possible for people who have the money to pay for that unsafe journey. We wanted to maximise our humanitarian intake from those people that have been waiting in UNHCR camps for many years. We believe that the Malaysia agreement was a way to achieve that, and we still believe that that is the most appropriate way to do this. We believe that Nauru will not work, because the advice of the experts says that Nauru will not work. It is too costly, it is not an effective deterrent, there is no infrastructure on the island to deal with it and the overwhelming majority of genuine refugees end up in Australia— (Time expired)