Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is an afternoon of an MPI where we stand in this chamber and debate the issue of asylum seekers and immigration policy in this country, and we hear endlessly, minute after minute, relentless and reckless negativity from those opposite. They throw about figures and numbers endlessly. Their negativity is endless. They never have a policy, a solution or a suggestion about how they are going to deal with this in any measured way.

The opposition are not about people; they are about the politics of this situation. So here we have another MPI that talks about stopping the boats. It suits those opposite this afternoon if the boats are not stopped. It suits their politics to ensure that they are not part of a solution when it comes to people seeking asylum in this country. We heard clearly this afternoon in the contributions of the people opposite that they are not about any humanitarian concern for the people who may be seeking asylum. They are not about any concern for people who lose their lives as they get on those boats and cross those horrific waters. They are not about any concern for people like my constituents on Christmas Island who have to manage the tragedies—as the boats smash into the rocks before their eyes and they are helpless to do anything about it.

What we have done on our side of politics, and what the Labor Party have done, is sought to find a solution to the problem. We are concerned about the people who continue to get on these boats in a desperate attempt to get a better life for themselves but who also risk their lives trying to get this country. We want to work to find a solution. We had a solution and that was to prefer the Malaysia agreement. Our preference was to actually go for the Malaysia agreement. The opposition had a preference, we thought, of Nauru.

In trying to broker a compromise in the last 12 months, we actually put aside our politics to find a solution. The way we did that was to gather together three eminent people in this country, including the former head of the Defence Force and Paris Aristotle. Three people put together the report which has now become known as the Houston report. Angus Houston chaired that panel, the former head of our Defence Force.

In a way, to compromise a solution, we went out there and got three eminent people to put together a review to get around the country and have a look at all of the options—our ideas and the coalition's ideas—and come up with a report.

Senator Polley interjecting—

What we find at the end of the day is that that is exactly right, Senator Polley; they are not happy. They are still not happy because they want to play politics. They do not want to find a solution to the problem of people getting on a boat, risking their lives and dying in an attempt to get to this country. We want to put aside the politics and work together; the opposition wants to continue to reject that idea. The opposition started with Nauru and we wanted to start with Malaysia. We have put aside our idea of Malaysia and we have started with Nauru in an effort to compromise. That is the only thing at the time that the opposition would support.

Liberal Party policy has three arms to it: they want Nauru and this offshore processing to occur, they want TPVs brought back in and they want to turn back the boats. The Houston report examined the proposals in the opposition's policy forum and supported only one of those, which was to open the Nauru processing centre and to go back to offshore processing starting with Nauru, as we have compromised on.

There were 22 recommendations all up, and we as a government have said we have to support those 22 recommendations. If we are going to be serious about finding a solution, about putting in place a workable definition to stop people risking their lives in getting to this country, we need to accept the advice of those three eminent Australians and put in place all of the 22 recommendations. I have not heard anybody from the opposition suggest for one minute that they would support all of the 22 recommendations and accept that package as it is. Those opposite want to continue to play politics, picking the eyes out of certain bits and pieces of it because it suits them politically as they head to the polls in next year's election. It suits them to not have a humanitarian solution. It suits them not to care or have any concern about the people who are risking their lives in trying to get here.

The proof was revealed in David Marr's quarterly essay on Tony Abbott. On page 36 David Marr had this to say:

WikiLeaks told us how keen the Coalition is to exploit the boats. In late 2009, in the dying days of Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the Opposition, a "key Liberal party strategist" popped in to the US embassy in Canberra to say how pleased the party was that refugee boats were, once again, making their way to Christmas Island. The issue was 'fantastic', he said. And, 'the more boats that come the better'. But he admitted they had yet to find a way to make the issue work in their favour: his research indicated only a 'slight trend' towards the Coalition.

This is living proof, in black and white, of political strategists walking into the US embassy in Canberra in late 2009 and admitting that this is an issue the coalition wants to play politics with, not resolve. It is a very dark side of the debate, but it is an obvious side for those opposite and the lack of policies they have for finding this solution themselves.

We know that in 2009 they were opposed to Nauru. Sharman Stone, the former shadow minister for immigration, said on Lateline back in April:

We don't need the Pacific Solution now, that's Nauru Island and Manos Island, because we have the Christmas Island centre completed. … So we don't need alternatives to Nauru and Manos island …

On Insiders in October 2009 she went on to say:

No we don't need the Pacific Solution with Nauru, Manus Island now because of course we built Christmas Island as an offshore detention facility.

One minute those opposite want Nauru; the next minute they do not. Now, suddenly, in 2012, they want Nauru again. It used to be Labor Party policy. We are not quite sure what the Labor Party policy is now—