Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Oh dear! There are many, many times in this chamber when I am really proud to be a representative of the Australian people and the Australian parliament. And today, on World Refugee Day—when everyone's focus is on the global trends report of the United Nations refugee agency—we are reduced to this kind of a nonsense debate about something that is a critical issue and something that we should all care about. We should not be having psychodrama nonsense carrying on. We should not be having people warning us that our words are going to come back to bite us; in fact, I think that is a lesson for everybody here.

It really is quite shameful, because we all know that this debate on border protection is about the political impasse that has been a part of this parliament since 2010. It is an issue that we have been fighting on for 12 years. We have been fighting about this since the Tampa. And, in all of that time, people have been dying. We know that. We have seen, time after time, the horrible tragedy of people who have perished at sea, the distressing footage of men, women and children losing their lives. And it is simply because at a time when all else had failed and the government had asked an independent panel to come up with a solution, a plan that would help us to break this impasse in our parliament, we were not able to get the opposition to agree to the 22 recommendations—in particular, the Malaysia solution—that would allow us to fly people back. That is our conundrum, and that is the huge moral dilemma we have.

No amount of political posturing, psychodrama, stamping of feet or screaming across the chamber is going to negate the fact that, on that side of the parliament, there is no willingness to resolve this problem. If there really was a concern about the people who are perishing at sea, then we would have people come to the table to negotiate some actions. That point was made just this week by Paris Aristotle, who spoke on 7.30. Paris Aristotle is a very decent, honourable man; we all know that. His reputation is unbelievable, and his experience working with people who have dealt with trauma and torture. He understands what motivates people to get on these boats, and he also understands what needs to be done. He made this very salient point. He was so distressed, but what he says was:

… the first thing it's going to take is for the Parliament, as a whole, not just the Government, but the Parliament as a whole to come together and agree on a strategy for addressing this issue. But it has to be a comprehensive strategy, one that builds a better regional system that engages Indonesia and Malaysia and other countries in our region to try to provide an alternative pathway but also to disrupt and intercept the activities of people smugglers. In order to reduce the numbers of people that one, feel compelled that they have to get on boats and two, don't have another option other than doing that at the moment.

So, his plea to all of us is to be a little bit more mature about our role as national legislators, to be able to actually come to the table.

We now have a week of the parliament left. We have one week to resolve this issue before this parliament is dissolved. Paris Aristotle says that this is not moral posturing, that there is an ethical dilemma here—a 'wicked' policy problem that cannot be resolved. His concern really is that because the images have disappeared from our television screens—and because the debate is now a screaming debate of 140 characters on Twitter and 'stop the boats' and all that kind of nonsense—people have lost touch with the humanitarian crisis that is happening in the world and the humanitarian challenge that we as a very developed nation need to take our fair share of. Paris Aristotle says that it does not make it any less serious, disastrous or desperate just because we are not seeing this happening. We should take our understanding that people—babies, children, women and men—are dying in large numbers and deal with that seriously and genuinely.

But I think it is the absence of the vision which is making it easier for people not to address this issue properly. That is really what he is saying. He is saying that it is not having this at the forefront of our minds which is allowing us to diminish this debate to what we are seeing in the chamber today. I am embarrassed that that is the case. I am hugely embarrassed for all of us, for all Australians who are concerned about refugees, that this debate has happened on World Refugee Day.

One of the key elements of the Malaysia solution is the capacity to fly people back. The evidence is clear that that strategy works. If we cannot fly people who are not genuine refugees back, we can at least fly them halfway. That is why the Malaysia agreement is so important. Regardless of the fluffery we hear from the opposition, we need the coalition to allow us to do that.

But we know that this is not really about good public policy, regardless of what we have heard this afternoon. It is all about the politics. On the substance, it is only at the margins that we and the coalition disagree. We both support offshore processing, we both support mandatory detention for the purposes of assessing the refugee status of asylum seekers and we both support working with Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries which are critical to stopping this hideous trade in people. We both believe that, so the substantive differences are only at the margins.

But the politics are being allowed to poison this debate. It is the coalition's overt strategy to exploit this issue for political advantage. If anyone thought that were not true, I will give you a little bit of evidence to support my claim. A quarterly essay by David Marr last year shone a light on how WikiLeaks had revealed the coalition strategy to exploit the boats in a very interesting way. The article said:

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."

So in 2009, after we had dealt with the issue of the Tampa and moved on, a senior Liberal Party strategist went to the United States embassy here in Canberra and said he thought the increase in boat numbers and boat people was fantastic—the more the better—and how disappointed they were that they had not yet worked out the wedge message.

That is why we are having this debate today. The Liberal Party refuses to allow the government to implement our policies because they see political advantage in having more boats. They see the political opportunities created for people like Senator Cash to come in here and scream nonsense down the microphone, as in the diatribe we just had to listen to.

We do not agree on everything but we should all at least agree that we have a responsibility to try to stop people dying. Senator Mason certainly expressed his concern about the people dying at sea. Nobody has the moral high ground on this issue and nobody has the moral high ground on life or death. But the government of the day should be given the power it needs to stop this from happening. Senator Thistlethwaite nailed it when he said that Kim Beazley had done just that. He gave that authority to John Howard, the Prime Minister at the time. He gave John Howard the power he needed after the Tampa incident.

But this vexatious opposition has denied the government the same rights. That is why we are having this heinous debate began. People are really sick of this. They are sick and tired of this issue. People are very concerned about what is going on, but the misinformation, the fearmongering and the tactics being used are insulting. Enough is enough. If the opposition really did care about the refugee crisis and really wanted to do something for these people who risk their lives at the hands of the people smugglers, they would be at the table seeking a genuine solution and they would be prepared to accept the fine recommendations of the people who produced the Houston report.

I want to remind people of what did work. We know that the fear of drowning at sea has not put people off—the boats keep coming. Frankly, nor has offshore processing in Nauru or Manus. What has stopped them is the threat of flying people home. We saw the group of Sri Lankan economic refugees who were put on a plane and sent home. That would have sent a very strong message to people that this is not the way to seek refugee status. The fear of death does not put people off but being sent home a few weeks after they have set sail at sea certainly does.

So what do we do now? The Prime Minister is going to Indonesia next week. She is going to have some discussions, as part of the regional strategy that came out of the Bali process, about a comprehensive plan to deal with the mass migration and mass refugee issue that is a growing crisis across the world. The UNHCR released its annual report this week, and it amounts to a reality check for the debate in Australia. The report reveals that in 2012 the refugee crisis reached levels unseen in the previous decade. I refer to an article in The Age by Michael Gordon, reporting on the UNHCR's annual report. It says:

By the end of the year, some 45.2 million people were considered forcibly displaced due to persecution, conflict and human rights violations, the highest level since 1994.

This is an indicator of the number of people desperately fleeing persecution and why we have boats coming to Australia. The article goes on:

An estimated 7.6 million people were newly displaced, either across an international border or within their own country, during 2013—the highest number in one year since 1999.

Earlier this week we heard the most appalling, devastating statistics from the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the situation in Syria and surrounding areas—a million people fleeing into Lebanon. What is Australia dealing with? A very small number in the overall scheme of things. Those UNHCR numbers equate to about 23,000 people around the world fleeing their homes every day—more than the total number of asylum seekers in Australia throughout 2012. That puts things into perspective. It is a reality check for Australia. We are a generous country, but we are 49th in the number of refugees hosted in 2012 and we ranked 11th in the number of asylum seekers who have lodged claims but have yet to receive a decision. We have to ensure that what we are doing will address this key issue.

I tried to find some alternative propositions from the conservative think tanks—an idea of what Tony Abbott and the Liberals are planning to do. I could not find anything of substance from the Menzies Research Centre or any of the conservative think tanks, but I did find the Australian Conservative Truth website. The Australian Conservative Truth is a blog 'motivated to provide the correct reality of what is going on,' and it does invite people to 'Feel free to leave your comments, and use any articles you find interesting/useful.' There was a very useful article entitled 'How the Abbott Liberals will Stop the Boats'. These are propositions from the conservative side of politics:

1. Australia will cease being a signatory to the UN Convention on refugees ...

That is a helpful one. It goes on:

2. Anyone arriving in Australia or attempting to arrive in Australia illegally will be returned to their last place of port … This would have an immediate effect on the criminal people smugglers currently freely operating out of … Malaysia … and … Indonesia.

3. Abbott will recognise the legitimacy of the democratically elected Buddhist government of Sri Lanka, and all illegal Sri Lankans will be returned without delay.

4. Malaysia and Indonesia will face harsh diplomatic, foreign aid and trade sanctions should they continue to allow the illegal people trafficking operations through their countries …

5. The Australian Crime Commission will advise the Abbott Liberals that proponents of sharia law … are in fact engaged in criminal … activities … in pursuing and advocating sharia Law in Australia. Islam will be outlawed …

6.The Abbott Liberals will stop funding the people smugglers … and will cease all welfare payments to all and any illegal immigrants.

7. The Abbott Liberals will arrest any groups and people associated with organising the illegal people trade.

8. Australia will no longer participate in the worldwide people-trafficking industry, currently masquerading as a humanitarian refugee program.

The article goes on and on. The problem I see in finding something like this as one of the top search results for what an Abbott government would do to stop the boats is that there is no information—there are spurious claims by Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison and members of the coalition that they have the answers. We know that is simply not true. There is no way that we can stop the boats when people are in such a desperate state without addressing the comprehensive framework that has been put in place by the Bali process and which enables us to engage with the Indonesian government, which the Prime Minister is going to do, and with the Malaysian government, which the Prime Minister is seeking to do but cannot get the support of the opposition.

I challenge Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison, if they are serious about trying to address the issue of people smuggling and illegal boat arrivals, to sit down with the government before this parliament rises next week and talk this through.