Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard government's continued failure to secure Australia's borders to secure Australia's borders and introduce policies to deny people smugglers the product they sell.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened very carefully to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in his answers to some of the questions he was asked today in question time, and I caught the phrase 'sleazy deal', which I will have another look at when I review the Hansard tomorrow. But I have to say for the minister's information that the only sleazy deal that is actually being done is the deal that is being done by the Gillard government with the government of Malaysia: 'We'll give you 800; however, in return we'll take another 4,000.'

This government has shown the people of Australia that there is no principle that it is not willing to break, no promise it is not willing to not keep and no policy that it is not willing to shred in the interests of staying in power. Based on what we have seen with the latest thought bubble coming out of the Prime Minister, the Malaysian deal, Australians can only assume that the Prime Minister of Australia must wake up each morning and say to herself: 'What do I believe in today? What spin or tall story can I give to the media so that they can tell the people of Australia that maybe I have some form of idea or policy, even if those ideas or policies have a shelf life of approximately 24 hours?' This is no better reflected than in the deal that has been done by the Gillard government, the so-called Malaysian deal: the deal where we send one asylum seeker to Malaysia and in return the Malaysian government sends us five back. That is the deal that has been struck by the Gillard government.

I have to say the absolute absurdity of this deal was summarised quite beautifully today in a cartoon in the Advocate newspaper on page 15. The cartoon is of the Prime Minister, and it has a thought bubble coming from her head which says: 'Hee hee! We trade their 4,000 for our 800 and we throw in $290 million, and the Malaysians fell for it.' That sums up the state of this deal that the Gillard government has done with the Malaysians.

But, on top of that, what Australians need to understand is that they pay for everything under this deal. The Malaysians are not going to be paying for anything. We have negotiated a deal whereby we give, we take back even more and we pay for both the giving and the taking. For every refugee that we are going to be giving back to Malaysia, Australians will have paid $90,000, and for every refugee that we will be taking from Malaysia to Australia Australian taxpayers will have paid approximately $54,000. That is absolutely absurd, but I have to say that, if I were the government of Malaysia, I would have snapped up the deal. I would have snapped it up and then I would have turned to the Prime Minister and I would have said, 'Are there any other deals that you'd like to do today?' because I am quite sure that, with the way that that Prime Minister negotiates, there was certainly a deal to be had by the Malaysian government.

The coalition is not against genuine refugees seeking asylum in Australia. What we are against, however, is an incompetent government that has absolutely no idea whatsoever about maintaining the integrity of Australia's borders. The so-called Malaysian deal—on top of the potential to do the deal with PNG, on top of the fact that the Nauruan government would actually like the phone picked up for a call to them and on top of the fact that we also had East Timor thrown in the mix at one stage—represents nothing more and nothing less than a panicked announcement by a Prime Minister who realised that she was running out of options very quickly and the only policies that actually worked were the policies of the former Howard government. Because the details are so lacking under the Malaysian deal, the Prime Minister of Australia cannot even tell the Australian people which refugees we will be getting from Malaysia and, more so, which refugees we will be sending to Malaysia. The Prime Minister of Australia has refused to rule out whether or not pregnant females, children, the elderly and people who have disabilities seeking asylum in Australia will be sent to Malaysia as part of the deal that was struck with them. If this is true, it is possibly the most inhumane move I have ever heard from any government. It is an absolute disgrace.

What is worse is the utter hypocrisy from the Labor Left, because it was reported in the newspapers today that this Malaysian deal—despite the lack of detail, despite the obvious flaws and despite the complete disregard of a humanitarian approach—has been accepted by the left wing of the Labor Party. If that is true—and we have no reason to doubt it is not—there is only one conclusion that can be reached about the Labor Left: they have trashed their principles and they have let the Prime Minister of Australia walk all over them and throw out their core values. Clearly, they do not have the guts to stand up to the Prime Minister and tell her that she is wrong. The members and senators of the Labor Left should be ashamed. They are being ignored and they are being ridiculed by the Prime Minister of Australia. In fact, the Australian newspaper today reports that left faction convenor Doug Cameron initially had reservations about the plan but Senator Cameron, who tackled Ms Gillard on the issue at yesterday's caucus meeting, said he had come to see it as an innovative solution. It must have been a pretty pathetic tackle if the outcome is that the Labor Left have rolled over, had their tummies tickled by the Prime Minister and have accepted that the Malaysian deal is in some way innovative.

Which part of the deal do the so-called Labor Left see as innovative? Is it the part where for every one asylum seeker we get five back? They probably do like that part of the deal. Is it the part where the Prime Minister has refused to rule out the deportation of pregnant women and children and has refused to rule out the deportation of the elderly or the infirm? Perhaps the Labor Left really like the part where the Prime Minister of Australia said, 'We are going to do a deal with Malaysia, even though last year I am on the record as saying that I will rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the refugee convention.' We all know that Malaysia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. Perhaps the Labor Left were won over by Malaysia's alleged undertaking that asylum seekers will not be sent back to the country that they are fleeing from. All I can say to the left wing of the Labor Party is that I hope that statement by the government of Malaysia is not one with the same substance as the statement by Prime Minister Gillard the day before the scheduled election last year when she said to the people of Australia, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' We all know what happened as soon as the Prime Minister assumed office—she changed tack.

To the Labor Left: you have rolled over just like you did on the pay equity deal. You rolled over and you played dead. You did not have the guts to stand up and, just like that, you have done the same here. You have rolled over and you are betraying your constituency by agreeing to the Malaysian solution. You are now endorsing the Prime Minister of Australia's game of Pacific bingo. What Pacific island will the Prime Minister come up with next? We have had East Timor for months and months. East Timor was the be-all and end-all for the Labor Party. That was going to be the saviour policy for the Labor Party. We on this side had consistently said it was never going to happen, and every time we said that what did the Labor Party tell us? We were wrong. And now it has been absolutely, completely and utterly ruled out not only by the East Timorese but also by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen. East Timor is done and dusted.

What did we have in the press the other day? We had PNG. We had the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizen­ship, Andrew Metcalfe, making a quick and quiet trip up to PNG to have a chat with the PNG government about whether or not we should reopen Manus Island, despite what the Labor Party has said about Manus Island in the past. Lo and behold! Before the dust had even settled on the newspapers, the Malaysian deal was struck, allegedly. According to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr, it is going to be struck within the next few weeks—signed, sealed and delivered. On top of that, we have Nauru in the mix—the only country that wants the Prime Minister to pick up the phone and say, 'Can we bring refugees to you?' The Prime Minister refuses to deal with them.

This is a government that is in complete disarray. This is a government that has a minister whose department is failing to tell him what is going on in the detention centres. We have a Prime Minister and a Labor government that is so desperate that it will do anything and say anything and accept any deal in an attempt to get itself out of the mess it is in.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to give the opposition some credit for trying. They are desperately trying to do everything they can and say everything they can to try and make the arrangements that this government has entered into with the Malaysian government not work. They are desperately hoping that they do not work, and they are desperately hoping that there is no way that this government can intercept the intentions of the people smugglers. I have to disappoint the opposition. If they do not understand how this system is going to work, let me tell them. The point of the arrangements—

Senator McGauran interjecting—

Senator McGauran, with his interjection just then, clearly does not understand the logistics a people smuggler will have to deal with. That is, they will have to convince clients in Indonesia that paying the people smuggler money to put them on a boat to Australia will not have them end up in Malaysia. It is curious, isn't it, that there has been a focus on the numbers as if this is some sort of slave trade—as if it is trading person for person. This government is serious about—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Perhaps, Senator Brandis, you will shut your mouth and listen for a change. You are pretty good at opening it.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Yes, it is pretty ugly, Senator Brandis, when you yell across the chamber persistently.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The interjections are just far too much. I would ask senators to desist.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. The fact of the matter is that this opposition is treating the arrangements as if it is some human bargain—as if a person-for-person arrangement is a fair trade. This is not about a trade. This is, on the one hand, this govern­ment accepting Australia as a developed country with substantial resources has the capacity to receive refugees who have been through the appropriate process—and, after all, wasn't that the proposition which the former government advanced as justifying the Pacific solution? This government is saying: 'Let's get the UNHCR working in Malaysia. Let's get the UNHCR involved in Malaysia—and the IOM. Let's get an assessment of people who have been waiting there for years'—and we are told there are over 93,000 of them—'and let's make a small contribution and accept 4,000 of them and for Malaysia to make a contribution to what has been agreed on a regional basis in the Pacific region, and that is: let's find a way to disrupt the people smuggler arrangements which lead to a train of people moving from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran through this region looking for sanctuary, predom­inately in Australia.' So there is nothing wrong with the government's proposal to find a way to get the Malaysian government to become involved in a regional solution to disrupt the activities of people smugglers. But, of course, we are reminded of the coalition's Pacific solution—we were told that all we had to do was pick up the phone and we could have returned to it. We could have made an arrangement with Nauru about what was once perhaps but is not now a ready-to-function destination for potential refugees.

What did the UNHCR say about the Pacific solution anyway? I think it was Richard Towle, the spokesman for the UNHCR who said:

Australia was obviously looking at ways to divest itself of some of the responsibilities of dealing with refugees.

That is: the former government was seeking to divest Australia of its responsibilities to deal with refugees. That is what he said. He went on to say:

The countries that were negotiated, Nauru and PNG at that time, did not have a refugee issue of their own and largely became places were Australia was able to manage its own protection responsibilities under the convention.

So it was not a regional burden-sharing arrangement at all. It was much more of a responsibility-shifting arrangement. And that's why we think they are not only philosophically but also in the way they were implemented they're quite different types of arrangements.

He said the latter reflecting on the proposed arrangements, those to which there has been in-principle agreement between the Australian government and the Malaysian government. I say again: Australia is in the position to accept refugees and there are refugees who satisfy the test and are waiting for an opportunity and looking for an opportunity to come to a country such as Australia. Over many years Australia has accepted its responsibility. I believe—unless someone tells me this is not the case—that this is a bipartisan policy between the opposition and the government. We both agree that this country has the capacity to accept refugees, has a responsibility to accept refugees and is prepared to accept refugees who go through a process of seeking asylum from outside of our borders.

What has this put in place? It puts in place arrangements where, on the one hand, those refugees languishing in Malaysia will get an enhanced opportunity to come to Australia if they satisfy the necessary tests. On the other hand, people smugglers, particularly in Indonesia, will be faced with the problem of convincing those who hitherto would have paid the money to come to Australia that in fact they are not paying the money to go backwards and end up in Malaysia. Self-evidently, that is a proposition which will cause a great deal of trouble to the people smugglers in Indonesia.

Of course it was the government's hope to negotiate such an arrangement with East Timor. I am happy to say that, although East Timor does not find itself able to move down that path, Malaysia does. The government has also announced that it has in train discussions with other countries about broadening the scope for such a policy, because, at the end of the day—and I think this was also the policy of the coalition—this problem is not just an Australian problem; it is a problem for the region. There are refugees in Indonesia. There are refugees in Malaysia. In the future, one suspects, there will be refugees looking to go to countries such as Papua New Guinea as their economy improves, particularly as the mining sector grows and there is more wealth and opportunities there. There will be other islands in the Pacific which will be seen as destinations for refugees.

So it is a regional problem and it is a problem that is developing. It is a problem that is not going to go away just by Australia trying to shift its responsibilities, as the Pacific solution did, by shifting those people to places of detention in Nauru and PNG with no other solution available.

The fact that the UNHCR and the Malaysian government have embraced this approach, given Malaysia's history on refugees, shows just what a substantial breakthrough this arrangement is and just what sort of deterrent this will be for the people smugglers in the future.

On 8 February, the UNHCR spoke about the previous Nauru situation and the then closure of that centre the UNHCR said:

… in our view, today's closure of the centre on Nauru signals the end of a difficult chapter in Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Many bona fide refugees caught by the policy spent long periods of isolation, mental hardship and uncertainty – and prolonged separation from their families.

The reality was of course that many of those people ultimately found their way either to Australia or New Zealand. So all that that arrangement did was defer the inevitable—that genuine refugees would find a location and that, being in our region, the likelihood was that it would be Australia or New Zealand.

I note Senator Scullion talked about the cost of arrangements with Malaysia. We were paying substantial amounts of money to the Nauruan government and the government in PNG for them to operate facilities on our behalf as well as paying for the cost of the operation. So let them not say on the one hand that we are spending money on arrangements with Malaysia, when they spent money, on just the same basis, when they wanted to locate refugees in Nauru and PNG when they were in government. So it really is a bit hypocritical of those who would argue that we should not be paying that money, when one looks at the performance of the previous government.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a senator whose term finishes on 1 July, like mine does. Senator O'Brien, you did not have to lapse into every single cliche—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, please address your remarks through the chair.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Brien did not have to lapse into every possible cliche. He did not have to put up with this so-called Malaysian policy that was not run through the caucus or the cabinet, yet again. He does not have to put up with the insult of the government towards him and his backbench. He does not have to do that, given his limited term here; yet he did. Like every other speaker on the other side, you, Senator O'Brien, are probably someone who did not have to and should not have, and you may as well say you have wasted your public life in this place if you really believe a word you said. None of you do.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, please address your remarks through the chair, not directly to other senators.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So I should keep looking at you.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not have to look at me, Senator McGauran, but you need to address your remarks through me.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I like to spray it all around the chamber—but I want you to know that, at all times, I am addressing you, through you, about Senator O'Brien. Have we got that?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you; I am relieved. Please continue.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good. Anyway, that is what he chooses to do in his dying days of politics and being a parliamentarian. What a shame, because you know as well as everyone—everyone on that side knows—that this is a case of 'here we go again'. This is not the East Timor solution. This is not the people's assembly. This is not the Papua New Guinea deal. This is the Malaysian deal. It is a new one. It is a brand new deal that you knew nothing about. Cabinet did not know. You are taking it all over again from your leadership. You do not have to; you should not. It is no way to run a government, it is no way to run a country and it is no way to serve in public office at all. Sooner or later you have got to stand up to that.

I heard one speaker mention the 'consistency of this debate'. You bet it is consistent; it has been going on for years. Let me read to you, for the purposes of those on broadcast, what this debate is about. They will recognise the terms of this debate, because it has been going on since 2008. It reads: 'The Gillard government’s continued failure to secure Australia’s borders and introduce policies to deny people smugglers the product they sell'. It is a consistent debate, and we have been consistent in putting up the policies to fix the problem. We have been consistent in bringing the government to account. It is the government's inconsistency and policy failure after policy failure. The only consistency is that the leadership will announce it, when you know nothing about it, and within 24 hours you have to walk in here and defend it. You are given your riding instructions, you are given your dot points and you dutifully undertake the defence of the indefensible.

Quite often I come into this place singing the praises of Senator Doug Cameron. He is on a different political spectrum from me, but I have always looked for what Senator Doug Cameron has said in the newspapers. I always like to cut these things out and put them into my top pocket for moments like this. I have always thought, 'Here's a man, unlike the other weaklings across the other side, who will stand up to the Prime Minister, who will raise things in the caucus meetings.' But that is just a perception. I have now been disappointed by Senator Cameron. His latest foray in the caucus room—and it always manages to get into the newspaper, I should add—was to pretend that he was standing up to the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, and ask about this latest deal, the so-called Malaysian solution. Senator Cameron quickly, as it was rightly described, rolled over. I have worked Senator Cameron out. He is a big disappointment. I am going to have to find another hero on the other side now, in the limited time I have—but I will be watching on A-PAC.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are really just filling in time.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All he does is put it up—so the media think he is a grandstander—and just rolls over, just like very other person. And don't you talk, Senator Lundy! I remember coming into this place—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, please address your remarks through the chair.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She is interjecting and provoking.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask senators to cease interjecting.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The night that Julia Gillard—oh, what was her name?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, come on. Show some respect!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no respect! How is that? I just want to make this point before I get on to the substance of my address. On the night that Ms Gillard took over the prime ministership there was an adjournment debate in this House. I spoke on it and so did Senator Lundy. On that very night, or perhaps it was the night after, Senator Lundy came into this chamber and dripped with praise for the new prime minister, because she was all part of that plot. She was out for a promotion. Get her the Hansard. It is disgraceful. It is terrible that anyone could be as greasy as Senator Lundy. Heaven forbid if that is how she treats her public office. And she—who does nothing in this chamber—has the audacity to interject on me and say that I am just filling in time. Rubbish! You are the greatest filler I have ever met.

The gravity of this issue does require someone from the front bench, other than an interjector, to come in and speak on this issue. But they never do. They always leave it to the hapless backbench, who know nothing about what is going on. They were warned about the softening of the laws by the Labor Party in 2008. They were warned by their own department. Senator Evans was warned by the department that this would lead to a surge and he was warned by the Federal Police that this would lead to a surge. And that is exactly what happened. But due to the false piety of the other side trying to claim some delusional moral high ground, they maintain this soft policy. What is so moral, I ask them—and I ask the next speaker to answer this question—about giving succour to the people smugglers? What is so moral about inducing people to cross the seas on treacherous journeys where many are lost? What is so moral about denying those in the detention camps, who rightly apply and queue up, their chance to come out to Australia? These are the true moral questions that those on the other side ought to address. You have a policy that is in shambles. You are in denial. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak in this discussion can I first say that this matter of public importance was proposed by those opposite, yet we have had Senator McGauran stand here and waste eight minutes speaking about nothing. He would have had plenty of time to prepare if he had a case, but he does not have a case.

Unlike Senator McGauran, I welcome the opportunity to set the facts straight about what this government has done, and is doing, in the critical area of border protection and, importantly, to set the facts straight about the global context that has given rise to the displacement of people of many nations, some of whom are fleeing civil wars and the like to seek safe haven for themselves and for their families

The issue of unauthorised boat arrivals and irregular migration is not confined to Australia; it is a global problem which many countries around the world have been experiencing for some time now. These countries include Denmark, Sweden, Greece, Italy, Belgium, France, Germany, the United States, Austria, Norway and the United Kingdom. In March this year, the UNHCR released a report showing that during 2010 an estimated 358,000 people fled persecution in their homelands to seek asylum in industrialised countries. The total number of claims made in Australia remains well below levels seen in many other countries. It represents two per cent of total applications for asylum in the industrialised world, according to the report. In 2010, the main destination countries for asylum seekers were the United States, with 55,500 claims; France, with 47,800 claims; Germany, with 41,300 claims; Sweden, with 31,800 claims; and Canada, with 23,200 claims. In comparison, in Australia we received 8,250 claims, and these were largely from people coming from the most troubled and conflict-ridden regions of the world.

Let me be clear: border protection is indeed a matter of public importance. This government has a long-held commitment to addressing the serious nature of people-smuggling activities and to targeting those criminal groups who seek to organise, participate in and benefit from people smuggling. For the record, the Labor government has devoted unprecedented resources to protecting Australia's borders and developing intelligence on people-smuggling activities. It has worked cooperatively with Australia's regional partners to disrupt people-smuggling ventures overseas, and we are subjecting people smugglers to the full force of Australian law.

We know that people smugglers are motivated by greed and we know that they work in sophisticated cross-border crime networks. We know also that they have little regard for the safety and security of the people being smuggled, endangering their lives in unseaworthy and overcrowded boats.

The Gillard government believes the way to respond to what is a regional problem is to develop regional solutions. Irregular migration and people smuggling are global and regional problems that cannot be tackled by acting alone. These issues must be tackled in partnership with other countries. Under the Howard government, Australia took a unilateral approach. The Howard coalition government acted alone. It is a fact that genuine regional cooperation was never a prospect under the Howard government, and Senator McGauran knows that.

Protecting Australia's borders and airports from threats of terrorism, people smuggling, organised crime, illegal foreign fishing and the trafficking of illicit goods continues to be a top priority of the government. Those opposite know that the Labor government introduced legislation, including the Anti-People-Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, which reflects this. This bill ensures that people-smuggling activities are consistently and comprehensively crimin­alised and it makes it an offence to provide material support for people smuggling. It also equips our law enforcement and national security agencies with effective investigative capabilities to detect and disrupt people smuggling. It is just one example of the government's commitment to addressing the serious nature of people-smuggling activities and targeting those criminal groups who seek to organise, participate in and benefit from it.

On Saturday, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced new measures as part of a regional cooperation framework that aims to put people smugglers out of business and prevent asylum seekers making the very dangerous journey to Australia by boat. The bilateral arrangement will take the form of a cooperative transfer agreement that will see asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by sea being transferred to Malaysia. In exchange, Australia will expand its humanitarian program and take on a greater share of the burden of responsibility for resettling refugees currently residing in Malaysia. The core elements of this bilateral arrangement will include a provision that 800 irregular maritime arrivals who arrive in Australia after the date of effect of the arrangement will be transferred to Malaysia for refugee status determination. In return, over four years Australia will settle 4,000 refugees already residing in Malaysia. Transferees will not receive any preferential treatment over asylum seekers already in Malaysia. Transferees will be provided with the opportunity to have their asylum claims considered, and those in need of international protection will not be refouled. So no-one who is transferred will return to their country of origin while their claims are being assessed or if they are found to be in need of protection. Transferees will be treated with dignity and respect in accordance with human rights standards. In addition, the UNHCR will be responsible for the processing of applicants involved in this process and a robust, independent advisory board will be established to oversee the implementation of the agreement.

Unfortunately, today most of the world's refugees are living in countries that have not signed the UN refugee convention. In the case of Malaysia, there is agreement to abide by key parts of the convention. Australia and Malaysia are working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration to operationalise the arrange­ment.

In response to the government's announcement, UNHCR regional represen­tative Richard Towle said the scheme has the potential to improve the way the region manages refugee flows. In an interview published on the ABC online website, he says:

… it's very important that this agreement is appropriately monitored and is seen to deliver not only outcomes for governments in terms of dealing with human smuggling and trafficking movements but also is seen to deliver improved protection for people in the region.

I think in that sense it has the potential to … make a significant practical contribution to what we're trying to achieve in the region.

And if it's a good experience other countries can look at it and say yes, that's a positive way of managing these issues. Perhaps we want to embark on similar or other initiatives under a regional cooperation framework.

Mr Towle goes on to say that there are significant differences between the current deal and the Howard government's Pacific solution. He says:

This is an agreement, it's a bilateral agreement that has been negotiated within a broader regional cooperation framework with the involvement of UNHCR and the involvement of IOM … and we hope the involvement of other important actors as well, including non-governmental organisations.

So it is an agreement between countries that are actively involved with refugee issues and both commonly face a refugee displacement problem.

Mr Towle points out that the Howard government's push to house asylum seekers in countries without a refugee problem was about shifting responsibility. He says:

Australia was obviously looking at ways to divest itself of some of the responsibilities of dealing with refugees. The countries that were negotiated, Nauru and PNG at that time, did not have a refugee issue of their own and largely became places were Australia was able to manage its own protection responsibilities under the convention.

So it was not a regional burden-sharing arrange­ment at all. It was much more of a responsibility-shifting arrangement. And that's why we think they are not only philosophically but also in the way they were implemented they're quite different types of arrangements.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.