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 failure to secure Australia's borders and refusal to implement effective and humane 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

On 24 June last year—a date that is burned in the hearts and the minds of so many Australians, not least of all the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was politically executed on that day and who clearly, based on his performance of late, has not forgotten this, and possibly also Bill Shorten, who—

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

Order! You must refer to the member by his proper name.

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

When Minister Bill Shorten picked up the Australian newspaper this morning he must have started wondering whether the little stunt he pulled this time last year had actually failed miserably, because the current Prime Minister's ratings are now lower than Mr Rudd's were and are at an all-time low. On 24 June last year the now Prime Minister—and I use the word 'now' rather loosely; I am using a little bit of poetic licence when I use the word 'now'—said:

I accept that the Government has lost track. We will get back on track. I have taken control for precisely that purpose.

When the current Prime Minister—and it will be interesting to see what happens next week; I am looking forward to being here on the 24th—said that, there was one policy area that she clearly did not have front of mind: Australia's border protection. This government has been a complete, total and utter failure when it comes to protecting Australia's borders.

To understand the gravity of this government's failures you need to contrast the situation under the former Howard government when we left office in 2007 with the situation we have today under the current Gillard Labor government. In 2001, 43 boats arrived. Back then the Howard government said that that was a lot of boats. Those on the other side must be praying every night for us to get back to 43. The Howard government said that that was a lot of boats. Do you know what they did? They took some very tough decisions: they implemented the Pacific solution and on top of that they introduced temporary protection visas. And do you know what happened? The number of boats that came to Australia in 2002 was reduced to zero. There were 43 boats in 2001. The Howard government took some very tough decisions—they introduced the Pacific solution and introduced temporary protection visas—and guess what: the Howard government policies did exactly what those on the other side are now telling the Australian people they want to do, which is to stop the boats. There you have it. They are proven policies. Those policies actually worked. In the last six years under the Howard government fewer boats arrived than in the last six weeks under the current Gillard Labor government, and ironically those boats have arrived since the Prime Minister and the minister announced the be-all and end-all policy solution to the border protection fiasco, which is their so-called 'Malaysian deal'. The Malaysian deal is going to solve all of the government's border protection problems! But the only problem to date is that they have not actually finalised the deal. We do not seem to have any real details surrounding it. There is certainly no signature on any piece of paper and the government must be hoping that the Malaysian deal does not go the same way as the East Timor deal, which was just announcement after announcement after announcement only to find that the East Timor deal was never, ever going to happen—but it sounded really, really good at the time.

This is a policy area that has been in complete disarray since the government in August 2008 took steps to wind back the strong and proven border protection measures of the former Howard government. This is the extent of the disarray in the border protection area. In November 2009 there was reported a bloody fight breaking out on Christmas Island involving 150 Afghans and Sri Lankans. Since that time we have had a series of incidents: further rooftop protests from 20 to 22 September 2010; 90 detainees breaking out of the Northam immigration detention facility in September of last year; and on 15 November a violent brawl at Broadmeadows. And it continues on. On 17 November last year we had a rooftop protest at Villawood. At the airport lodge between 7 and 10 February, 11 people were hospitalised and a further 11 were actually taken to the watch-house after further disturbances. In February of this year on Christmas Island, in the family compound, nonetheless there were 13 people injured, windows were smashed, three asylum seekers were arrested and 15 young males were moved off the island. We then had a breakout at the Asti Motel and on 17 March there was a protest at Curtin. And it keeps on going. On 17 March a young Afghan man actually died at Scherger. On 28 March an Afghan asylum seeker died at the Curtin detention centre and on 12 and 13 March there were mass breakouts at Christmas Island followed by the horrendous riots that were watched by so many Australians. Then, of course, we had the Villawood riots. Who could forget the Villawood riots? They were actually preceded by the finding of a bomb, no less, in the detention centre, a bomb that the minister was not aware of until he was asked on talkback radio what his response was. He did not have one because the department had not made him aware of such a serious incident.

So what is the Labor government's response to date to this rolling crisis? Now we have what has been called the 'Malaysian solution'—the deal by which we send one asylum seeker to what is looking like almost certain hell in Malaysia and in return we get back five in Australia. Why are we entering the Malaysian deal? It is because the minister is now telling the people of Australia that we need to break the people-smuggling model. What the government refuses to understand, despite the opposition telling them for the last three years, is that it is the government's policies that are encouraging the people smugglers. It is the government's policies that are providing a framework for the people smugglers. In relation to the Malaysian deal those on that side of the chamber, those on the Labor side of politics, like to pontificate that they have the monopoly on human rights in Australia. If that is true, they really need to rethink the Malaysian deal, because to date neither the minister nor the Prime Minister has been able to guarantee to this parliament that they will be able to ensure that the human rights of those that we send over to Malaysia are actually going to be in any way upheld. There is an article in the Daily Telegraph today which says:

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen will rely on the Malaysian government to keep the country's paramilitary—volunteer officers who carry weapons—away from the 800 asylum seekers sent from Australia.

The most recent refugee tribunal report has actually found that members of this paramilitary group have been involved in extortion, rape, and other crimes for which they have received little or no punishment. But does that worry those on the other side? The answer is no. But does it worry the federal parliament? The answer to that is actually yes, because yesterday in the federal parliament, in the other place, a motion passed through the House of Representatives 70 to 68 with the support of the opposition; the Greens MP, Adam Bandt, who moved the motion; and the Independents Andrew Wilkie and Bob Katter. Interestingly, some of those people are actually members that the government currently relies on to ensure that it stays in power. Even those members are absolutely disgusted with the government's antics in relation to the Malaysian deal.

People smugglers must be denied a product to sell. The coalition has been saying that since August 2008, but as long as the Labor Party have their way on border protection the people smugglers will continue to find ways to bring people to Australia, risking their lives in the process. The Labor Party need to wake up, listen to the coalition and implement our strong, proven policies. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are waiting for Senator Sterle to come and contribute to this debate this afternoon, in addressing the motion moved by the opposition I would like to again point out that here we are once again hearing tirades from the opposition about a very complex, difficult issue. They always present a simplistic view of the world and do not take into account that this is in fact a multifaceted problem and one that the government is addressing in a number of ways. That includes addressing it from a regional perspective, working with our near neighbours to ensure that the issue of people smuggling and the transport of people is addressed from a regional perspective in cooperation with our near neighbours. They know full well that we will not have a resolution to the issue until we get that cooperation from our neighbours, and that is what we are striving to do.

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

Not with much luck!

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, I actually think that you do not want there to be success, because it suits you to be able to get up here and bang on about this issue time after time—

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

Because of your constant failures in this area!

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

day after day, MPI after MPI. It suits you to carry on that way. I am proud of the government's record in this area. It is a difficult issue, and we are working very hard to solve it. And I know that now Senator Sterle is going to add to this debate with some considered opinions, unlike those rantings that we continue to hear from your side of the chamber.

Senator Cash interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Sterle, it would be normal for me to call somebody from the other side but I understand that the whip has agreed that you should fill the rest of the time allocated at this time.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do not realise how lucky I am sometimes. And I do appreciate your assistance, and that of the opposition too.

I do wish to make comment today on this matter of public importance—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So important that you didn't turn up!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was actually in a committee and trying to discuss aviation safety in this country, which I do put great importance on. So I will not apologise—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—for having the nation's travelling safety at heart before this frivolous MPI.

I just want to quote those words from Senator Fifield:

The Gillard government's failure to secure Australia's borders and refusal—

this is the key, if we are going to get some truth out here—

to implement effective and humane policies to deny people smugglers the product they sell.

Most times I am proud to be a Western Australian; in fact, nearly all the time I am proud to be a Western Australian. I am a first-generation Australian—my parents were both from overseas, my father from war-torn Europe and my mother from war-torn England. My father came out under similar circumstances to those in which we see people coming to Australia now: fleeing conflict. But I just want to say this: he was invited to this country. He came to this country in the late forties, after the war, with his five sisters and his mother and father—a brother was lost in the war—and he was so proud to make this country his home. He was so proud that he was afforded the opportunity to be given a brand-new life in a wonderful country such as Australia. But I am so darned—I was going to say 'damned', but I will not—embarrassed when I hear people absolutely attack at every opportunity people—

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

Tut, tut, tut!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see Senator Cash shaking her head over there. This makes me even wilder. I saw Senator Cash in action up in Northam, absolutely thriving with racist comments that were thrown out of the public meeting!

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

And we saw you in Northam—you kept silent! You were ashamed!

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

Order!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were 800 good people there. No—there were not 800 good people. There were 800 people, and the majority in Northam went to give questions and to hear answers from their elected representatives.

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

And they didn't get any! There were no government members there.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I turned up I was not allowed to speak! So don't you start that rubbish on me, you hypocrite! You absolute hypocrite!

Senator Cash interjecting—

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

Order! It is out of order to shout across the chamber and to address a senator on the other side. You will make your address through the chair.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator referred to Senator Cash in an unparliamentary fashion, and I think you should ask him to withdraw. He called her a hypocrite.

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

I am sorry—I did not hear that word used. But if you used the word 'hypocrite' then it is unparliamentary, Senator Sterle, and I ask you to withdraw.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw. But I will not withdraw from my refrain to say how embarrassed I am when I go and hear the minority, the rabble—the horrible, ugly minority—that just want to throw every disgusting barb at people who seek asylum in this fantastic country. To hear comments like, 'They'll slit your throats,' and, 'We should use them as target practice for our Navy while they are floating around on the boats,' hurts me—and I do not think that I am alone here—and I am absolutely disgusted to think that fellow Australians have this view. And it is probably not that much of a minority—I hope it is a minority; but we hear this nonsense coming from the other side of the chamber about what a threat and fear asylum seekers are to our borders. I read this rubbish here about our having failed in 'humane policies to deny people smugglers the product they sell', so we had better get a few facts out here quite clearly.

I did not have to, but I opened the Australian newspaper on the weekend, and there is the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, on a wonderful opportunity for the Liberal Party to get some media on the weekend and visit Nauru, to get a photo of him sticking his head through a window and saying that the Nauru detention centre is ready to open up—let's get going. I have been told—and I will be very happy to come into this chamber and apologise profusely if I give the chamber the wrong information or mislead the chamber—that what he stuck his head into was the Nauru primary school. Yes, it used to be the detention centre—and it is now the primary school. So it would be very interesting to know from those opposite who like to condemn everyone who was not born here in Australia—who should not be allowed into our country—why Mr Abbott was sticking his head through a school window. Was he saying that the Nauru school should be shut and those children should be sent elsewhere? What was he actually saying? I think the fourth estate have got a role to play here by reporting and telling the truth. I think they have been very poor in certain circumstances with that.

Nauru was not a humane way of taking the product that the people smugglers sell. What actually happened was that 70 per cent—and I will be challenged on that; I am happy to take that argument up—of those who went to Nauru, including children, who were locked behind barbed wire for three, four or five years, came to Australia. It is a well-known fact that that lot over that side of the chamber and on the other side of this great building failed to tell the complete truth that we all know darn well: that Nauru is not a signatory to the UNHCR. We all know that. So Mr Abbott can run around, and he can take every photo opportunity and stick his head into every school window on Nauru that he wants to—but tell the truth.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Neither is Malaysia!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want to talk about Malaysia? I will talk about Malaysia. I am happy to have this conversation—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—with any senator on that side of the chamber at any time, because I do not have a problem with genuine refugees seeking refuge in Australia. I have no problem, and I have full support from Minister Bowen and Prime Minister Gillard, with the Malaysian solution.

Just so we get this very clear, currently in Australia 13,750 refugees are accepted in our country every year. It was no different when Mr Howard was the Prime Minister and it is no different now. What we have proposed with the Malaysian solution is that the next 800 who come across on boats seeking asylum illegally will be sent to Malaysia. In exchange for those 800 we will receive, in the four years after, an extra 1,000 people per year—1,000 genuine asylum seekers who seek refuge in Australia. What that will take us to is that, instead of taking 13,750 refugees, we will be taking 14,750 refugees. There is no disguise; there are no lies or mistruths. That is clearly what the deal is. If that deters those scum of the earth, the people smugglers, takes away their trade and does not use the asylum seekers as the pawns then we should be getting full support from the other side of the chamber.

We should have full, unequivocal support from that side of the chamber. They should give us a hand and support us in our efforts—not leave people languishing in Nauru for three, four and five years, including having children behind barbed wire, but support us in our efforts.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It is very mischievous, and, you know what, Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson? I have the greatest respect for you as the Acting Deputy President. I am ignoring the remarks from the other side of the chamber because they really are stupid. They are absolutely incoherent, and it is just opportunism. As I said to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, as a first-generation Australian—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I am so sorry, Mr Deputy President, because I forgot that you do have another week to go and it is fantastic that you are still here. I am sorry, Mr Deputy President.

As a first generation Australian, it does hurt me to think that Australians have this belief that no-one should be allowed in this country unless they are born here. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this discussion. Before Senator Sterle left, I was about to compliment his family, but unfortunately I will have to do it to his back. I quote the famous words of the then shadow minister for immigration:

Another boat … Another policy failure.

Who was that shadow minister? It was none other than now Prime Minister Gillard. Since then she has not had occasion to say it very often; she has not had occasion to get it out of the back drawer very often and say, 'Another boat, another policy failure.' Since the Rudd-Gillard government there have been no fewer than 229 occasions when the coalition might have got that equivalent document out from under the counter, because that is the number of boats, representing 11,472 people, since Labor came into government—people who have come to these shores through the process of asylum seekers on vessels. Why would I compliment Senator Sterle and his family? It is because he made the very comment which has been the underpinning of the Howard government and this coalition and which will be the underpinning of the Abbott government, when it is in government: that is, as Senator Sterle said, his father was invited to this country—and that is exactly what Australia wants, it is exactly what Australia will do and it is exactly what the Howard government said when the then Prime Minister said:

We will decide who comes to this country …

Mr Sterle Senior was invited to this country. This country, Australia, has a very proud record of accepting refugees. We have had thousands, tens of thousands, of humani­tarian refugees of the type Mr and Mrs Sterle Senior would have been.

What is also interesting is: when the Howard government stopped the boats, what was the decline in the number of refugees who came to this country on a humanitarian basis? The answer is nil. The numbers stayed the same. And what is of absolute shock and disgust to me, as I stand in this chamber, is the fact that people who have been through the UNHCR process, the very people who have been accepted as humanitarian refugees to come to Australia, are languishing in refugee camps in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, whilst others jump the queue. In the event that these people are genuine, let them be processed in the genuine way and let them join the queue—but at the end of the queue. What has been put to me recently—and, I think, very disturbingly—is that there is corruption in these humanitarian refugee camps, where people who would otherwise be getting to the top of that queue find, without their even knowing it, that their names are being replaced by others because of corruption being offered to those who are managing it. That is reprehensible, and that is what we must not allow to happen.

When he was the minister for immigration, Philip Ruddock invited the then shadow minister, Ms Gillard, to Nauru. She went to Nauru with him to have a look and, contrary to what Senator Sterle just said, people had the freedom to wander around that island. Did they go into their accommodation at night? Yes, they did. Were they locked up? Why would you lock people up on an island? Where would they go on that island? Philip Ruddock had the courtesy and the decency to actually take the shadow minister to Nauru on that occasion to have a look at what was going on. Nauru is not a signatory to the UNHCR. It is very willing to become so. Is Malaysia a signatory to the UNHCR? The answer, of course, is no, they are not. As one who was involved in business throughout the last decade in Malaysia, one who in fact had some association with prisons and detention centres—but I hasten to tell you, Mr Deputy President, not from the inside but consulting to the Malaysian government—I can say that it is not a place you would want to be. I remember that under then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, when he decided that they would remove illegals from Malaysia, they gave them 72 hours to get out of that country, and we saw footage, regrettably, of people being beaten as they were trying to get on boats at the ports in Malaysia to go back to countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and others. It would be an interesting question for people who are facing the prospect of leaving these shores under this new, ill-conceived scheme of Minister Bowen, to be asked if they would want to go to Malaysia or go to Nauru and be managed by Australians. It would be a very interesting poll, because I have absolutely no doubt where they would want to go. The Howard government had a problem and found a solution. The Rudd-Gillard government inherited a solution and have turned it back into a problem.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we have before us a matter that has been put forward as a mean-spirited political stunt. Those opposite are deter­mined to contribute nothing more than criticism, scaremongering and misinforma­tion to the asylum seeker debate. This debate that we are having here today is just another example of these tactics. When have those opposite ever offered a humane, truly collaborative and achievable approach for how Australia should deal with people seeking asylum? What did they ever offer in the way of a substantive policy aimed at breaking the business model of people smugglers? They can hardly argue that turning away the boats and dumping people on Nauru only to settle them in Australia after protracted periods of time was a credible, humane and effective policy. How does the Nauru solution secure Australia's border or deny people smugglers the 'product'—as these asylum seekers are described in the matter before us—they sell?

Those opposite refuse to acknowledge that Australia cannot go it alone on the problems of people smuggling and irregular migration. While this government works hard in collaboration with our neighbours to develop and implement an approach to asylum seekers which balances our humanitarian obligations, the protection of our borders and a plan to end the profitability of people smuggling, those opposite seek to demonise asylum seekers for their own political self-interest. Mr Abbott's latest trip to Nauru is just another example—another political stunt. The fact that Mr Abbott continues to mislead the Australian people on this issue is evident in the fact that he refuses to answer how much his new Nauru solution would cost. Nauru did not work to stop the people smugglers' business model, and it was not a truly regional and cooperative solution to tackling people smuggling. What is more, the coalition left people on Nauru for extended periods of time only to settle the great majority in Australia anyway.

The UNHCR have also made it clear that Nauru is not a good option. Let us consider what the UNHCR spokesperson, Jennifer Pagonis said in 2008, when Nauru closed:

… 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.

That is the former Howard government's record.

Further, just last week a UNHCR spokesperson rejected the Liberals' claims that Nauru had been overseen and approved by the UNHCR. They have said:

UNHCR was not involved and, indeed, distanced itself from any role in overseeing or managing the processing facilities on Nauru under the Pacific Solution. Recent media reports that the centre on Nauru was approved by and run under the auspices of the UN are factually incorrect.

Just this morning on AM Agenda on Sky News, Minister Bowen talked about reports of the long-term psychological damage that Nauru caused those asylum seekers who were left there. There are still people in Australia today who are suffering that psychological damage, yet all we have seen in the House of Representatives this morning is another cheap attempt by Mr Abbott and his coalition. Their support for the motion on Malaysia does not represent a substantive policy shift for the opposition; it is just a deliberate and deceitful move to masquerade the Nauru solution as a more humane and credible alternative.

Let's set the record straight. The Gillard government has always had a plan for the strong management of our borders, and we have made significant progress towards a comprehensive and people focused care plan for asylum seekers in Australia. Let me first outline the significant progress towards the development of a regional cooperation framework for dealing with asylum seekers entering our region by boat. At the Bali process in March this year, we reached an agreement with our neighbours for a regional protection framework. That regional frame­work fits within Australia's respon­sibilities as a signatory to the refugee convention and was a response endorsed by the UNHCR. Since Bali, there have been ongoing discussions with our neighbours about how as a region we deal with those who are seeking asylum. As a result, the government is negotiating with Malaysia to prevent people smugglers profiteering out of asylum seekers trying to reach our country. The agreement will finally be agreed and signed in the coming weeks, and that will happen with the close involvement of the UNHCR.

As the minister has outlined at length, appropriate protections will be in place for those being transferred, and they will not be caned or subject to other penalties imposed on illegal immigrants. The Malaysian Prime Minister has agreed to treat any asylum seekers transferred from Australia with dignity and respect and in line with human rights standards. Whilst negotiations continue, we can be assured that this is a firm commitment. Just as the UNHCR is involved in the development of the agreement, the UNHCR will also be assisting and processing asylum seekers who are transferred. The UNHCR has publicly supported the arrangements as an opportunity to better protect refugees in our region.

The reality is that this agreement with Malaysia breaks the business model of people smugglers by removing their ability to sell a guaranteed ticket to Australia. Through this approach we hope that people seeking asylum do not continue to be treated as a commodity by people smugglers who have effectively traded their freedom. Our framework represents a more orderly and humanitarian approach to the way in which our region deals with those seeking asylum. The Prime Minister has stated that we will be working with Malaysia to conclude an agreement where the human rights of the asylum seekers we return to Malaysia will be respected. Time and time again you have heard the government give a commitment to breaking the people smugglers' business case.

The policies being negotiated are squarely aimed at removing the product that people smugglers sell and therefore stopping people from getting on boats and risking perilous sea journeys to reach Australia. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Chris Bowen, is on the record as saying that this is an agreement which will break the people smugglers' business model and at the same time mean that Australia increases its humanitarian intake. Our humanitarian intake will now be the highest it has been since 1996, when the Labor Party was last in office. This agreement means that our humanitarian intake will be increased by 1,000, from 13,750 to 14,750 each year. That is an additional 4,000 refugees that we will take in over the next four years, a commitment which those opposite do not support.

It is not good enough to peddle a policy on asylum seekers that involves sending away people who are seeking refuge and being done with it. We have the capacity to increase our humanitarian intake and that is what this agreement enables. The agreement with Malaysia is in line with Australia's international obligations, and we will remain committed signatories to the refugee convention. Genuine refugees will not be returned to dangerous circumstances under the new arrangements. The government's discussions with Papua New Guinea also remain ongoing.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that there are no quick fixes in how we respond to asylum seekers. The government has said time and time again that we are determined to end the profitability of people smuggling and develop a regional solution to a truly regional problem. To do that we are working with the UNHCR and Malaysia to (a) ensure that we break the people smugglers' business model, and (b) ensure more consistent protection outcomes across the region. It is a much more holistic approach and a truly regional and cooperative approach, unlike the bilateral agreement with Nauru those opposite cannot seem to move past. The Nauru approach involved simply sending away asylum seekers in the hope that they would go away. This was done in the knowledge that those asylum seekers would in fact be resettled in Australia after some time and, what is worse, that they would suffer significant psychological damage along the way.

In Australia we have also taken steps to ensure we have the infrastructure in place to house and support asylum seekers who are here whilst their claims are being processed. The government has planned expansions to some immigration detention facilities. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I take you back to the election on 10 November 2001. I was working for the National Party of course, in the seat of New England. We had a sitting National Party member in Stuart St Clair, who was being challenged by what the people of New England thought to be a conservative Independent, Tony Windsor. It was a very interesting election campaign.

During that campaign we had a visit from the then minister supposedly responsible for all the problems we are talking about in this debate, Philip Ruddock. Minister Ruddock addressed a gathering in Tamworth and I was present at that gathering. He told us how in July and August 2001—this was in about October 2001—we had been getting 1,000 asylum seekers a month coming here by boat. He told us of the danger, the cost and the threat to life on those leaky and dangerous boats. He told us they had a problem and how they brought the problem to a stop.

They brought it to a stop by introducing such things as temporary protection visas. People ask: what is a temporary protection visa? It is exactly what it says: you come to Australia and you are given a visa for temporary protection until the place you come from settles down or there is some other region you can go to. There was a serious problem and it was a costly problem. Mr Ruddock said that if the Department of Immigration rejected a person's application then they could go to the Federal Court. If they failed there in their application for refugee status in Australia, they could go to the High Court. It was costing us up to $300,000 in legal fees to provide for these people to take Australia to court. We also had to pay for the government's legal team, so you can double that figure. It was hugely expensive.

The government said it would set up Nauru and process the people there. Then they would not come to our courtrooms and we would not have the costs. It would send a clear message that you do not simply jump on a boat, pay your way and come to Australia, when we allow 13,750 refugees into this country each year—genuine ones, from refugee camps. We have many such refugees in my home town of Inverell. We have had Sudanese people settle in my town over the last few years. They are good citizens, working, with opportunities and a roof over their head. One of those citizens recently was a finalist for the employees award in the Inverell Business Awards.

They are good people who have had an opportunity here since they were brought from the camps. Many Australians view those who pay their way to come here in a boat as queue jumpers, and that is the thing that frustrates them. You speak to the people who are brought to Australia from those refugee camps and from horrible situations and they will tell you that they waited a long time. They went through the process. That is what angers many Australians.

We finally solved the problem and the boat arrivals were brought virtually to a trickle. We know that it was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who lowered the bar and did away with temporary protection visas. That sent a message that we were open for business again to those who could pay their way to come here. This is the unfortunate thing we have to stop. We have to stop this industry because of the deaths of people. We watched that footage on TV of the boat being wrecked off Christmas Island, with some 50 lives lost. Incidents like that are what we have to stop. In November last year there were reports of another boat apparently heading to Australia with around 100 asylum seekers. They have never been seen again. What we are doing is losing lives. People are being conned into paying money to the traffickers of human beings who are bringing them here and who are getting a fortune in the context of their currency and their standard of living in Indonesia or wherever. It is an industry that has taken off, and the ensuing loss of life is a problem.

We had the problem; we fixed it. This government now has a problem—and look where you are going with it. Prior to the election, the solution was going to be East Timor. But there were no negotiations or agreements with East Timor. Then it was Manus Island. Now it is Malaysia. I find it appalling that you are going to ear-tag people like cattle to send them to Malaysia, where they can walk free because they are tagged so they will not be beaten. What are we doing? Since August 2008, 11,533 asylum seekers have arrived in no fewer than 230 boats.

Look at Malaysia's record. I have been informed that, from 2002 to 2008, 1,300 people died in Malaysian detention centres or depots due to poor detention conditions. They are held in crowded conditions and receive limited water and food. Now, I do not know if that is a fact, if it is true. But, if it is true, that is deplorable. Yet this government's solution is to say, 'We'll send 800 of these people to Malaysia—no, we won't lock them up, they won't be caned; we'll have them ear-tagged,' like in the National Livestock Identification System, the NLIS. 'We'll do this and everything'll be right. It'll stop the boats.' We have had some 300 asylum seekers come to our shores in Australia and to Christmas Island since this policy was announced. It is not stopping the boats. We have in Nauru, an island of about 10,000 people, a facility built by the previous Australian government that is ready and willing to be opened, and where we can actually solve the problem. I think this comes down to arrogance.

Surely, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd, should be going in and looking at this as well. Where is he? We do not see him on this issue, probably the biggest issue and one that means so much to the Australian people. Billions of dollars that we could be putting into our aged-care facilities, our hospitals or other infrastructure are now going on this scheme so that people can traffic in human beings to make money. It is a disgraceful industry, it is costing lives, it is costing our taxpayers money and we seem to be getting further and further behind instead of getting ahead by solving the problems we face with this. I urge the foreign minister to work closely with the Prime Minister and others—if that is possible as we approach the one-year anniversary of Mr Rudd's political decapitation—to solve this problem. The longer this industry goes on, the more lives are threatened. We have seen men, women and children lose their lives because of this industry. The industry must be shut down, and the government must swallow its arrogant pride and get onto a solution to the problem, not continue it, seemingly forever.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to make a contribution to today's matter of public importance. Firstly, it is all about solutions. We need to find solutions, and that is one thing this government is doing on this particular issue. We are fixing this issue by working with people in our region. The government have been working hard to implement an effective policy. It is a complex issue, this; it is not a simplistic matter that can be resolved by shifting people off to various parts of the Pacific region. This complex issue of irregular migration cannot be solved by acting alone; instead, it must be tackled by countries forming cooperative arrangements under the auspices of regional and international frameworks.

On 30 March this year, Australia secured an agreement to implement a regional cooperative framework at the Bali Process ministerial conference. At this conference, representatives of the 43 member countries, along with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, agreed to establish a regional cooperative framework to address irregular migration, improve consistency in the treatment of refugees and undermine the people-smuggling trade. Unlike the Howard government and their failed model, we have come up with a solution to deal with this particular problem.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you would know that a key aspect of the regional cooperative framework is the Malaysian transfer agreement. Asylum seekers transferred to Malaysia will have their asylum claims considered, and those in need of international protection will not be refouled. Those already waiting for an outcome will not be disadvantaged by this arrangement. Asylum seekers transferred to Malaysia will not receive any advantage in the consideration of their claims over the other 93,000 UNHCR registered refugees and asylum seekers already waiting. In exchange, Australia will resettle 4,000 UNHCR mandated refugees, demonstrating the importance we place on assisting those who face the violation of their human rights. The Gillard government have received public support from the UNHCR for this transfer agreement as an opportunity to better protect refugees, and we will assist in processing asylum seekers that are transferred under this arrangement. We believe this transfer agreement will deter people from choosing to arrive by boat. As immigration minister Chris Bowen said on 9 June:

Why would you pay a people smuggler $15,000 or so to come to Australia by boat, only to be taken back to the place where you started the boat journey, which in most cases is Malaysia? So you achieve absolutely nothing.

While the opposition would have the public believe we are being invaded by boat people, they need to be reminded that while they were in government they did not stop the boats. During John Howard's reign as Prime Minister, 240 boats arrived in Australia, carrying 13,600 asylum seekers. Global circumstances determine the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia. When the Taliban regime was brought down in 2001, many Afghanis returned home.

While our Malaysian transfer policy has been well received, Mr Tony Abbott's suggestion to reopen Nauru has not been supported by the UNHCR. UNHCR spokes­person Jennifer Pagonis had said they had 'strong concerns' about Nauru and described the closure of Nauru as 'the end of a difficult chapter in Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers'. Another UNHCR spokesperson said recently:

''UNHCR was not involved and, indeed, distanced itself from any role in overseeing or managing the processing facilities on Nauru under the Pacific Solution. Recent media reports that the centre on Nauru was approved by and run under the auspices of the UN are factually incorrect.''

Minister Bowen has stated that Mr Abbott's solution would not stop boats. He said:

Nauru doesn't break the people smugglers' business model. Nauru, in the absence of other regional engagement, would simply mean that it's an offshore processing centre on the way to being resettled in Australia. The majority of refugees that were processed in Nauru ended up being resettled in Australia under the previous government, so you don't remove that incentive to come to Australia by boat.

Last week, the Leader of the Opposition visited Nauru, but he continues to mislead Australians. He went over there on some false notion of claiming to seek agreement with the Nauru government and to come up with some solution—albeit that he is in opposition—and we know he is misleading Australia on the costs involved and on the suitability of Nauru. Conversely, we have been upfront. We have been upfront about how much the transfer agreements with Malaysia will cost. But Mr Abbott refuses to detail the operational and capital costs required for his Nauru solution. He has spent recent months talking about how Nauru is ready to go and how it could be operational within weeks. But, if the Nauru solution was unsuccessful in the first place, why should we revert to something that did not work? That is the question that needs to be asked here.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did work, though.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did not work. We are the progressive party in this case. This once again shows how backward the opposition is. It is backward in its failed solution with Nauru. Are we going to let asylum seekers wait for unknown periods of time to eventually be resettled in Australia? No. We are going to treat them humanely. This still provides an incentive for people smugglers to puts the lives of genuine refugees at risk. By sending asylum seekers to Malaysia, it removes the incentive to get into a boat. It therefore breaks the people smugglers' business model completely and ensures the safety of many refugees who fall prey to human trafficking.

The Malaysian agreement will be cost effective in a way which the Nauru solution cannot. It is obvious the opposition leader has not thought through the Nauru solution. Does he know what will happen to the 400 schoolchildren who would have to be removed from the site if the Nauru solution is adopted? You saw the footage on TV where he was touring an existing school in Nauru. What you do with those 400 children to replace them with refugee housing?

Mr Abbott left the task of serious consideration to the shadow Treasurer, who has stated that the capital costs of the Nauru solution would be $10 million. The opposition claims the Nauru solution is more humane; however, the Pacific solution did not stop boats coming to Australia and it did not break the people-smuggling business model. Do not forget Tony Abbott's shallow slogan 'Stop the boats'. We heard about that in the last election. We know it was a shallow political slogan as a cheap example of political gain.

You need only to speak to our brave men and women of the ADF who serve on the Armidale class patrol boats of the Border Protection Command in Darwin to establish what would happen if you stopped the boats. In June-July last year I was fortunate enough to attend a parliamentary defence program along with two opposition members of parliament. They posed the question to our brave men and women on those Armidale class boats during that program about what would happen if we stopped the boats. Obviously the question was clear. It did not take a rocket scientist to work this out. The response was clear and concise and exactly what I thought it would be. The ADF personnel said, 'If you stop the boats, you will have sabotage—you will have people drilling holes in the hull; you will have people taking to the motors with sledgehammers or whatever mechanism possible to disable that boat and make it unseaworthy.' We all know what would happen in that situation. You would not only have refugees at risk but also have our brave men and women of the ADF at risk trying to rescue those people from a boat that is no longer seaworthy.

We will not forget the 'bat phone', or the 'boat phone' as Mr Tony Abbott called it—'Pick up the phone and ring us if you are in strife.' It brings images to my head that frighten me. I can imagine what it would do to the public to have some guy standing there on the other end of the boat phone in his budgie smugglers talking to some captain out in the middle of the Indian Ocean about some refugees. It would be terrifying to think what sort of response people would be giving in that situation. That is the nonsense that Tony Abbott is coming up with, having boat phones and stopping the boats. It is not a viable situation.

As you can see, Senator Fifield's matter of public importance is simply untrue. The Gillard government is working hard to ensure that effective humane policies are implemented to improve protection for those who genuinely seek asylum. Our Malaysian transfer agreement will see 4,000 genuine refugees settled into Australia over four years and those who are transferred to Malaysia will await the outcomes of their applications. The Malaysian government has guaranteed that those transfers will be taken care of.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before Senator Furner and Senator Carol Brown go, I want them to answer me a question. Since the beginning of this year, a few months ago, there have been 26 boats and 1,548 people come into Australia illegally. Unfortunately, Senator Furner, as is his want, leaves and will not answer the question, so perhaps Senator Carol Brown will. What happens once the Gillard government gets up to that magic number of 800 refugees it is going to send to Malaysia? What happens, if it were this year, to the other 748 people who are not going to be processed in Australia and who are not going to be taken by Malaysia? Can someone please explain to me the Gillard government's solution for the boat people who come here after the 800 people mark is reached?

This is a very serious and very tragic situation, but it is almost humorous to see the head-in-the-sand approach of all of not only the Labor speakers but the Labor ministers and, indeed, the Labor Party. All we have heard this afternoon—and we hear them every day on the TV and on the radio—is, 'We are going to break the people-smuggling business model.' I think Senator Carol Brown mentioned that. I counted it about 11 times in her short address. Senator Furner mentioned those words again four or five times in his contribution. The words are there but they do not mean anything. Can I tell those speakers and the Labor Party generally that the business model was broken by the Howard government. The boats had stopped from a stream to zero. The people-smuggling problem had stopped. There were no more boats coming. There were no more people paying the $15,000.

But suddenly there was a change of government and, with typical Labor inexperience and insensitivity and factional deals, we threw away the Howard govern­ment's rules that had stopped the boats and we allowed in a new regime that just sent the boats flowing one after the other. So for all the things that the Labor Party are now struggling to resolve—running around chasing their tails and trying to find solutions for—there was a solution for them; it had been found. Sure, we went through some difficulties and we had some problems. But we fixed the problem; we stopped the boats. Now you are running around chasing your tails, trying to do exactly the same thing.

I suspect you probably have some people in your government who have some experience with Malaysia and, if you do have any ministers or parliamentarians from Malaysia, perhaps you should ask them what happens to refugees in Malaysia. Indeed, do not take my word on this, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, I refer you to the Refugee Council of Australia. In a report which they gave me, the Refugee and humanitarian program 2011-12, part of the 10-page executive summary said:

A Malaysian NGO representative observed that many refugees who came to Malaysia from elsewhere expected to be treated fairly—

as the Labor government is expecting to happen—

but were shocked by the treatment they received from Malaysian authorities and the limited support given by UNHCR. While most would prefer to remain in Malaysia, after a while they began to consider ways of leaving for countries with higher human rights standards, including Australia.

This report goes on to be critical of the Malaysian situation—and it is from the Refugee Council of Australia. Those comments have been repeated by the UNHCR, and yet this is the country to which the Gillard government is 'humanitarianly' turning in dealing with this particular problem, sending them to a country with a record that has been criticised above the board. I am conscious of deep divisions within the Labor Party. I know that the Left of the Labor Party want to stop this proposal. The Right want to be bolshie because they know the votes they are losing through the incompetence of the Gillard government and its mismanagement.

I take great offence at Senator Carol Brown's comment that the coalition wants to demonise asylum seekers. We have a very humanitarian program for refugees—we always have had—and I take offence at people who say that we do not. But I cannot understand why the Labor Party cannot comprehend that when you accept people—very often wealthy people, people who have not been in these refugee camps for very long, people who have relatives in Australia to provide lots of money—into Australia and class them as refugees, some of the hundreds of thousands of genuine refugees living in squalid camps around the world, waiting for their turn to get into Australia and other places, step back in line because we bring in these other people, these wealthy people very often, who have jumped the queue. Again, quoting the Refugee Council of Australia:

The 13,770 refugee and humanitarian visas issued in 2009-10 were divided between 9,236 offshore refugee and humanitarian visas ... and 4,534 onshore visas ...

The offshore was the lowest number in eight years; the onshore the second-highest. The report continued:

These included 2,156 onshore visas granted to asylum seekers who entered Australia by boat.

Do not take my word that it; listen to the Refugee Council of Australia. When you allow these people in jumping the queue, illegally in this line, you put back the chances of those who are living in squalid camps right around the world, and the Labor Party say that that is a humanitarian resolution for this problem.

The only way to address the problem is to do what we did: learn from our experience and put people in the situation where they will not come. They will not spend the $15,000 because they know they will not be processed in Australia; they will go to a third country like Nauru which is already set up and waiting to deal with those people. That will stop the boats. Nothing the Gillard government does ever will. (Time expired)

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

Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded.