Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) 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 find its way and implement a proven and effective border control and protection policy.

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.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think all of us in this place can recall a pretty significant day in the diary of this parliament, 24 June 2010, when Julia Gillard, the now Prime Minister, and Labor deposed for the first time a first-term Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. They said that the government had lost its way. Obviously, this was Kevin 07's fault. It was a case of: 'We'll just cut his throat and slide him aside, and we're going to get back on with the job of fixing this up.'

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

Order! Senator Scullion, you must refer to members of the other house by their correct title or their correct name and salutation.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. There could be no more visible example of how badly they had failed at that stage than their border control and protection policies. When Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party won government in August 2007, I think people all around the world would have looked to the policies that the coalition government had put in place. You could say from a comparison of those policies with those of any other government that they had been a very, very effective suite of policies.

I came to this place in 2002, and I recall that in that financial year 3,039 people had arrived in 19 boats. There were 54 the year before and 75 the year before that. Certainly, it was a very serious circumstance and we needed to address it—and we did. We introduced temporary protection visas. We made sure that there was offshore processing. There were a number of regional agreements to interfere with the process of people smuggling, and they worked. This is not just on my say so. The statistic that shows this most starkly is when we went from 3,039 people in 19 boats to zero people and zero boats. I think the reason for the spotlight on us from international communities was that they were working very hard against criminal organisations engaged in people trafficking and they were looking very carefully at Australia as an example of how well they had done.

Of course, when the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, took over as Prime Minister of Australia, Labor simply thought the problem was solved and that they would get straight on with the job and say: 'Don't worry about those policies. After all, our motive is not that we need to protect Australia and the people who are refugees around the world from the pressures of international people smuggling. What we want to do is to make sure that we have some electoral benefit. It is not a problem for us. Things are solved in that area. The process of preferential voting means that we need to toss up whether we think about this nation's interests or whether we think about the electoral interests of the Labor Party.' Here comes the nub: the Greens and the Independents were talking about having a more compassionate approach. All the wisdom around the world said: 'No, don't do that. This is a really good set of policies that protects people, that looks after people and that ensures they don't make this very, very ugly voyage to Australia.' Immediately the policies that were in the interest of the Australian Labor Party were implemented, the border protection that was in the interest of this nation was destroyed.

For those in this chamber and for those outside it who are listening, this is always the problem with Labor. It goes to motive. Why do you do a thing? Why do you have a policy? Is it in the interests of the Labor Party or is it in our national interest? I think more and more Australians are starting to put the ruler of motive across the policies that we see rolled out by those opposite.

So the trade was back on. I do not know how many times I have sat in here and heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, say: 'No, no, it's not our policies that have changed it. Something odd is happening in Europe. Something odd is happening somewhere else.' Perhaps something is happening with the climate—I am not sure, because there have been a whole range of excuses. International policy makers everywhere have clearly understood that if you change this policy the consequence is a major rush of vessels. We saw that from the time Labor took over in 2007. We have gone from three boats straight up to 1,033 people in 22 boats, to 5,604 people in 117 boats and, in 2010-11, 4,949 people in 89 boats. That is a staggering endorsement of those people who said, 'When you change this policy, there will be a consequence.' Because those opposite have put their grubby paws on preferential voting for the interests of the Labor Party, they have deserted the interests of this nation.

So we now have the situation where there are some 15 million mandated refugees around the world. As an Australian, my heart, like every Australian's, goes out to them. These are sometimes stateless people. There are 15.4 million people looking for somewhere else to be. So Australia decided that, rather than act as a single nation or country, it would be part of a group of countries—in fact, part of the United Nations process—to identify those most in need. Australia takes around 13,500 refugees, of which half are taken as the highest priority refugees in the world. A very small percentage of the 15.4 million require a refugee outcome. The UNHCR decides who those people are. At the moment, they come from the Horn of Africa. People which find themselves in camps like Kakuma in the Horn of Africa well know the reason they have been chosen as the most in need. It is that they live in the most horrific circumstances. Their life expectancy is so low compared with that of refugees in other parts of the world. I have had some staggering statistics put to me about this. Children who are under four years of age have, for a period of time, a life expectancy of less than six months. That is why they are on the priority list. That is why those people must be a priority in coming to Australia.

Importantly, the other half of the 13,500 refugees are part of the family reunification humanitarian scheme which ensures that those who are part of the refugee diaspora—after they have been flung around the countryside—are able to come together again, to join up as a family again. They are able to join their families in Australia. That is our contribution, and it is a very large contribution compared with the size of our population. Under Labor's new arrangement, we now have people coming from all over the world. If you can afford the $8,000 or $10,000 per head to get here in a boat then you have jumped the queue. The people who will not be coming here are the 6,000-odd people who are part of the family aspect of that demographic. They will not be coming here because their places have been taken by boat people—people who have simply come here. Originally, under the coalition, we sent a clear message: do not come here by boat; if you do you will be treated in exactly the same way as the place from which you left. So people stopped coming. The previous Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, came and said: 'Look we're going to change all that. We've sold our souls to the Greens—to the devil.' That is why we have this situation. Julia Gillard, the current Prime Minister, took her place and said, 'We've lost our way: we've lost our way on border protection, we've lost our way on the carbon tax, we've lost our way on the mining tax.' But, most importantly, as an iconic process, they have lost their way on border protection. Well, hello! We know that, but they said they would fix it. Kevin Rudd failed because he simply was thinking more about the interests of the Labor Party. Julia Gillard seems to be failing because she is more interested in the interests of the Labor Party than in the interests of Australia and Australians.

If you want to think about compassion—and as somebody said, it is the coalition and those interested in a tough border protection policy that send the clear signal: please do not put the lives of your families at risk; the UNHCR will decide who comes to this country—then think for a moment about the men and women, but mostly about the women and young children, in places like Kakuma. If you are compassionate, then every time we weaken a policy think about their lives and how short their lives are. This Labor Party stands absolutely condemned for putting its interests and its political motives—their relationship with the Greens—above the national interest. (Time expired)

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

Immigration and border protection policy is an area of public policy that is very important, very complicated and detailed. But it is also an area that requires leadership to develop and implement a policy that ensures our nation meets the international commitments to which we are a signatory, including our humanitarian obligations under the United Nations conventions dealing with the treatment of refugees. It requires leadership to ensure a policy that provides an effective deterrent to the insidious trade of people smuggling and playing on the lives of the vulnerable and asking them to risk their lives on the high seas in unsafe and unseaworthy boats. Countries benefit from a multipartisan or a bipartisan approach to dealing with issues such as this.

Today's matter of public importance demonstrates, on behalf of the coalition, a complete lack of leadership on this important issue, an inability to analyse the recent decision of the High Court and an unwillingness to work with the government and implement a workable, effective and long-term policy solution to what is a difficult and very complex area of public policy. In the wake of the High Court's decision, Tony Abbott said:

I think that our country should have the best border protection policy that the government of the day thinks that it needs and I’m [pleased] to work constructively to give the government, to restore to the government, the option of third country offshore processing which it says the High Court and the Solicitor-General have denied to it.

When we heard that quote from the Leader of the Opposition, those on this side thought, 'Finally we have some logic, finally we have some thoughtfulness, finally we have a constructive approach to what is a very difficult policy area, and finally we have some leadership from the coalition.' We welcomed the commitment from the Leader of the Opposition. We provided a depart­mental briefing and we provided access to the experts regarding both the immigration issues and the legal issues associated with the High Court decision. In that briefing, the Leader of the Opposition was told of the High Court's judgment and the new interpretation of the law that the High Court had given to this issue. In that briefing, the Leader of the Opposition was told of the legal advice from the Solicitor-General, which cast further doubt on offshore processing of asylum seekers—wherever that may be. Indeed, the past declarations of Nauru under the Howard government would, in all likelihood, have been invalid under this decision of the High Court.

The Leader of the Opposition was also informed that a legislative response is required—that is, an amendment to the Migration Act is required to ensure that our country has an effective long-term policy to deal with this very difficult policy issue. A number of days after the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, he began backing away from them. He began to say that he opposed a bipartisan approach to this. He resorted to type on this particular issue, he resorted to the opposition's policy of Nauru. He ignored the departmental advice, the expert advice, of those who have worked in this particular policy area for many years. In particular, he ignored the advice of the head of the department, Andrew Metcalfe, who, I note on Friday last week, former immi­gration minister in the Howard govern­ment Amanda Vanstone described as a 'first-class public servant'. Well, the Leader of the Opposition has ignored his advice showing a complete lack of leadership on this issue. In the wake of the High Court's decision, the government did what any good government would do—reacted quickly. We considered the advice of the departmental experts and the legal experts. We consulted the opposi­tion and other groups in society and, indeed, the executive consulted government MPs this morning. We have developed a legislative response that will overcome the difficulties identified in the High Court's decision. This legislative response will ensure that we continue to meet our international obli­gations in this policy area yet, at the same time, provide a very effective deterrent to people smuggling and stop people smugglers trading on the vulnerability of those seeking a better life by asking them to get on unsafe boats and undertake unsafe journeys.

The government has developed such an approach in consultation, based on the advice of experts. Yet the opposition come in here today and raise a matter of public importance in which they claim that the government has failed to find its way on this important policy issue. The only ones who have failed to find their way on this important policy issue are the opposition. Despite the advice of experts, first class public servants and the government's legal advisers in the wake of the High Court decision, they refuse to move away from their commitment to a policy that has been demonstrated not to work. It will not provide an effective deterrent. Experts have advised the government that it will not work. Indeed, 95 per cent of those who were housed on Nauru, who were found to be genuine refugees, ended up in Australia or New Zealand. This policy is not an effective deterrent.

What is needed to deal with this issue is a regional architecture with regional consultation. We need to work with our neighbours to ensure that in our region there is an effective deterrent to people smuggling that allows a nation such as Australia to ensure it meets its international commitments and gives priority to those in need. Many of those have been mentioned in the Senate today—those in the Horn of Africa and in Burma, some of whom have been waiting in camps for 16 to 20 years.

The government's policy will ensure that we meet those international commitments yet provide a sensible, logical approach to the trade of people smuggling and an effective deterrent. The government has offered the opposition a commitment to work in a bipartisan manner on this issue. On several occasions we have said to the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and the relevant shadow spokesperson that we will work in a bipartisan manner and that this issue requires a legislative response. That legislative response will ensure that we provide an effective deterrent to people smuggling and continue to meet humanitarian commitments that our nation has pledged to meet in a manner that will see priority given to those in need. The government stands ready and willing to work with the opposition on this important issue. We oppose the claim by the opposition in the Senate this afternoon that the government has lost its way on this issue. The opposition has lost its way on this issue. (Time expired)

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

Senator Thistlethwaite questioned the need for this matter of public importance discussion today. I have to remind Senator Thistlethwaite: you were at a caucus meeting this morning when your own party was fighting over the absolute disarray in which your government has put border protection in Australia. Did you not read the headline in the paper today: 'Showdown: Labor rebels rally to sink Gillard's offshore asylum seeker solution'? You question why we have come in here today and raised this as a matter of public importance. Go and have a bit of a chat with Senator Cameron. See how Senator Cameron is feeling today. Have a chat with Senator Marshall. See how Senator Marshall is feeling today.

Listen to the talk that is going on in the corridors because, as a result of 24 June last year, which is now fondly known as 'execution day', there is a very good chance that the Australian public is going to revisit that day. Why? Because the Prime Minister who replaced Mr Rudd said at the time:

I accept that the government has lost track. We'll get it back on track. I have taken control for precisely those purposes.

What an absolute joke! What did she take control of? She took control of what was a complete, total and utter mess on that side. Lo and behold, she has managed to make it even worse.

The 'current' Prime Minister—and I use that word very loosely, as I know many on the Labor side of politics do—has also gone on the public record asking the public not to judge her on the way she became Prime Minister but on the job that she is doing. If the latest Newspolls are anything to go by, from the rumours in the corridors of Parliament House—and we all know what those rumours are; in fact, lo and behold, Senator Farrell walks in right on cue—the current Prime Minister is about to become the former Prime Minister.

In relation to so many policy failures, this is possibly the greatest policy failure of the Gillard Labor government. Who can forget Ms Gillard's catchcry when she was the shadow minister for immigration, when she used to say to the opposition if another boat arrived under our watch, 'Another boatload, another policy failure.' That was her mantra. I ask those on the other side: now that the Prime Minister has notched up a century, in that 100 boats have now arrived on our shores under her watch—and that is not a century to be proud of—what is the level of policy failure that is currently engulfing the Prime Minister of Australia? Put aside what I have to say as a coalition senator. You all expect me and all of us on this side to come into this place and criticise you. Let us have a look at what members of the Labor Party—members of the current Gillard govern­ment—have to say about the Prime Minister's mess when it comes to border protection. Senator Mark Bishop, a Western Australian senator, said to the Australian online when he was commenting on the government's mishandling of its botched Malaysia solution that the 'very existence of the government itself' was threatened. And he did not stop there. He went on to say:

There appears to be continuing lack of accountability, ministers don't seem to take responsibility for their own decision-making and consequences.

The Australian public must be fully confident of the ministers on the other side when their own Labor senators are doubting their own confidence.

But let us not stop there. Let us look at the House of Representatives. Let us see what Labor MP Graham Perrett said about the government's botched border protection policy. He said that the government needs to take time to get the policy right. You have got to be kidding me. Haven't we on this side listened to you bleat on and on and on for what is now turning into years that you had the policy right? And you had it wrong all the time. You had it wrong on every single occasion. One of your own members in the House of Representatives has at least now had the guts to stand up and say to the people of Australia that the government needs to take the time to get it right—an outright admission that when it comes to border protection policy this government is an absolute failure.

But it does not stop there. Another Labor senator, Doug Cameron, who is the convener of the left-wing group of the Labor Party, is on the record as saying that all of those who sit around him in the Senate have become 'political zombies', too scared to speak their minds. And what did he say about the Malaysia solution, which the Gillard government today reaffirmed itself to, despite the legal advice? Senator Cameron said that the Malaysia solution was no solution at all. That is a Labor senator saying that. And I understand Senator Marshall was not far behind him. That is two Labor senators who have stood up in caucus and said that the Malaysia solution is no solution at all.

Yet we come into this place today and are subjected to unity on the Labor side of politics: the Malaysia solution is going to stop the boats. I hate to tell you this, but it has not stopped the boats yet. They continue to arrive. In fact, if you go back to your offices you will probably find that another one has arrived. But the 100th boat under Prime Minister Gillard's watch arrived post the Malaysia announcement. It is interesting that since I have been in this place there has been this constant tension between the left and the right of the Labor Party. Today we see, yet again, the Left coming in, all built up. And yet again they have to roll over. Senator Cameron and Senator Marshall have had to roll over. They have had to have their little tummies tickled. They have had to be told to be good boys and come in here and tell this place to tell the Australian public it is a solution, when they are on the record as saying it is the complete opposite.

In addition to that, let us have a look at what the newspapers are saying about the Gillard government. If any senator wanted confirmation that the Gillard government's policies are not working and that there is massive dissension in the Labor Party ranks, they need only look at a snapshot of the headlines from the last 24 hours. The first one is 'Labor could win if Rudd returns', in Adelaide Now on 12 September. I would like to know Senator Farrell's views on that, quite frankly. Were you the unnamed source, Senator Farrell? If you were, put your hand up now. The second headline is 'PM facing Malaysian deadlock', in the Australian on 11 September. Then there is 'Emergency talks to head off shift to Rudd', in the CourierMail on 10 September; 'Julia Gillard seeks action as smugglers close in', in the Australian on 10 September; '100th boat on Labor's watch', in the Daily Telegraph on 10 September and '100th asylum seeker boat arrives for Julia Gillard', in Adelaide Now on 10 September. I could go on and I could go on and I could go on.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please don't!

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

Such is the extent of the failure of this government when it comes to border protection. I see Senator Farrell is laughing. I have to say to Senator Farrell, as someone who had his little paws all over 'Execution Day' a year and a half ago: if you thought it was bad under Mr Rudd, what do you honestly think now? This is a Labor Party that is in a complete, total and utter mess when it comes to so many of its policies, not least of which is border protection. Again, it is not just us on this side of the chamber who think that. The House of Representatives itself condemned the Malaysia deal. A motion was passed in the House of Representatives condemning the Gillard Labor government. And who supported that motion? Adam Bandt did—Adam Bandt, who as we know is in alliance with the government. The Independents Andrew Wilkie and Bob Katter, whom the government has to rely on for support, actually supported the motion, despite the Prime Minister's pathetic protestations. Under Prime Minister Gillard, Labor has an appalling record when it comes to protecting Australia's borders.

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

Before I call Senator Polley, I remind all senators to correctly address members of the other house.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite often we come into this place and have to speak on trivial and irrelevant matters of public importance, such as the one that has been put forward by the opposition. It really hurts me to have to say this about my colleague Senator Cash, but to be fair to her she often comes in here and rants. But that was one of the most disappointing rants I have heard to date from you. It was a rant from one extreme to the other, talking about leadership, about misleading the public—as if those people on the other side are saints.

We won't talk about the disunity within the Liberal Party, will we. We will not talk about the disunity in their camp between Turnbull and Abbott. We will not talk about those sorts of issues. We won't talk about those opposite misleading the Australian community. We won't talk about issues to do with polling. The only time they talk about polling is when they are showing their natural arrogance, the arrogance that they demonstrate in this place on a daily basis in their belief that they were born to rule. They have never accepted the fact that they lost the 2007 election. They do not accept that they lost the last election.

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

You didn't win the last one.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We did. We are sitting on this side of the chamber because the Prime Minister of this country negotiated the outcome that put us on the government benches. She was unlike Mr Abbott, who was quite prepared to throw billions of dollars at anybody who was prepared to support Abbott in government. That is the difference with those on the opposite side.

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

Order! Senator Polley, I did remind the Senate about using the correct title to address members of the other house. It has happened on both sides of the chamber today. I will call a point of order on every occasion on which people are not referred to correctly, so please refer to people by their correct titles and not just by their surname.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take that on board. Using Mr Abbott's correct title I will re-state that he was prepared to pay whatever price it was going to take to get on the government benches.

But let's talk about this MPI. As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations convention and the 1967 protocol, Australia, the USA and Canada are the three highest recipients of humanitarian refugees in the world and have been for many years. This government is no different at all. The Howard government's legislative provision section 198A(3) was tested in the Federal Court, which endorsed offshore processing of asylum seekers. The High Court has reinterpreted the legislation and although we the government are disappointed we accept the High Court's decision. The government has already acknowledged that legislative change would be needed to put offshore processing beyond doubt. That is what our publicly released legal advice shows.

The Labor government has accepted that there are three issues: first, to break the people-smuggling business model you need to have a significant disincentive in place and take away the product that they are trying to sell; second, you need an orderly migration program to consider all humanitarian claims; and, third, we need acceptance of genuine humanitarian refugees in line with our long-term commitment. Of these issues, the Australian government has a very positive position on the acceptance of humanitarian refugees. There can be no question that this will continue, and the increase to 14,750 signals that this is so.

But the government is committed to breaking the people-smuggling trade. We are committed to deterring people from taking these dangerous trips in boats that are rarely seaworthy. We are concerned about their welfare. We are concerned about the women, children and men who set sail for a better life. We are committed to orderly migration programs. To break the people-smuggling trade an adequate deterrent is needed. If this were not the case why would the coalition have resorted to the Pacific solution? The coalition has always supported offshore processing of asylum seekers but, in keeping with their mantra in opposition, they are about opposing, opposing and opposing.

So, what is this motion about? It is about the fact that they are unable to accept the harm done to refugees on Nauru. Ninety-five per cent of the people were resettled to Australia and New Zealand, many suffering from serious mental conditions. They were unable to accept that the cost of reopening Nauru would be about $1 billion over four years, and that does not include the inevitable infrastructure costs. I can remember pictures of Tony Abbott at Nauru looking into a classroom pretending it was a detention centre. We know, and so does the opposition, that the processing centre in Nauru is not available for use. There is no offshore processing centre ready for use in Nauru. That is a fact. And is there anything on Nauru that would be ready for use to process 200 or 300 people? The processing centre was dismantled and the remaining infrastructure given to the people of Nauru. That is a fact. While Nauru signed the instruments of access to the refugee convention in June this year, it does not currently have legislation for determining refugee status determination and it has no experience in undertaking refugee status assessments. Nauru is isolated, and, with redevelopment, its costs would be very expensive. The opposition have been briefed by officials. Mr Abbott knows that Nauru will fail. It is not just us providing the briefing to Mr Abbott and the opposition; it is the officials, who have made it very clear that Nauru will fail. Nauru will not stop the boats. The government is committed to the Malaysian solution. This, combined with a commitment to Manus Island, will achieve the outcome that this government is looking for. The message will be: if you take a boat to Australia, you will be returned to Malaysia and processed with the 90,000 other asylum seekers and refugees waiting there. Malaysia willingly entered into this agreement, acting in good faith. The UNHCR has repeatedly said the govern­ment's Malaysian transfer arrangement was workable. The UNHCR was engaged and consulted throughout the process by Australia and Malaysia and very much helped to shape the final arrangement.

Christmas Island is an important immigration facility for this government. It also provides significant benefits for the local community, including improved infrastructure and significant employment opportunities. Meanwhile, we have Mr Abbott flopping all over the place, flip-flopping as usual. Over the last week he committed to an act of good faith, then ruled it in and then ruled it out: 'I am not ruling anything in and I am not ruling anything out.' Who does that remind me of? This change in attitude towards working positively and constructively was welcomed, but what do we find? We find, as usual, Mr Abbott going back on his word in an article in the Conversationtitled 'The vexed question of onshore processing and possible civil unrest':

If we go back to 2007 when then Immigration Minister Andrews targeted Africans, particularly Sudanese, as impossible to assimilate, that caused a significant drop in public support, particularly in Victoria, towards the settlement of refugees.

It wasn’t the refugees who caused it, it was the public statements of hostility from leading political figures. As it turns out African refugees (rarely if ever boat arrivals) have proven to be generally law abiding, hard working and passionately attached to the Australia that has given them the precious gift of freedom.

I could go on and on, but what I want to put on the record is that this government is a compassionate government. We will treat refugees with respect. We will ensure that in whatever measures this government takes—and the Malaysian solution is part of that—we will endeavour to do all that we can to stop the boats. Those opposite would not accept anything this government puts forward on this issue. (Time expired)

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

What a disgrace. What an absolute disgrace we are confronted with today: the complete and utter failure and inability of this government, led by this Prime Minister, to protect our borders. This Prime Minister is the all-rounder of failed border protection, the very person who as the shadow minister for immigration, on the rare occasion she was able to do so, would get out of the policy and say, 'Another boat, another failed policy.' And what do we have now? We have another boat, another 100 policy failures. Ms Gillard, the current Prime Minister, has now made her maiden test century. She is the Shaun Marsh of failed asylum seeker policy. The big question, of course, is whether she will go on to do more than 151 runs, as Shaun Marsh did the other day in Sri Lanka.

But of course Prime Minister Gillard is not restricted to being a batsman; she is a bowler of the most hapless form, the hapless hat-trick. What were her three failures? Firstly, there was her failure to stop the arrival of asylum seekers; secondly, her abject failure of the so-called East Timor solution; and, thirdly and most recently, her failure in the Malaysia solution. How inconvenient are umpires when you are completely and utterly afield as a cricketer! It is far too serious an issue to be dealt with like this.

I was in East Timor, in Dili, only five weeks ago and one of my purposes was to try and establish what I thought of the prospect of us joining with East Timor to set up an asylum seeking facility there. You would only have needed to visit to find it would not work. Those of us who have lived and worked in Malaysia, particularly under the then prime ministership of Mahatir Mohamad, would know the way in which illegal immigrants were dealt with by the government—off the end of the cane, off the end of the stick. It would be no different.

Earlier this afternoon we heard my colleague Senator Scullion referring to the 15.4 million refugees around the world. We know, as a result of the discussions over Malaysia, that more than 90,000 genuine refugees are rotting in asylum camps and refugee camps in Malaysia, and we know the story of the Horn of Africa. I have made the observation in this place before, and I believe it to be true, that there is a high degree of corruption in the actual refugee camps, where people who are legitimate refugees accepted by this country get somewhere near the top of the queue but never, ever get a guernsey. Why? Because of the corrupt payments that are going to those who manage those refugee camps from others who jump the queue and suddenly find their way. I have not yet seen any action taken by this government to investigate that shocking scenario to see if it is true.

The worst feature of the failure of this government is the increased number of unaccompanied children who are being put on these leaking, rotting wooden fishing boats and put to sea under the most horrific conditions—and we are doing nothing about it. I have reflected on a more generic term. If you wish to try and smash the business model of somebody else, how do you go about it? In this case, of course, it is the so-called business model of the people-smugglers—one which, incidentally, Prime Minister Howard and his then immigration minister, Mr Ruddock, were very successful in smashing. But, as we all know, the Howard government inherited a problem and found a solution. They handed it to the then Rudd-Gillard government, who picked up that solution and turned it back into a problem.

If you want to smash the business model of an opponent, what are your options? The first one is to compete on better terms. Only last week we saw Clarke and Dawe parodying this situation, ridiculing this government, talking about the fact that we brought Irish and English immigrants and even convicts here in the 1700s and 1800s. Brian Dawe even asked the question of John Clarke, parodied as Treasurer Swan: 'Why don't you have a weekly ship or a monthly ship out of the Middle East?' That is the stupidity of that particular circumstance.

The second thing you would do is to make the business illegal and successfully prosecute the perpetrators. This draws me to an article in the Age on 30 August. We now see in Melbourne that Victorian Legal Aid lawyer Saul Holt is telling us that they are appealing to the chief judge of the Victorian County Court to overturn the crime of people-smuggling based on the fact that although these people, the asylum seekers, have no visas they will argue that under international and Australian law genuine refugees seeking asylum from persecution should not in fact lead to people-smugglers being charged. What are we going to do—give them medals? What is interesting is that this is in Victoria. What is the proportion of people-smugglers that end up in Victorian prisons? I can tell you that it is very few. But I can tell you the answer for Western Australia, as my colleagues would know. We have 130-plus in Western Australian jails at the moment either awaiting trial or who have been dealt with, costing the Western Australian taxpayer $100,000 each a year, in excess of $13 million a year. So here is the success of my second item of the business model, making it illegal. Victorian Legal Aid do not want to make people smuggling illegal. They presumably want to put it on a pedestal.

The third that I would suggest to you if you are trying to smash the business model is convincing the consumers that the product is unattractive so that they do not want to buy it—in other words, so they do not want to come here. Taking the opposition out of the market is another option. But the fifth one—and I will deal with the third and the fifth together—is to completely change the product, change it completely, so that the consumer is disinterested.

It was in 1954 that Australia signed up to the UNHCR. That is nearly 50 years ago. Surely the circumstances have changed in the world—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fifty-seven.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Senator Farrell. I know Senator Farrell's capacity for numbers and I would always defer to him on that particular element. But surely the circumstances from post Second World War Europe, Australia and Asia have changed such that it is time that we revisit that entire situation.

I look at what the Howard government implemented by way of finding its solution. The first measure of course was temporary protection visas, to give that level of protection to those people until such time as conditions in their home countries were such that they could safely be returned. That is something that should never, ever have been discontinued. On the Nauru solution, we hear that bleatings of Senator Carr and others saying that it never worked. The point was that it took the oxygen away from the people-smugglers. The people-smugglers could not advertise in their evil ways in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places that people coming to Australia would get to Australia. That was the point of Nauru, and it worked. It is interesting that Nauru was run by Australians. It would be most interesting to run a poll of people who have been found to be not genuine refugees: would they like to go to Malaysia under Malaysian manage­ment or would they like to go to Nauru to a facility under Australian management? It would be most interesting to see what the outcome would be.

The other thing we did under the Howard government was forge a strong, positive relationship with Indonesia. Think back to the tsunami when this country sent $1 billion to the people of Indonesia at a time when their Islamic brothers in the United Arab Emirates could only come up with $1 million—and only when it was shamed afterwards did Saudi Arabia kick the can to some very limited effect. What we see in this country now in the circumstances of our relationship with Indonesia, which I will not dwell on today, is a very upset relationship with that country. What level of cooperation is Australia likely to get with the government of Indonesia at the moment on matters associated with asylum seekers and border protection given the fact that we treated them so harshly in the months of June and July this year?

The Howard government eliminated the pull factors. Even Minister Bowen has accepted at the moment that what we have done in this country is create those pull factors and we are going to continue to see an increase in the numbers to come. Then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Philip Ruddock said the safest thing to do was to keep people off the boats. This government has failed. This government is unable to protect Australia's borders. It must go.

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

I rise today to make a contribution to this debate about migration as well. I want to, firstly, indicate that it is one of those areas that I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this chamber and it is an area that can be highly charged and unfortunately at times politicised. Unfortunately at other times we see the creeping of xenophobia into the discussion. It is an area that needs to be critiqued in respect of what it is about.

Before I get to the relevant points, I want to make comment on some of the previous contributions from speakers from the opposition. Firstly, Senator Scullion spoke about the Horn of Africa. There is a terrible situation happening over there. That is why we need sympathetic and reasonable management of how we protect our borders and deal with those poor souls who come from situations that we are aware of in the Horn of Africa.

Senator Cash spoke about reports of headlines in the newspapers about what is happening in our caucus today. Yes, there was a caucus meeting today where metho­dically and reasonably the members of the Labor caucus worked through a process of discussing this issue. At the end of the day, we worked up and supported a solution that will see an outcome of presenting legislation to the House of Representatives and eventually to this chamber for a resolution on how we deal with migration.

It really astounds me how not just Senator Cash—I do respect Senator Cash; she is a good performer from the opposition—but in general most of those people in the opposition here will tend to rely on the media. I guess that is why there is a campaign out there currently wanting some reform in the media. I will give just one example of why you cannot always rely upon the media. Just last week, I was quoted in the Age as having made some comments about the introduction of or the support for the Nauru solution. It was not even me in the photograph; it was a colleague. That clearly demonstrates that those opposite should never rely upon media headlines in the newspapers.

We know that there has been a High Court decision in relation to our Malaysia solution, which has been dealt with. Subject to that decision, we need to work out future positions on handling migration and border protection. That is why, in caucus today, we had a discussion dealing with this particular issue. The High Court judgment established a new interpretation of migration law, which is why we need to work through a process of managing this. Legal advice from the Solicitor General cast further doubt over offshore processing of asylum seekers, wherever it might occur. It could be anywhere in the Pacific that we as a government decide in the future to deal with this issue. Indeed, talking about Nauru under the Howard government, the Solicitor-General has indicated that, most likely, that decision would have been invalid as well. This is an opportunity for the opposition to work with us in a bipartisan way to make sure we get a solution, because one day in the future they may be in a position where they might be in government and they will need to deal with this issue.

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

We've dealt with it before.

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

There is no use in playing politics on this issue, Senator Back. You need to deal with migration in a methodical, reasonable and responsible manner, rather than coming up with cheap slogans like, 'We will stop the boats.' You know, Madam Acting Deputy President, that I, as chair of the defence subcommittee, take a strong interest in defence matters. It was only last year, in July, that I was very fortunate to be on the parliamentary defence program at the border protection command in Darwin. On that day, it was actually the day on which the Prime Minister was on HMAS Bathurst, we went out into the harbour and saw firsthand how our hardworking, professional men and women on that ship deal with this issue. Low and behold, one of the opposition members of the House of Representatives, the member for Dickson, just had to ask the question. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out what the answer would have been to his question, which was: 'Why don't we just stop the boats? Why don't we just turn them around?' We are in the middle of the ocean somewhere, we cannot see land for miles around us, and here is the member for Dickson asking a stupid question like that. I knew what the answer would be, and sure enough it was: 'If you go around trying to stop the boats, the first sign of an Australian naval patrol boat will result in those people drilling holes in their hull, damaging their engines or do anything they can to make sure they are rescued.' We are dealing with desperate people. We are dealing with people who are coming from areas where they are persecuted, or where there is war or conflict, and you have these grubby people-smugglers getting them over here in any possible way, shape or form, whether it be in a leaky ex-fishing boat, whatever the case may be, regardless of its condition. We all watched, sadly, on our TVs last year as SIEV221 smashed up against the rocks on Christmas Island. I do not want to see that scene again and I am sure everyone in this chamber feels the same. That is why we need to work together on a solution to this issue.

Regardless of what the opposition does when this legislation comes into the parliament, it needs to reflect on its position, because at some stage in the future it will need to deal with this. It is not a case of coming up with cheap political slogans such as: 'We will stop the boats,' or 'We will pick up the boat phone and ring someone in Canberra who will deal with this issue.' You need to work through a humane solution and deal with it using a logical process.

I will focus on Nauru for a moment. We know that, as a result of that solution, somewhere around 60 per cent of those who were resettled from Nauru were resettled in Australia, and that a whopping 95 per cent of people resettled from Nauru ended up in Australia or New Zealand. It was not an outcome that worked, despite what those opposite would have you believe. It did not work. The reality is that 95 per cent of those people were resettled in our country and in New Zealand. We know that, not long ago, the member for Cook and also Mr Abbott visited Nauru and inspected what is a dilapidated migration centre. They came up with the view that it would have a significantly lower cost than the Malaysia solution. We know that is also not true; they have got it wrong. It will not be cheap or effective. It will be more costly, because of the changes that will need to be made on Nauru. That is why we as a government will not consider Nauru has a possibility in the legislation we introduce to deal with this issue. In fact, the highest level of Department of Immigration and Citizenship estimates are that the coalition's Nauru plan would cost taxpayers $980 million, almost $1 billion, in operational costs alone. That is $1 billion that could be spent elsewhere, on health or education, rather than refurbishing a centre that is basically inoperative.

Once again Mr Abbott needs to decide, for the sake of the coalition as an alternative government, to work with us on this issue. Migration to this country has always been an issue. I remember, back in the 1970s and the 1980s, when the Vietnamese boat people arrived on our shores. I still dread to remind myself of some of the redneck statements such as, 'Why don't we get the Navy out there and blow 'em out of the water.' I am certain that is not what the opposition is advocating, but it certainly stirred up xenophobia in our community. We need to make sure that those sorts of comments and views are oppressed and that we deal with this issue as a government—and as a government we can.

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

Order! The time for this debate has concluded.