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

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The failure of the current government to maintain effective and humane border protection policies in order to deny people smugglers the product that they sell.

Is the proposal supported?

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

It is bad enough that the Senate this week is having to debate the carbon tax legislation, which is based on the greatest lie that has ever been told to the Australian people. As if that were not enough, what the Senate is debating in this matter of public importance debate today is the greatest policy failure facing the Labor government and that is the policy failure in relation to border protection. Who can forget the words of the now Prime Minister of Australia, on execution day in 2009, when they politically executed the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. This was the reason that was given by the now Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, for Mr Rudd's execution:

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

Not only that, but a few days later the now Prime Minister asked the Australian people not to judge her on how she became Prime Minister. She said:

The only thing I could say to Australians is to judge me on how I do the job.

Well, when Ms Gillard uttered those words she clearly was not referring to the job that the Labor government has done in relation to protecting Australia's borders. Far from breaking the people smugglers' model, which is the rhetoric of the Labor Party, the policies the Labor government have in place are seeing the people-smuggling business absolutely booming. We only have to go back to yesterday. What did we have? The arrival of yet another boat under this Labor government's watch. Ninety-four people were found and have been taken to Christmas Island.

In relation to the arrival of yet another boat the question the Australian people have to ask themselves is this: how much is the government's failure in relation to protecting Australia's borders going to cost us as taxpayers? After all, it may surprise the current government to know that it is the Australian taxpayer who ultimately pays the greatest price in relation to their failed border protection policies. The bad news for the mums and dads of Australia is that it is potentially going to cost them billions of dollars, and it is billions of dollars that have not been accounted for in the 2011-12 budget.

It is bad enough that the failure of the Labor Party in this important policy area has cost the Australian taxpayer in excess of $3 billion to date. Those costs will keep on rising. The current 2011-12 budget has a figure of around $1.3 billion to be spent in this important portfolio area. The only problem with that is this: the figure was based on just 750 boat arrivals. How the Labor Party ever got to that figure is beyond me, because, since 2008, when the Labor Party rolled back the Howard government's strong border protection policies, just under 13,000 people have reached our shores. So how they ever thought they were going to get that down to 750 in one year is beyond the comprehension of most people. But did we ever believe it? The answer is, no, we did not, and we have already been proved right. We are only into the fourth month of this financial year and already the budget in relation to this particular portfolio area has quite literally been blown out of the water.

Why do I say that? Well, if you budget for 750 arrivals and as at 2 November over 1,340 have arrived, and we still have three-quarters of this financial year to get through, there is clearly a cost implication. That cost implication does not worry the Labor Party because they think Australian taxpayers money is like Monopoly money. It is going to cost the mums and dads of Australia, who are already struggling under the rising cost of living pressure, who are going to struggle to pay their electricity bills once the carbon tax goes through and who are going to struggle to pay their gas bills once the carbon tax goes through. And as for discretionary income, there will not be any once the carbon tax goes through. In addition to that they are the ones who will ultimately pay for the absolute abject failure in this important policy area.

One thing the government has not done to date, and it is one thing the government should do, is come clean with the Australian people. The government should bring down a mini budget in relation to this portfolio area. Come clean with the Australian people. Be up front with them and let them know just how much more of their money is going to be spent on cleaning up Labor's border protection mess.

What is so unfortunate about the debate we are having today is that it is a debate that did not have to happen. We all know the reason for that. When the Labor Party assumed office in 2007 they inherited a solution. They inherited the Howard government's policies, which had reduced the boats coming to Australia to zero. But was that good enough for the Australian Labor Party? Good God no! How much lower can we get than zero? They do not know, but they rolled back those policies and what did we see the minute they rolled them back? The people smugglers knew that under the Australian Labor Party they were back in business. Under the former Howard government we sent a strong consistent message to people smugglers: Australia is closed for business. As at August 2008 that message went out the door and the doors to Australia were opened. Less than $100 million a year was spent by the Howard government in this important portfolio area. Under the current government the Australian taxpayers, the mums and dads who work hard, are paying in excess of $1 billion a year. The crime is that it never needed to happen.

What is the Labor Party's solution? Is it to adopt the Howard government's proven policies? No, they could not do that because they could not swallow their pride and do it, even though they know it will work. What did they put up? The Malaysia solution, or the now failed Malaysia solution, which we still know is the preferred option of Minister Bowen. But this is the bad news for Minister Bowen: even if the parliament were to pass the Malaysia solution, the deal is over before it has started. The deal was only good for the first 800 boat arrivals. How many have arrived since the signing of the Malaysian deal? We have had 1,070 people and the deal was only good for 800 people. So, even if the parliament decided tomorrow to pass the Malaysian solution, the deal is over before it has even commenced, and the ALP, the government, are actually stuck with 270 people who are going to be processed onshore in any event. That is a catastrophic policy failure if I have ever seen one. Apart from the fact that in relation to the Malaysian solution—this is how good the Australian government are at negotiating deals—they negotiated into the deal clause 16, which stated 'this agreement is merely a statement of the political intentions of the parties'. And then they went a little bit further. They felt, 'Well, that's not a good enough negotiation; let's negotiate Malaysia out of this deal even further', so they negotiated into the agreement the following words: 'This agreement is not legally binding on the parties.' That is the solution that the Labor Party held up to the Australian people.

If the Labor Party truly want offshore processing, as they continue to tell us they do—Minister Bowen was on television only this morning, yet again committing the Labor Party to offshore processing—they could actually have it tomorrow. They could have it tomorrow if they only agreed to one amendment—and that amendment is actually the policy that the Labor Party took to the previous election: that a country has to be a signatory to the UNHCR treaty. That is the promise that the Gillard government made prior to the election. Our small amendment will actually help the Labor Party keep their promise to the Australian people. But in this area this government's policy is a catastrophic failure. They should swallow their pride and adopt the former Howard government policy— (Time expired)

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that really was a most remarkable contribution by Senator Cash. I will summarise very briefly her contribution. She referred to the 'greatest policy failure of the current government', 'another boat arrived yesterday' and 'what will be the cost to taxpayers?' She referred to budget measures, a blow-out of portfolio costs to the tune of $1 billion and referred to it as 'Monopoly money' et cetera. Not once did she choose to address the motion before the chair—that is, 'The failure of the current government to maintain effective and humane border protection policies in order to deny people smugglers the product that they sell.' Let us think about that motion, because I do want to address it.

We currently face a terrible set of events. One really should start at the outset by indicating sympathy for those people who drowned yesterday to their parents and to their loved ones. It was a terrible set of events that we faced yesterday morning. It was terrible on two levels. Firstly, there were the deaths of the six young people in Indonesian waters—and I am advised there are another 20 people still missing. But, perhaps more terrible, when we pass the instant events of yesterday, is the continuing set of events year in, year out, which inevitably, as sure as God made little apples, will lead to further death and harm in this debate. For almost 10 years, without interruption, people have been drowning at sea as they seek entry into Australia. So one may squarely ask the question: why has that continued for up to 10 years? Surely it is not beyond the wit of human kind that after one, two or three years one could devise a solution that is acceptable and put it into practice.

We know in this country that we have had longstanding bipartisan immigration policy relating to entry into this country since the immediate post-war years—arguably the best in the world: low-cost, flexible, variable, changing according to the needs of those who want to come into this country and those who seek additional labour. So, family reunion might change to a higher concentration, for example, on skilled migration or labour market demands in Queensland and Western Australia. But every three, four or five years, in between governments and through governments, immigration policy in this area changes according to the needs of people and markets. So, we have had for many years an orderly, effective and lawful immigration policy.

In that context, why do people choose to put themselves at risk? As we saw from the events of yesterday and last Christmas, many people drown at sea. The answer, I suggest, is simple, plain and clear. On this issue, advice to government from those who have authority and experience over many, many years in this discussion and this debate, is very direct. That advice to government is: 'We need a genuinely effective deterrent to prevent asylum seekers taking the dangerous boat journey to Australia.' There are three key words in that phrase: 'genuine', 'effective' and 'deterrent'. 'Genuine' means controlled, managed and lawful; 'effective' means a policy that works and that is understood in this country and the wider region; and 'deterrent' means preventing people taking the risk of drowning. That is what we have needed for 10 years, that is what we needed yesterday and that is what we need now. But we do not have such a policy, so people jump on boats, like last Christmas, at the peak of the season, and they jumped on boats yesterday, as the season is about to peak this year, and the boat overturned. Twenty are missing and six are dead—one a child—yet we do not have a policy after 10 years.

This government has tried for the last three years to get a policy. Why don't we have one? Because the opposition, those people over there in this place, refuse to respect the will of the elected government and let the government of the day, whoever the government of the day is, give authority to executive decisions of that government. They work to prevent the government of the day, the executive of the day, giving effect to its lawful policy, to implement its policy, through the House of Representatives. They refuse to allow the government to implement the Malaysian transfer system.

Now, why do they choose to do that? Why do they say, 'It's better that boats fall apart at sea; that 20 people are missing; that six people drown; that one child will never see adulthood'? Why is that a better position that the mob over there choose to adopt and implement? The reasons are base political reasons. For reasons best known to themselves, they combined with the Greens down there and the net result is what? The net result is this: people die, because people are seeking entry into this country so they can have a better life. So this opposition flouts long-standing convention in a very difficult and very delicate area of public policy for its own base purpose. The results of that continuing practice in the house are twofold: the convention is flouted for political gain and people—children, women—die unnecessarily.

This could be fixed tomorrow. It requires a degree of humility, it requires a degree of modesty, it requires a degree of common sense and it requires the same application to bipartisan policy on entry into Australia that both political parties have applied for many years since the post-war years. The answer is this: that the government of the day, through the executive of the day, is permitted in the House of Representatives to get its will carried out through necessary amendments to legislation. What happens there? It requires a simple decision—as has been outlined repeatedly—to be made by the Leader of the Opposition to have a private discussion with the Prime Minister and say: 'The opposition may not agree with your approach. It may do different things should it come to government sometime in the future. It thinks the approach is incorrect and it might not work. But you are the government and we will consent to you governing. We will support your amendments in the House, as have successive leaders of the Labor Party for many, many years in opposition.'

When the coalition government of the day sought to amend acts of parliament to give effect to policy change in the area of lawful immigration, asylum seekers or illegal immigration, the then Leader of the Opposition—whether it was Mr Beazley, Mr Crean or whoever—gave the support of his party in those delicate negotiations. The current Leader of the Opposition, instead of making ongoing, cheap points in the other place, must show maturity when he approaches the government and let it make decisions. If Mr Abbott does not like it, he has the right to put in a caveat that if he should come to power and have the necessary support of the House of Representatives then he would seek, through customary mechanisms, to change the position and implement the policy or the laws that he as leader of the government thinks is appropriate at that time. I am sure I can say without fear of contradiction that if we were in opposition we would so indicate support for such a decision by them. But that is not the case.

So let us address the final point that Senator Cash raised about Nauru. She said that notwithstanding the issues about budgets, blowouts and costs, we should go back to the solution of the Howard government, eat a bit of humble pie and implement what worked then, some four, five or six years ago. That is okay, but you really do have to come into the real world—2011—and face the current set of facts that apply about Nauru. Nauru does not break the people-smuggling trade, as Senator Cash and the opposition well know. It does not provide the disincentive to stop people taking that dangerous boat journey down to Australia. Go back to the advice that the government had—that it needed to have a genuine, effective and humane policy. It needed one policy that acted as a deterrent, and we know for a fact— (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to add my contribution to this discussion. I do so reluctantly because this is a debate that has become embarrassing. This is a debate that has become unsightly, low and shameful, degrading our reputation and our Australian spirit of compassion and the values of a fair go. Instead of beating up on some of the world's most vulnerable people and appealing to the lowest of the lows, we should be appealing to our better angels. Once upon a time we did do this in this place. Once upon a time we had political leadership in this country that showed that compassion was a strength, that showed that offering people a helping hand was not just the right thing to do but was something to be proud of. There was support from all sides of the chamber to do this. Appealing to our better angels is something that all political leaders and participants in this place should be considering.

I will put some facts on the table. Since the end of World War II Australia has resettled almost 700,000 refugees. They have made an amazing, wonderful and important contribution to our country. Currently in Australia, asylum seekers make up only two per cent of Australia's entire annual migration intake. Last year, the 8,250 people who claimed asylum in Australia only amounted to 1.04 per cent of the global population of asylum seekers. Most asylum seekers who arrive in Australia arrive by plane, yet the majority of them are not found to be in genuine need of protection. Those who arrive by boat do not even make up a quarter of those who arrive by plane. Yet we have this toxic, debilitating, nasty, shameful debate about individuals who are so desperate for safety, protection and freedom for their families that they board a leaky boat. Those who lost their lives on the high seas in the last day or two did not take the decision to board that boat lightly. Asylum seekers who are coming to Australia asking for help are fleeing from countries of war. They are coming from places where they have been persecuted and tortured, and they are desperate for protection. And on that journey for safety coming through countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, countries that are not signatories to the refugee convention, that will not afford them genuine protection on their journey, they are faced with very little choice but to engage the operations of people smugglers.

There is much to do in the space of dealing with refugees and asylum seekers in this country. We need a response that Australia can be proud of, that upholds Australia's international obligations, that is underpinned by our values of a fair go and our Australian spirit of compassion. It means allowing people to resettle in this country with pride, not demonising those who are so desperate the only choice they have is to board a boat, working with our regional neighbours to avoid that perilous journey, offering safe pathways for people and resettling more people directly from the source countries that people are fleeing in the first place. And we have done that before. Under the Fraser government, under the guidance of immigration minister Macphee, we actually went to countries and took people because we wanted to offer them safety. It has been done before. The only difference is that there was political leadership at that time. There was an underpinning of what was right and an absolute strength and core belief not to go into what was wrong just because it perhaps seemed to be politically easy. It is about appealing to our better angels, not allowing ourselves to sink so low that we capitalise on the death of vulnerable people who die at sea.

It is about resettling more people directly, offering safer pathways, ensuring that we work with our regional neighbours, working with the NGOs and the UNHCR so they can assess more people's claims quicker and upholding commitments to resettle people from places like Malaysia and Indonesia. If we were to take 4,000 people from Malaysia per year who had already been assessed, that would make a significant contribution to helping resettle those who are most desperate, those who are not safe while they are in Malaysia. We should be working with Malaysia and Indonesia to encourage them to offer basic protections for these people so that while they are waiting for resettlement they are not continuing to be in fear of their life. We should be arguing that the best way for a regional protection framework to work is for Australia to show leadership and to set the standard. Why would countries in our region agree to treat people any differently than they do when they see Australia wanting to wash our hands of our responsibilities, when they see Australian politicians bickering like naughty schoolchildren in the schoolyard because the canteen has been closed? The behaviour in this place and the other place, the language that is used, the lack of information, the skewed facts, the rewriting of history do not just embarrass us as a parliament, they trash Australia's very proud history of standing up for very vulnerable people, doing what we can to offer a helping hand, ensuring that our spirit of compassion is something that we should be proud of. Why would you expect any other country in the region to act any differently when the leadership shown in this place is dismal?

It is time to put the bickering aside, stop blaming each other, stop trying to prove who can be the toughest and the nastiest. We are actually talking about individuals, people, children, men and women, who are so desperate that they take a journey that they know is risky. But it is because for them that is the only option available for their safety. If we want to avoid people taking this journey we need to set an example, help resettle more people, stop people from boarding boats in the first place and afford proper compassion, leadership and humanity for those who do arrive. Let us go to Afghanistan and find people that actually need to be resettled. Don't wait for them to have to engage a people smuggler. That is what our government has done in the past. It worked then and it could work now.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are blinded by the toxic, dirty, grubby, cheap politics of the day. Until you get past that, until both sides of this chamber accept that we need a bit more moral leadership and try to find their moral compass, it will be very difficult to lay down that route and bring people here safely. Bickering in this chamber over who is the toughest and nastiest does not save lives, does not warrant the values of leadership and does nothing to put Australia on a good footing in our region.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young started her contribution to this debate by saying how embarrassing it was. I have to say, quite frankly, that I find it very embarrassing to listen to those pious words which I know are driven more by politics than actual conviction. I have observed firsthand some of the misleading statements, the grandstanding, the self-promotion that not only Senator Hanson-Young but in fact the entire Greens party have undertaken with respect to this debate. It is alarming that they are so naive or are deliberately misleading the Australian people under this notion of fairness. That is why the Australian people so easily dismiss this pious rhetoric from the Greens. It is an extraordinary claim we have heard here today that the Greens party, via Senator Hanson-Young, is now encouraging the Australian government to go over and identify refugees and bring them back over here. This contribution is somehow suggesting that the Australian government should now get into the people-smuggling racket. It is just a joke. It is beyond belief that this is meant to be a sensible debate, a compassionate debate, a debate about protecting Australia's borders, when we have politicians who are openly advocating going out and grabbing people from other countries and bringing them in here of our own volition.

We do have a humanitarian refugee policy. It works through the United Nations HCR and it has worked effectively, but it only works effectively when it is combined with a strong border protection policy. We have seen a strong border protection policy before, under the Howard government, in which the boats effectively stopped. The people smugglers were put out of business. Unlike the Greens party, I still want to put the people smugglers out of business. The Greens want to put everyone else except the people smugglers out of business. They want to keep them in business. This is outrageous.

We also know that the government is sharply divided on this issue. We know that courtesy of some leaks from cabinet, in which some members of the cabinet were allegedly saying, 'We should be embracing the Nauru solution again.' Indeed they should. We have said that repeatedly. Now there are some with common sense in the Labor Party who know their border protection policies are not working and they are trying to embrace ours. I support them for it and I commend them for it. But of course I also condemn the people who leak from cabinet, because one of the privileges of being in cabinet is that you retain cabinet confidence. I notice that, rather cruelly, people are sheeting home the blame for these leaks to a particular minister in this chamber. In his steadfast support of Ms Gillard, he is trying to prop up her poor leadership at the moment whilst the forces are assembling to re-install Mr Kevin Rudd. Earlier we heard from one of the numbers people for Mr Rudd, Senator Bishop, who has been busy undermining his own Prime Minister and trying to drum up support for Mr Rudd.

The simple fact is that this Labor government has been absolutely bereft in maintaining a strong border protection policy. I know it has no intention of causing death and distress. It would be reprehensible to suggest that. But the reality is that, with this weak border protection policy, we now have people smugglers that are selling tall tales and fanciful tales based on the government's policy to entice people to get on their boats and spend their hard-earned money to come out here. The proof is there, because over 10,000 of these people have paid to take this trip, and they do it because they know that when they get here this government will support them and endorse their decision to try and usurp the system and bypass the traditional points.

We can very clearly trace this back to when the Labor Party changed the policy. I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that the current policy was written by Ms Gillard herself; she endorsed it. But Ms Gillard's reputation for telling the truth is somewhat tarnished, not least of all in this area. In 2002 she made a statement that she would turn the boats back. In 2008 she said that it is fanciful, that no-one can do that. Then of course, not that long ago, she maintained that there was a virtual way of turning the boats back. We know the result of this government's border protection policies. It is that people are paying people smugglers to come out here. There are many non-bona-fide refugees amongst them. There are many people in detention centres. We have seen a blow-out in the budget costs of the administration of these detention centres, from $100 million only three or four years ago to over a billion dollars per year now. This is an outrageous indictment. I have been to some of these detention centres. I have seen that people are there for a long period of time because the government does not know what to do with them. They cannot be released into the Australian community and they cannot be sent home. This is a failure of monumental proportions and it is a failure that is playing havoc with people's lives.

The answer to this is very simple. It is for those smart people, if there are any in the Labor cabinet, to re-embrace the Nauru solution, which is ready and which can be run under Australian guidelines and Australian strategies. Nauru is a signatory to the human rights convention. It could be run at a very effective cost and it has been proven to stop the boats when it is combined with temporary protection visas and an ability to turn the boats around where it is safe and prudent to do so. These are common-sense measures.

What has happened in the Labor Party? Where has the common sense gone? It has vacated the premises, like Elvis. Elvis has left the building; well, so has common sense when it comes to this government, because it cannot get this right. Senator Bishop said they had had a myriad of solutions and they had been working on this for three years. You had a decent solution, Senator Bishop, which was ready-made and embraced, and it was part of a successful government. And then you changed it. You changed it, just like you changed from Mr Rudd to Ms Gillard. Now you are going to change back. I know you regret that, Senator Bishop, because you are doing the numbers for him. But you have got a bit of an effort to convince some others in your party. Anyway, Mr Rudd will be coming back because he knows that this government is on track for a disaster because of the disaster they have given to the Australian people not just in terms of the budget but in terms of the moral guidance and the substance—the fact that they are not prepared to take a tough stand against people smugglers. They will talk the good talk, they will deliver the rhetoric, they will blame the opposition—they will do a whole range of different things—but their solutions have been failures.

I suspect that the next speaker will get up and say that we should have supported the Malaysian solution. Frankly, we should not have supported the Malaysian solution, because the Malaysian solution was not a solution; it was a temporary, stopgap measure that would have already failed at every level, because more than 800 people have already arrived. It would have been an abject failure. The point that I really think is important is that if this government were serious, if this government really genuinely wanted to stop this repulsive trade in people smugglers, they would ditch the Greens, they would ditch the Greens' extremist policies and they would re-embrace the solution that the majority of Australians know works. It has been demonstrated to work and it will continue to work if it is done. I say this to Senator Farrell and the Prime Minister and anyone in the Labor Party: if you embrace the Nauruan solution again and reintroduce temporary protection visas and turn the boats around when it is safe and prudent to do so, I will not make any political mileage out of it. I will go out and celebrate the fact that you have got some common sense back in your party policy.

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

Senator Bernardi, I do not need your help or advice in terms of what policy this government should be adopting on border protection. You referred to former Prime Minister Howard and his policies. His policies were not about border protection, Senator Bernardi. His policies were about getting himself re-elected in the 2001 election.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It worked.

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

It did work, and that is the tragedy.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It also stopped the boats.

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

It did not stop the boats, because we are still getting these boats now. This problem did not go away with what John Howard did. He sought to use the tragic circumstances of the 438 Afghan asylum seekers on the Tampa for his own political purposes. It was not about border protection; it was about getting him re-elected in that 2001 election.

What is tragic, quite frankly, is the fact that the opposition would use today of all days to raise this issue in the parliament. Overnight, we have read about the very tragic circumstances off the Javanese coast in which a number of apparent asylum seekers seeking to come to Australia lost their lives. It is a tragedy that the opposition, just as they did under John Howard at the time of the Tampa, are seeking to use this issue to score what are nothing other than cheap political points. It is distressing to the people of Australia and to this parliament that instead of focusing on policies that might solve the present difficulties off the coast of the Indonesia they have decided to use this opportunity to score these cheap political points. And we have seen that time and time again.

The reality is that the opposition has no effective policy on border protection and so they seek to criticise our policy, a policy that will clearly act as a deterrent, that will be effective and that will solve the problem that we find ourselves facing. It would seem that the only time that the opposition supports offshore processing is when it is done their way, the Nauru solution.

Senator Bushby interjecting—

What do we know, Senator Bushby, about the Nauru solution? What are the experts telling us about the Nauru solution? Senator Bob Brown's motion amending NOM 507

Senator Bushby interjecting—

You will have your opportunity, Senator Bushby, to speak on this subject in due course, if you are on the list. What we are being told about the Nauru solution is that it is both costly and ineffective. We want effective border protection solutions. What we know about the Nauru solution is that it is costly and ineffective. To resurrect that Nauru solution would not be cheap. We are looking at over $1 billion in operational costs alone. And that does not include all of the inevitable spending on infrastructure that would be required to resurrect the Nauru solution. The opposition have been told about the Nauru solution. They have been told in very clear terms that Nauru is not a silver bullet solution. More importantly, it will not break the model of the people smugglers and their dreadful trade. Just as we know it will not work, the opposition knows that it will not work and will be expensive. The government has the solution, the Malaysia solution. The Nauru solution is the wrong one. We are talking about it costing more than $1 billion to resurrect the Nauru solution.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you get those figures?

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

I do not have them immediately to hand, Senator Humphries, but I will make some inquiries and see what I can find out for you in that regard. We know from all of the expert advice that we have received that the Nauru solution is expensive. More importantly, it will not work. Whatever the cost might be—put the cost factor aside for a moment; put that $1 billion aside, Senator Humphries—we know that it will not work. It will no longer act as a deterrent because what the people smugglers know is that if they can get to Nauru it is just a stopping off point on the way to Australia. It is a bit like the Qantas dispute on the weekend: if you want to come from Adelaide to Canberra, you might have to go via Melbourne but you will get to your destination. That is how the people smugglers think of the Nauru solution.

This government has a solution, and one that provides a great deal of compassion. Part of that proposal is to bring 4,000 genuine refugees—

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Genuine refugees.

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

Yes, genuine refugees—from Malaysia. My understanding is that the vast bulk of these people are from the country of Burma, that prison state. Those people currently in Malaysia are genuinely in the queue and have been waiting for long periods of time to be resettled to Australia. They will get the benefit of our solution, which they would not get under any opposition proposal.

Going back and looking at the Nauru proposal, what else do we know about it? The government released the Solicitor-General's legal advice and provided special briefings to the Leader of the Opposition. But he continues to ignore the facts explained in that legal advice.

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

He ignores every expert.

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

He does. I will take that intervention from Senator Polley. That is one of the problems of the current Leader of the Opposition. He gets advice but he refuses to follow it. He gets the advice from the Solicitor-General that there are significant legal doubts as a result of the High Court decision in respect of Nauru but he refuses to accept that advice. Of course, we have seen what he says about the advice of climate scientists about what is happening in terms of global warming. He rejects that. He just has one mantra, and the mantra is: stop the boats. A simple solution: stop the boats.

The Nauru solution will not stop the boats. The boats will still keep coming unless we get the opposition to see sense here, unless they start taking advice, both the legal advice that we now have from the Solicitor-General—which has been provided to you; you wanted some information from us, Senator Humphries; we have provided you the legal advice—

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't ask you that.

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

Perhaps not you personally.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want the costings—the billion-dollar costings.

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

I have undertaken to follow that one up, Senator Humphries. But of course that advice, as the Leader of the Opposition and other members in the opposition have been told, does not support the position of the opposition.

We have also heard about one of Mr Abbott's solutions to the people-smuggling trade—that is, to tow the boats back. Mr Abbott was asked about this last month.

Senator Back interjecting—

Mr Abbott was asked about this, Senator Back.

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

Didn't Mr Rudd have that idea also, Senator Farrell?

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

We are talking about Mr Abbott here.

Senator Back interjecting—

Senator Back, you can talk in your speech. This is my opportunity to say a few words, Senator Back, and I want to talk about what Mr Abbott said. When he was asked the question, he said:

Well, that’s the kind of operational question that would have to be worked out by the commander on the spot … I’m not going to set myself up as an expert, but what’s been done in the past can under the right conditions be done again in the future.

That is his policy.

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

I thank Senator Farrell for setting the scene in this debate of yet another failed Labor policy. As I move around the country—as I do and as I have done recently throughout Western Australia, including the goldfields areas and the wheat belt areas—there are just so many people shaking their heads and saying to me, 'How many more policy areas can this Labor government fail in before it falls over?' This, of course, is yet another.

The worst of it is twofold. First, there are the devastating consequences. Senator Farrell is right: an absolute tragedy seems to be unfolding in Java, and we just do not know how many other instances of this there are likely to be as we move into the monsoon season. As we move through November to December and January it is very, very unsafe. It is unsafe to go to sea in boats of that type anyhow, but, whilst the people smugglers are being encouraged to the degree that they are being encouraged, we are inevitably going to see this happen.

The second unfortunate sequel of all of this is that, if only this Prime Minister swallowed her pride and accepted the offer by the coalition, this problem would be solved by the end of this electoral week. That solution, naturally enough, is to accept the offer by the coalition to expand the current proposal of the government to the 148 countries that are signatories to the UNHCR convention, including, of course, Papua New Guinea, and including, but not exclusively, Nauru—as Senator Farrell seemed to concentrate on.

I can make the point strongly to you, Madam Deputy President, having worked in Malaysia in much of the last decade, having had an office there and having been there when then President Mahathir Mohamad actually put the cane to illegal immigrants and literally drove them out of Malaysia in a very public way. I can only support the words that have been said in this place in recent times about the capacity of the Malaysians. There is no way in the world that the Malaysians are likely to be a valid recipient. I simply invite the Prime Minister to ask the Prime Minister of Malaysia why they do not sign up to the UNHCR convention.

We already know the Malaysia solution is not going to work. How do we know? Because the original Malaysia solution, when announced with fanfare, was for 800 people in exchange for 4,000. I for one have no difficulty with 4,000 genuine refugees coming into the country. That is not the part that is at fault. Why is it a failure and why was it always going to be a failure? Because, of the 800, since it was announced, 1,270—yes, another 50 per cent—have already arrived. So, even if the Malaysia solution were put forward and passed, we know that it already would have failed. The people smugglers laughed at it.

Let me give you a little bit of history. It was the then Fraser Liberal led coalition government in the 1970s, under the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Michael MacKellar, who announced this country's first refugee policy, to be based on four principles: the first recognising Australia's humanitarian commitment; the second, the fact that all decisions to accept refugees must be and remain with the Australian government; the third, that special assistance would be required for the movement of refugees; and the fourth—most interestingly—the fact that most refugees do not want to settle in this country but their interests lie better in their remaining close to their own country of origin—to which subject I wish to return.

We know, of course, that Australia is a very generous country when it comes to accepting refugees. I think on a per capita basis we are second only to Canada. In the year 2009-10, 13,750 were accepted under the Australian Humanitarian Program, of whom 6,000 were refugees and the balance under the special program. As we know, as these asylum seekers—people who are not yet accepted as refugees—get positions, they take away from others who are already on the list, in the queue, and those who might be accepted on the basis of family association et cetera. They are the ones who are disadvantaged. I want to briefly comment on the activities going on, as have been reported to me, in some of the refugee camps in Thailand, Africa and other places. It is a shocking thing but with the corruption that occurs with those who are managing these refugee camps we are finding many who are there for years simply because people with funds jump the queue. Take one instance that was put to me recently. When a family complained to the management of the refugee camp they were simply told, 'Oh no, you actually left the camp two years ago.' They had not left the camp two years ago. Their identities were assumed, having been paid for, and they were left there to rot.

There is, however, some good news for this Labor government. I go back to the Howard government and the then minister for immigration, Mr Philip Ruddock, and a speech he gave in the other place on 3 December 2002. He reflected on these facts in the speech entitled 'Managing Migration'. He said that from 1999 to the end of 2002 3,830 people had attempted to come to this country and, of them, 910 had been recognised through the UNHCR process and 400 had been resettled from Indonesia, with, interestingly, 89.4 per cent having been repatriated to countries other than Australia. But this is the interesting point, and it is so poignant for today. How prophetic it was. I quote from his December 2002 speech:

By any measure, this comprehensive strategy—

that the government had put into place—

has been successful.

He said:

There are many countries around the world that would like to be in the position we are in, having achieved that outcome. However—and in my view, most importantly—it has stopped people risking their lives in dangerous journeys organised by people smugglers. I lament very much that many people have lost their lives tragically, putting themselves—

in positions of danger. If time permitted, we could go on to the question of unaccompanied minors and how that will only spread under this government's policy. There is only one action for the Prime Minister to take: pick up the phone to the Leader of the Opposition and accept our recommendations. (Time expired)

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

This matter of public importance is terribly sad. It has been perversely amusing watching those opposite try and justify their perverse and somewhat illogical arguments associated with justifying this ridiculous matter of public importance discussion before the Senate this afternoon. It is terribly sad because it claims that the government does not have a humane border protection policy and is promoting people smuggling. That could not be further from the actual case. In fact, the government's amendments to the Migration Act that we sought to move through the parliament were particularly aimed at the issues: a more humane approach by prioritising those who are refugees waiting in UNHCR camps throughout the world, increasing the number of humane refugees that we take through our annual intake and providing an effective deterrent to the insidious trade of people smuggling.

The other perverse issue associated with this matter proposed by the opposition this afternoon is that in effect they are saying, through their actions in opposing the changes to the Migration Act, that they are opposing the principle of re-establishing offshore processing as an option for governments in Australia, be that in Nauru or Malaysia. So they are opposing the principle that we seek to re-establish in the Migration Act. This is a very emotive and very difficult issue of public policy and it is an issue that requires leadership. With the recent amendments to the Migration Act sought by the government, there was an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite to show some leadership on this very important issue. What did they do? They did what they have done in every other public policy area that has affected this country: they just said no. It was a chance to show the type of leadership that was shown by the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, in 2001 when he did support sensible amendments to the Migration Act to ensure that there was an effective deterrent to people smuggling to this country. But, no, we do not get that sort of leadership from those opposite. We just simply get 'No, no, no'.

In the wake of the High Court decision, the government took the advice of experts and sought to re-establish the principle of offshore processing as an effective deterrent to people smuggling and we did not specify a location for offshore processing in the amendments. The principle would have been re-established that the executive government of this country has the right to determine its migration policies and its border protection policies. We sought to ensure that offshore processing became legal again, so we sought to re-establish that principle. We did not specify Malaysia or Nauru or anything like that; we simply sought to re-establish that principle, the principle which could have been used by future governments, if they were to so choose—despite the fact that they have been previously advised that Nauru will not work—to establish that they could use Nauru as an option in the future. Yet the opposition opposed it. They voted against their rhetoric and their public comments about Nauru as a viable option. They voted against that principle, simply because they say no to everything and they are only out to try to attempt to damage the government.

The government took the approach that it did, in recommending those changes to the Migration Act, because we sought the advice of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Andrew Metcalfe, the head of the department, gave evidence in estimates hearings that Malaysia was the most appropriate plan to deal with this issue. And, of course, we saw the evidence of Chief of Navy, who said that Nauru and other issues might not be an effective deterrent. We did this because we know that we need to stop people getting on boats and we need to stop it being possible for people who have the money to pay for that unsafe journey. We wanted to maximise our humanitarian intake from those people that have been waiting in UNHCR camps for many years. We believe that the Malaysia agreement was a way to achieve that, and we still believe that that is the most appropriate way to do this. We believe that Nauru will not work, because the advice of the experts says that Nauru will not work. It is too costly, it is not an effective deterrent, there is no infrastructure on the island to deal with it and the overwhelming majority of genuine refugees end up in Australia— (Time expired)

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

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.