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

I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and the Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013. In debating these bills it is important that Australians clearly understand the reason the government is introducing these bills; why they have been rushed into the parliament so soon after, and in addition to, the 2012-2013 budget bills; and, more importantly, if these bills are passed, what impact these bills will have on the Australian taxpayer. So what is the government's reasoning and intentions by rushing these bills into the Senate?

These are bills that will appropriate additional money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay for the costs associated with the implementation of the report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers and related purposes. Appropriation Bill No. 1 provides for an additional injection of just over $1.4 billion and Appropriation Bill No. 2 provides for an additional $267,980,000, giving a total appropriation for these two bills of $1,674,982,000. Let's now put that into plain English so that the Australian people understand exactly what the Senate is being asked to do today by this government. Why does the government need an additional $1,674,982,000? Because of the government's gross incompetence when it comes to managing Australia's borders, the government, consistent with its form since it was voted into power in November 2007, has come back to the Australian taxpayer and is once again asking for the taxpayer to pay more money. The government, because of its ideological hang-ups and incompetence, has destroyed Australia's very strong border protection regime and is now continuing to plunder the pockets of the Australian public so that it can continue to pay for its political ineptitude.

Interestingly, an examination of the reasons set out for introducing these bills shows as follows. There is the need to provide additional funds to open the Nauru detention centre and the Manus Island detention centre. One might recall that these are the same two detention centres that were the substance of a bill introduced in 2006 by the then Prime Minister, John Howard. It was the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. Who can forget the hysterical comments of the Labor opposition at the time as they embarked on a campaign across Australia to vilify the then Howard government for seeking to process illegal boat arrivals offshore? The Left, the Right and the Centre of the Labor Party united on this point. They travelled across Australia and screamed out their indignation and their total opposition to what they said was a gross injustice and a total breach of human rights: processing illegal boat arrivals offshore. They then swore to the Australian public, to the Australian voters, that they were a party of principles and they could never ever vote for what they said was a disgusting and disgraceful breach of human rights.

Some Labor members even said at that time that the Howard government bill was unconstitutional and if passed by the parliament would result in a massive compensation issue for Australia in the future. Yet here we are today, debating appropriation bills, with the government asking for an additional $1,674,982,000 to pay for offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island.

There is no doubt that the left wing of the Labor Party in particular, in voting for this legislation today, are complete, total and utter hypocrites. They say one thing to the Australian public, but when Ms Gillard pronounces that they will now support offshore processing what do they do? They roll over in caucus—the Prime Minister scratches their little stomachs and they betray their so-called principles. They do this because they never had any principles in the first place. For those on the Labor side of politics let us now remind you of some of the previous hysterical claims of some of the Labor members who are now urging the parliament to pass these bills today. And these bills, remember, are intended to establish the very acts that Labor so passionately and vehemently opposed when they were introduced by a coalition government in 2006. In 2006 Chris Bowen, now the minister responsible for immigration issues and Australia's border security, said this about the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006:

This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill . If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them.

He went on to say:

The Howard government changing our system to suit the concerns of another nation is nothing short of a disgrace. The Prime Minister is selling out our national sovereignty. This tragic and discriminatory policy does not come cheap. … offshore detention centres … are much more expensive than detention centres in Australia. We have the worst of all worlds—an expensive, discriminatory and tragic policy.

But then came the cruncher about repealing the Howard government bill if it were passed. What did Mr Bowen say on that point? He said:

We will oppose this bill, and I call on members opposite to join us. If it is passed, it will be repealed by an incoming Labor government. Decency and self-respect as a nation would demand nothing less.

Well, what do we have today? Mr Bowen is now actually pleading with the opposition to ensure that this bill passes the Senate today—the bill which he said in 2006 the Labor government would repeal if it were passed. And what about Simon Crean? Mr Crean, as we know, is a minister and was previously a Labor Leader of the Opposition. What did Mr Crean say in 2006 when speaking on the Howard government bill? He said:

It does nothing to secure our borders and returns to the government’s old policy of deterrence and punishment based on fear. It is a bill that should be opposed.

Well, Mr Crean, I understand, will vote for it. Dick Adams, the member for Lyons, said this:

The bill means that if in future people fleeing persecution arrive on Australia’s mainland in a canoe, they will be sent to Nauru to be processed and Australia will act as though it has no obligations. Under this proposal, children will be in detention again. We will see indefinite detention come back.

And then, of course, there were the comments of well-known left-wing faction leader Anthony Albanese, who is now a senior Labor minister. Back in 2006 he had this to say:

I wish to speak in the strongest possible terms in opposition to the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. This government has a policy that is built on sand. It shifts with the wind, it shifts on the basis of what is in the political interest of the government in terms of its preparedness to promote fear, to promote hatred and to vilify some of the most vulnerable people in the global community. It is no way for this parliament to provide the leadership that we have been entrusted to provide by our respective communities.

And he concluded his comments with:

We need a government that is prepared to promote hope over fear, and we need a government that is prepared to respect the human rights of all individuals. I urge the House to reject this abhorrent legislation.

Just to remind everybody, in case we think we are actually about to reject this legislation, Minister Bowen has been pleading with the shadow minister for immigration and the coalition to ensure that this 'abhorrent' legislation, as they called it back in 2006, is passed by the Senate today. I wanted these hypocritical comments of Labor members in 2006 to be recorded in Hansard to remind Australian voters that the Labor Party are not a party motivated by principle. The Labor Party would not know what principles are. They wake up in the morning and sniff the public attitude of the day, and their principle is actually determined that morning. They are motivated by sheer power. The left wing of the Labor Party in particular will be voting with the coalition to ensure this legislation goes through. They have forsaken Labor principles on the altar of political hypocrisy and duplicity. That must make those on the left of the Labor Party very, very proud!

Labor's mismanagement of the immigration portfolio and failure to secure Australia's borders has cost the Australian taxpayer dearly over the last five years. That cost is reflected again today and it is a cost that continues to be out of control. To see the failure of the government's border protection policies and the astonishing fiscal ineptitude of successive Labor governments when it comes to this particular portfolio, you need look no further than Labor's 2011-12 billion-dollar budget for asylum seekers.

That billion-dollar budget was ironically based on just 750 arrivals for that particular financial year. It was a rather absurd target, one might say, given that this is the evidence.

Since the election of the Labor government in November 2007, and as a direct result of the Labor government reversing the strong and proven border protection policies of the former, Howard government, 29,868 people have arrived on 512 boats. An even more glaring statistic under the current Gillard government is that, notwithstanding the promises that the Labor Party made to the Australian people in the lead-up to the 2010 election, the total number of boat arrivals since polling day on 21 August 2010 is 358 boats carrying 22,519 people. The former Prime Minister, former Minister for Foreign Affairs and now backbencher, Mr Rudd, must choke on his breakfast daily when he gets the updated boat arrival numbers that come through every morning. You have to remember that one of the reasons Ms Gillard politically executed Mr Rudd was her allegation that Mr Rudd's border protection policies were failing. How ironic for Mr Rudd.

In the first five months of this financial year alone—July, August, September, October and we are now into November—9,957 people have arrived on 177 boats. That is in the first five months of this financial year. This just shows how out of touch the Labor Party are with reality. It also shows just how out of touch they are in relation to the cost blow-out of their border protection policies, because the Labor budget for the immigration portfolio for the 2012-13 financial year was based on just 3,000 arrivals. The budget for the entire 12 months was for 3,000 arrivals; in the first five months there were 9,957. If you were to merely double that number to see what might happen over the next six months, you can see an almost sixfold budget increase.

And that is not the only impact that Labor's gross fiscal ineptitude and failures in this policy area is having. Australians are also now paying an extra $1.1 million per day purely because of Labor's failure in this portfolio area alone. Compare what Australians were paying under the Howard government with what they are paying now: under the Howard government they were paying nothing; now Australians are paying $1.1 million per day for the policy failures in this portfolio alone. Australians should ask themselves how many extra hospital beds, how many additional classrooms and how many additional computers could be provided to Australian citizens for the billions of dollars that are now being used to fund Labor's border protection failures.

We saw the poll today in relation to the impact of the carbon tax. Only three per cent of the mums and dads of Australia think they are better off. I think 38 per cent of Australians now say they are worse off as a direct result of the implementation by the Labor Party, and, of course, their friends the Greens, of the carbon tax. What you have is the mums and dads of Australia, who are already struggling under the rising costs of living and who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills because of Labor's carbon tax, being slugged time and time again because of Labor's failures in this particular portfolio area. The Labor Party should have the decency to at least come clean with the Australian people and justify how, in five years of successive Labor governments, we have gone from a situation where, under the former, Howard government, Australia's immigration and citizenship portfolio in this policy area was costing the Australian taxpayer approximately $85 million per year—that is $85 million per year. It has now cost Australian taxpayers, over five years, in excess of $6 billion compared to $85 million per year. Just two years ago, in 2009-10, Treasurer Swan got it so very wrong when he said to the Australian people that the cost of managing asylum seekers going forward would be $455 million over four years. Here we are today—five months after we passed the most recent budget—and the Senate is being asked to appropriate an additional $1.6 billion. Treasurer Swan was so very wrong. He thought it would be $455 million; we are now looking at in excess of $6 billion in this area alone.

The Australian public need to understand: when we say $6 billion in this area alone, this does not include the costs that are absorbed by other departments, it does not include the costs to the Navy for its search and rescue work, it does not include the cost to Customs for its seaborne and airborne surveillance, it does not include the additional costs that Centrelink is now paying out and the drain on our social security budget, and it certainly does not include the additional costs that are now being placed on our health budget. The reality is this: if the Labor Party had just left the former Howard government's policies intact, we would not be having this debate today. The Labor Party would have no less than an additional $6 billion of taxpayers' money that they could apply towards the interests of Australian citizens. Instead, what are we doing? We are standing here today debating a bill that will provide the government with additional money to the tune of $1.6 billion so that they can establish the regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island—something that we did under the Howard government and something that the Labor Party said they would never, ever do as a matter of principle.

Minister Bowen will now go down in history as the biggest-spending minister for immigration of all time. That is not something to be proud of. When it comes to the immigration policy around detention centres, you actually want to be spending next to zero. As we move closer to the next federal election, this just shows Labor have no principles. (Time expired)

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

I rise today to speak on the two bills before us which the government has put forward, the Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and the Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, asking for even more Australian taxpayers' money to be spent on inhumane, impractical and failing policies.

During the last few weeks of this parliament's sitting we have debated this issue of offshore processing over and over again. We continue to hear from the government that locking people up indefinitely on Nauru and Manus Island will be the only way to stop people from fleeing war and trying to come to Australia for safety. What a load of bollocks! It has failed. Deterrents do not work when you are forcing people to make a choice between freedom and safety or punishment for seeking protection for their families. These are people who are fleeing war, persecution and torture. Rather than punishing these people and wasting billions of Australian taxpayers' dollars, it would be much better for us to take the support and advice of the experts—which suggests that putting in place safer alternatives would be much better for both the taxpayer's pocket and human rights outcomes.

We have a refugee and humanitarian crisis—a rolling crisis. We have hunger strikes in Nauru. Those who have already been sent there are threatening, very seriously, their own lives. We have one man who has been on a hunger strike for 39 days. He is very ill. Unfortunately, it may be that, without proper intervention from the government, this man will not survive the next few days. This man—and I urge him to end his hunger strike because I do not think it is helpful for him; obviously we do not want to see people taking their lives in their hands like this—is protesting using the only weapon he has, his own body, to make a very pointed observation about how bad the conditions are for refugees on Manus Island. His issues have been raised and conferred on by some of the world's most eminent experts on refugees and those seeking protection around the world. The United Nations has been very clear in condemning Australia's indefinite detention on Nauru and the freezing of the processing of the claims of those kept on Christmas Island and, increasingly, on the Australian mainland.

We have had the United Nations refugee body, the UNHCR, say that this principle of 'no advantage' is ludicrous. It is meaningless. It has no weight. And yet, when we were in this very place only three months ago debating the legislation which allows the government to dump people in Nauru, the then Minister—Senator Lundy, who is in the chamber—representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, told us that the government would work with the UNHCR to determine how the no-advantage test would be implemented. The UNHCR has said it cannot be implemented. It is meaningless. It is in breach of the convention and it is not going to work to stop desperate people fleeing danger and seeking safety.

This man, who is risking his own life in such an extreme and desperate manner, is also very concerned about how long he and other refugees will have to remain on Nauru. The government will not give us a time frame for how long people will be there. They cannot put a figure on it despite the fact that we know it is indefinite detention, by its very nature, that drives people to such desperate acts. The two bills before us are going to create a black hole into which taxpayers' money is going to continue to be thrown over and over again because there is no end in sight.

We know that we can assess people's claims quickly. We can ensure that those who have had their health and security tests done to make sure they are not a risk to the community have their claims assessed in much cheaper ways. Community detention, and the assessment of people's claims while they are living in the community, is 90 per cent cheaper and 100 per cent fairer—and yet that is not the path this government is taking. Rather than looking at the practical needs and coming up with a practical response to the issues of people fleeing war and persecution in our region, we have seen this government absolutely kowtow to the wishes and demands of Tony Abbott's coalition.

It has not provided any solution to the numbers of people in our region who are seeking safety.

Let's go back to the list of things that are wrong with the current policy. We have hunger strikes in Nauru. We have conditions which have been labelled 'inhumane' by various international and Australian organisations. They have been condemned by the UN and the UNHCR. The Australian Human Rights Commission says that indefinite detention and the conditions on Nauru are extremely worrying. We have seen Amnesty International make statements and demand access because the conditions are so bad. We have locals on Manus Island protesting the building of the new facilities—even blockading the airport last week so the personnel who were being flown in to build the facilities, this new prison, could not get on with their work. The locals on Manus Island do not want this prison there either. We have rooftop protests at Villawood detention centre. We have tents being put up on Christmas Island because the numbers of people being detained there indefinitely is ballooning.

We know what happened last time we constructed tents on Christmas Island: the frustration, tensions and dangerous circumstances that arose meant that riots broke out in the immigration detention centre. It was a combination of inappropriate accommodation and, of course, the freezing of the processing of people's claims for asylum. That is exactly what is happening all over again. This government are absolutely incompetent when it comes to managing the needs of refugees. Rather than taking a practical response to a humanitarian issue, they are far more worried about whether they can win the race to the bottom with Tony Abbott and his coalition, who, frankly, do not give a damn about the human rights of refugees. They do not give two hoots about the conditions that refugees have to face on Nauru, Manus Island, Christmas Island or any of the other detention prisons scattered around the Australian mainland. They do not care how long people have to sit rotting simply because they fled war and persecution. They do not care about the rights, protections and needs of some of the world's most vulnerable children, who are those children who have had to flee war, persecution and the torture of their mothers and fathers.

The coalition do not care, and yet what we see is Julia Gillard locked in a race to try and beat them—beat Tony Abbott at his own game of not caring about refugees and asylum seekers. This not-caring, be-mean beat-up on refugees is costing the Australian taxpayer billions upon billions of dollars. The two bills that we currently have before us are to allow another $1.6 billion to be spent continuing a regime that is inhumane, does not work and is only putting vulnerable refugees in more danger.

I want to go back to some of the conditions that the Houston report identified as needing to be met if indeed the Australian government were to reopen the hellholes of Nauru and Manus Island. Page 48 of the Houston report says that, if we are going to send refugees to Nauru and Manus Island, we need these things in place:

We have not achieved that; in fact, we have achieved the very opposite. The UN has said those conditions are not being met.

Again, wrong; that condition is not being met.

Some of the country's most eminent mental health experts have said it is extremely worrying to see the conditions that are being created on Nauru. Of course, the hunger strikes of the last few weeks, and of one refugee in particular, who is very, very unwell, are a very good example of how poor those physical and mental health services are.

Again, where are they? None of those things were put in place before we started dumping people there indefinitely.

Again, we have seen the UNHCR ask what has been put in place. Expecting a small and impoverished country like Nauru to manage that process when they have had no experience of doing it before is simply inappropriate, and we in Australia cannot be washing our hands of our responsibilities in that regard.

This was another condition that the Houston report said needed to be provided if we were to send refugees to Manus Island and Nauru. Again, the government has failed. They do not have this in place.

They have absolutely failed to uphold the obligations that they said they would meet.

I would like to know what case management and appropriate assistance is being given to individuals who feel they are so in harm's way that they have to take their own lives to make a point about how bad the government are at managing the needs of vulnerable people.

This bill asks us to spend an extra $1.6 billion making people's lives even more miserable, putting children in more harm's way, ensuring that billions of Australian taxpayer dollars will be spent on us not fulfilling our international obligations, ensuring that we do not play by the rules we have signed up to, not protecting vulnerable children. This bill is asking us to spend $1.6 billion on doing the complete opposite to what the UNHCR and UN bodies ask us to do. And all for what? So we can stop the boats? The boats have not stopped, have they? They are coming in record numbers.

Deterring people from leaving their homelands that are riddled with war without giving them a safe option does not make any sense. It is illogical to ask a mother and a father and their children to 'just stay put' while the Taliban is chasing them down and murdering their other family members. It is impractical, it is illogical, it is inhumane and it does not do anything to deal with those who are in our region seeking our protection. It is inconsistent with our obligations and inconsistent with the basic value of the Australian fair go.

I will be moving an amendment to this bill which calls for a 12-month limit on the length of time that people should be left on Nauru and Manus Island. I do not want people there at all, but they are there, and the government are so obsessed with competing with Tony Abbott in a race to the bottom of the barrel that they are going to continue to send people to this hellhole. So let's at the very least put some type of time limit on it. You cannot tell me that in 12 months Australian bureaucrats cannot get through the applications of people. They will get 12 months to assess people's claims, and if they are found to be in genuine need of protection then we welcome them. If they are not then we send them home. But let's keep it confined to a time limit. Let's not be back here in 12 months having to fork out even more billions of dollars of Australian taxpayer money just to keep Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott at one in being inhumane to refugees.

The Houston report also said that we needed to spend more money on allowing assessment by the UNHCR in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. The report recommended that the money be doubled to $140 million. The government has ignored that advice and put up $10 million, so guess what? The boats will keep coming. People come to Australia to get their claims assessed because there is no capacity for it to be done further back along the line. If we want to give people a safer option so they do not have to risk their lives to come to Australia on leaky boats, then we need to give them other assessment options. The Houston report said $140 million, and the government, despite spending billions of dollars on an island prison in Nauru, have only given the UN $10 million. Our amendment calls for that extra $140 million, as recommended by the expert panel. We also want to see an independent health panel established because we know the conditions in Nauru are not right and people should be able to access assessment independent of those facilities.

The bills before us are a shame on this government. The bills before us spend billions of Australian taxpayer dollars, all to keep Julia Gillard in the Lodge. It is disgraceful. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate calls for the appropriation of funds for offshore processing to occur only when:

(a) a 12 month time limit on the detention of an individual in Papua New Guinea or Nauru is established;

(b) funding for a regional co-operation framework, and capacity building initiatives, is doubled to $140 million as recommended by the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers;

(c) an Independent Health Care Panel to oversee the physical and mental health of asylum seekers sent offshore is established; and

(d) all contracts for services between the Australian Commonwealth and service providers in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, including costs and operational protocols, are tabled in Parliament.

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

This bill will not keep Julia Gillard in office; it is the Greens political party that keeps the current Prime Minister in office. That was another speech from the party representing the loony left of the Australian political spectrum. That speech on behalf of the Greens political party was dysfunctional, inaccurate, lacking fact, certainly lacking logic and impractical. It clearly told untruths about Australia's obligations to the UNHCR and used the emotive words 'basic Australian values' without any understanding of what basic Australian values are.

It was a speech—yet again typical of the Greens political party—that was repetitive on how awful Tony Abbott is notwithstanding this is not Tony Abbott's legislation. But can the Greens see beyond Tony Abbott? Would the Greens ever attack the Labor Party or Julia Gillard? Never.

Anything that this government does that the Greens do not like suddenly is Tony Abbott's fault. That is how illogical and irrational the speeches that you will hear from the Greens political party are. Senator Hanson-Young made an emotive speech about the coalition not caring—she did not mention the Labor Party, mind you—how long people sit in these detention camps. I point out to Senator Hanson-Young what this is all about and why the coalition has been determined to secure our borders and stop people jumping the queue. Why we become involved in this whole purpose of protecting our borders and making sure that all refugees in the world apply by the rules of the UNHCR is this: there are around the world at the current time 10 million people determined, calculated and assessed to be refugees. They are living in squalid camps around the world and have been there for years. They are waiting for their turn to get into Australia, Canada or Europe. They are complying with the rules. They are not 'possible' refugees; they have been determined by the UNHCR to be refugees and yet they sit in squalid camps around the world—10 million of them—waiting for that one chance they will eventually have to get into Australia. But every time someone who is not yet determined to be a refugee jumps the queue and comes into this country then those people who have been determined to be refugees and who have been waiting years—some of those 10 million people—have to wait yet another year for their chance. Those 10 million people, who are determined, calculated and assessed to be refugees, are waiting their turn in accordance with the UNHCR rules.

That is why we in the coalition are determined to play by the UNHCR rules. Unlike Senator Hanson-Young—who, apart from mouthing the words, would not know what the basic Australian fair value is all about—the coalition knows the basic Australian fair value. The basic Australian fair value is that if you have been waiting in a squalid refugee camp somewhere in the world, if you have been determined to be a genuine refugee, then you take your place in the queue, and when a spot becomes available in Australia you come in. But, every time these people are not prepared to play by the rules, those who are wait yet another year.

I would like to hear the next speaker from the Greens address that issue. I would love to hear what the explanation is of that. Don't they care about the other 10 million refugees? I will use Senator Hanson-Young's words: the Greens 'do not care' about the 10 million assessed refugees sitting in squalid camps around the world. They want to give the places in Australia, the places that the Australian government determines we will accept every year, to the queue jumpers. Tell me how that complies with Australia's basic values. Tell me how that complies with the UNHCR. Senator Hanson-Young then goes on and says what squalid conditions there are in Nauru. Can I just tell Senator Hanson-Young that there are people, proud people, who happily live in Nauru. They are called Nauruans. There are people of Papua New Guinea. They live there happily. Senator Hanson-Young would have you believe that Nauru is a place like hell and that nobody but nobody would ever live there. But sorry: there are people who do live in Nauru and Manus Island, and do it happily.

Senator Hanson-Young then says that this proposal today is meant to stop the boats, and it has not stopped the boats. I say to Senator Hanson-Young that, if she were interested in logic and truth and fact, she should have a look at when the boats did stop: there were establishments set up in Nauru, there were other measures put in place, and the boats did stop. This government—the Labor government—after years of saying they would not open Manus and Nauru are now doing it, but unfortunately they are only doing one of three elements of John Howard's policy, which actually did stop the boats coming and did save lives. It did stop those hundreds of people who have been killed trying to get to Australia illegally. John Howard's policies stopped that. The Greens and the Labor Party policies have encouraged people to come into our country illegally and, in so doing, many have regrettably lost their lives.

Senator Hanson-Young, with her typical feigned emotion, again talks about suicide. I for one am distressed by, and would do anything I could to stop, anyone suiciding, and I am distressed to hear from Senator Hanson-Young at least that this is occurring in Nauru and Manus Island at the present time. I mention in passing that Senator Hanson-Young did not seem to have the same concern when people in the cattle industry were considering taking their lives because of the mess they were left in financially as a result of the Greens' and Labor Party's live cattle ban.

There are Australians who, because of a government policy, are considering taking their lives—a government policy that is egged on by the Greens. Have we heard one word, just one word, of concern from the Greens political party for those Australians in that same depressed mental state?

Have we heard one word from the Greens political party about those original Australians who are having their human rights taken from them by a combination, yet again, of the Labor Party and the Greens political party in trying to put World Heritage listing over Cape York? The first Australians in Cape York are at last understanding that the welfare mentality of the last five decades has done their people no good. They want to use their land in Cape York to build a better life for themselves and for their children. They are looking at any number of pursuits. I know; I was up there at a meeting 500 kilometres north of Cairns just a couple of weekends ago when about 250 people—about a third of them Indigenous people—came together to complain about the World Heritage listing of Cape York. Mind you, neither they nor I nor anybody else—apart from the Labor government and the Greens—seems to know what the rules are to be for the World Heritage listing. Nobody, apart from the Labor Party and the Greens and a few insiders, seems to know where the boundaries are proposed. That is part of the problem. But 250 people from all over Cape York drove for eight hours or flew for two hours to get to this meeting to express their concern that their rights to their land were about to be taken from them. And where were the Greens? Where were the human rights then? How were we looking after these disadvantaged people in yet more decisions from the Greens and the Labor Party that take away their rights to their land, to self-fulfilment and to their own futures for themselves and for their children?

Mr Deputy President, you may think—and people who are listening to this may think—that I am very critical of the Greens political party. And you are right. I am sick and tired of the feigned emotion, the illogical arguments and saying one side of the story. I challenge Senator Milne, who is speaking next, to tell me why these recent arrivals are more worthy than the 10 million refugees who are already assessed, who are sitting in camps around the world and who would be in Australia now—some of them—if it had not been for these people jumping the queue. Senator Milne will say, 'Oh, that's because the Australian government only takes 13,000 refugees,' or 20,000 refugees as it is about to be increased to. But what about the other 9,980,000, Senator Milne? Would you say, 'Open the borders and let them all come in'? I am sorry: Australia could not cope financially or socially. Australia has to do its part and, as we all know in this chamber, Australia punches well above its weight when it comes to acceptance of assessed refugees around the world.

We have nothing to be ashamed of in Australia. Our policy under many governments has been welcoming and open to those who comply with the UNHCR rules. Senator Hanson-Young says that we do not care—the coalition, not the Labor Party, I might repeat. She says that the coalition does not care about these children in these camps whose mothers and fathers have been tortured. How emotional can you get? We do not care about it, she says. Of course we care about it. That is why we want to look after the 10 million refugees whose parents also were tortured and who have been determined—assessed—to be refugees. But does Senator Hanson-Young mention that? Of course not. It does not suit the political mantra of the Greens at this particular time.

It is no wonder that Australians have at last woken up to what the Greens political party is all about. When you see a territory, a city, like Canberra rejecting the Greens you know that the Greens have lost the plot. I could have told people that years ago, but the rest of Australia now realises that the Greens have lost the plot. They are completely un-Australian in their view of what is Australian and, as I have demonstrated earlier in my speech, some of the comments by the Greens have a very blinkered view about what the Australian 'fair go' is.

This bill is about spending another $1.6 billion of taxpayers' money to try and fix yet another Labor Party failure. We are at a net debt currently—I cannot keep track of it; what is it today?—of $157 billion. In gross debt I think it is about $250 billion. What are we doing? I do not have the figures because they change by day, but we are spending $20 million a day—is it?—in interest payments to the foreign lenders for money that the Labor Party has had to borrow to try and correct its earlier mistakes. And here we are: only another $1.6 billion! Easy to say when it is not your money.

I can guarantee that those on the Labor benches, those on the Greens benches and many of us on this side too will get the same pay at the end of the month. But all those Australians out there breaking their backs to earn money to get a better life for them and their families in Australia are the ones who have to pay the additional taxes that Labor keeps imposing upon Australia to pay for things like this new $1.6 billion blowout to set up an operation that the Howard government had in place. It was there. You did not have to spend anything on it—well, you might have had to scrub up a few things; you might have had to wash the windows or the bathrooms. It was all there.

But what did the Labor Party do? They took it down, they dismantled it, they destroyed it and they let it fall into the ground. It was all there and it was working, and it was working because that was one of the three elements we used to stop the boats: send people offshore for determination and for processing; turn the boats around where it is safe to do so; and issue with temporary protection visas. But the Labor Party could only bring themselves to do one-third of what was needed to be done, and of course the boats have not stopped. The one true thing that Senator Hanson-Young said was that the boats have come with increasing regularity, and this bill spends that extra $1.6 billion to fix up what was already there. This is just part of $2.7 billion to run the various programs that are consequences of boats coming to Australia.

The Labor Party are pretending that they are going to have a surplus. Nobody believes that will happen; in fact we have already shown that it will not happen—they fiddled the books a bit. But here is another $2.7 billion being spent because Labor simply cannot control the borders and are not interested in doing it. Why aren't they interested in doing it? To do that they would have had to adopt John Howard's policies and they, like the Greens, said that anything that John Howard did was bad and anything that the Labor Party does is good. That is why they stopped a policy that was working. There cannot be any argument about that.

You will hear Senator Milne say that there have been new conflicts in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and that is why there is a huge new increase. Sorry. There have been conflicts everywhere every year, regrettably. It is a sad state of the world's situation and there are always refugees looking for a better place. Australia welcomes them to the extent of our ability to look after them, but we want to take those who are playing by the UNHCR rules. That is fair. That is the Australian way. There is a set of rules. We welcome these people and we understand their torment and their torture and their turmoil and we want to bring them here to a new life. But every one of these failures of the Labor government coming in illegally to our shores is one of those already assessed refugees who has to wait yet another year to try to get to our country.

This is a bill that should not be necessary. If the Labor Party had not shown significant failure in this aspect of governance, as they have with everything else, this bill would not have been necessary. But because, belatedly, they are coming to the table in a partial way, it is something that should be looked at.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to comment on the current bill before the Senate and, after Senator Macdonald's rather ugly and mean-spirited contribution, we would be hard-pressed to know what we are actually doing here. But we are debating the Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 1) 2012-13 and the appropriation of $1.6 billion. That is where we are having a discussion today, about whether or not it is appropriate to spend that amount of money considering that a substantial amount of this money, $557 million, is going to the operating costs for Manus and Nauru for the rest of this financial year and you have got at least $267 million going for the capital costs. So $557 million of this is going to the construction of those detention centres and their operating costs, whereas the expectation was that the government was going to seriously fund the UNHCR regional capacity to assess asylum seekers regionally, to look at them and assess their status as refugees and move them through quickly and, at the same time, to increase our humanitarian intake.

I am pleased to say that part of the allocation of this money, $93 million, is going to the increase in the humanitarian intake. There is also an extra $8 million for family reunion places. But there is only $10 million for the UNHCR regional capacity. So we are going with $557 million for Nauru and Manus Island and $10 million to boost UNHCR regional capacity in Indonesia. I would suggest that it should be a much better balanced outcome than that, because $10 million is going to go in no small way to actually frustrating asylum seekers even more. They are going to see Australia more willing to pour those millions into keeping people in offshore detention centres indefinitely, contrary to our international obligations.

We sat here in this Senate when these bills went through in June and the Greens said very clearly that it would not stop the boats coming to Australia because deterrence does not work. People are going to continue to try to seek asylum in our country because they are running from appalling circumstances in Afghanistan and in other places around the world. We said that deterrence would not work and that this would not stop the boats. What would work was to increase our humanitarian intake and boost the UNHCR capacity.

Senator Lundy, who is in here today for the government, argued strenuously at the time that what Australia was doing was not contrary to our international obligations even though it is as clear as the nose on your face that in fact it is. The whole point of this legislation in the first place was to get around the High Court, which had said quite clearly that because there was no legally binding obligation to guarantee the rights of asylum seekers offshore—in Malaysia in particular—the legislation was not legal. This legislation that went through. All this hastily gotten together so-called compromise has done is breach Australia's standing internationally. People are looking at us now and saying, 'What is Australia doing, sending people offshore to indefinite detention?' That is what it is: indefinite detention.

I heard Senator Macdonald going on about people in this parliament not caring about others in Australia with mental health issues. Well, he could not be more wrong. I think it is a disgraceful thing to say, because I would say that people right across this parliament of all political persuasions are very concerned to protect mental health. There is no party more concerned about that than the Greens. We have argued strongly for a big injection of funds into mental health. My colleague Senator Penny Wright is currently conducting a survey in rural and regional Australia on mental health provision and how best to achieve that around rural and regional Australia.

We recognise that people need to be assisted in this way. That also extends to people in our care in detention. The government has put these people into detention. Human rights advocates and many very highly regarded health professionals are saying that one of the reasons why there is such a rapid deterioration in the mental health of people who are seeking asylum and sent offshore indefinitely is the fact that there is no hope and they see no end to it. They are stuck on Nauru or Manus Island and they have no end in sight. That is why several hundred of them went on a hunger strike recently and, in fact, at least two of them are seriously ill at this time. That is on the government's record. It is something they will have to take responsibility for.

Why are people left in indefinite detention when it is contrary to what Australia should be offering under human rights law? Because the government argues we want a no-advantage test. Yet where is this no-advantage test? It was an ill-considered concept. There was no meat on the bones when it was raced through this parliament. The Greens said at the time: what does the no-advantage test mean? You cannot apply an average across the region. We still do not know. So, on the basis of no advantage, people are shoved into indefinite detention and that is driving deterioration in their mental health.

I have a press release from the Australian Human Rights Commission. This goes to many of the rather ignorant remarks that we heard from Senator Macdonald a short while ago. The Australian Human Rights Commission's press release on Thursday, 1 November 2012 was entitled 'Migration Act amendments undermine Australia’s international law obligations'. I trust Senator Lundy is listening, because she told the Senate that what Australia was doing did not undermine Australia's international law obligations. You can only assume now that she misled the Senate at that time or believed it to be true at that time and now can no longer believe it to be true. We will see when the minister responds. The press release says:

The proposed amendments to the Migration Act requiring that asylum seekers who arrive anywhere in Australia by boat be taken to a regional processing country undermine Australia’s obligations under the Refugees Convention and other human rights treaties.

That is a fairly emphatic statement, Senator Lundy. It continues:

The Australian Human Rights Commission President, Professor Gillian Triggs says this legislation discriminates against some of the most vulnerable people in our region, based on the way in which they arrive in Australia.

“Australia is obliged to implement the Refugees Convention in good faith. The proposed amendments to the Migration Act undermine the Refugees Convention because they penalise asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat,” said President Triggs.

This is a point I made when we debated the legislation at the time. I said that the convention says you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of the manner in which they arrive. That is exactly what Australia is doing. The press release continues:

Professor Triggs said the Commission is concerned that transferring asylum seekers to a third country will lead to breaches of their human rights, including the right to be free from arbitrary detention and the rights of children to have their best interests considered in all actions concerning them, to be detained only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time and for asylum seeker children to receive appropriate protection and assistance.

“States cannot avoid their international law obligations by transferring asylum seekers to a third country,” said President Triggs.

“Effectively all boat arrivals are already potentially liable to third country processing. However, preventing all maritime arrivals from having their protection claims assessed in Australia sends a message that Australia is not prepared to meet its human rights obligations to asylum seekers,” said President Triggs.

The Commission also holds serious concerns about the more than 5000 people potentially liable for transfer to a third country currently in detention in Australia.

“These people, including children, are currently indefinitely detained and face what is in effect a suspension of the processing of their claims for protection. The Australian Government should release these people from detention and process their claims for asylum as soon as possible,” said Professor Triggs.

There you have the Australian Human Rights Commission coming out so clearly saying we are behaving absolutely contrary to our obligations under the refugee convention and other human rights treaties. When the parliament raced this through only the Greens stood up and said it was contrary to all of our obligations and will not stop the boats. History has shown that that is absolutely what has occurred—it has not stopped the boats.

What interests me is that the whole crisis was brought on in June because a boat containing asylum seekers sank and a lot of people drowned. I said at the time that Australia knew on the Tuesday afternoon that that boat was in trouble but we did not go to their assistance until the Thursday, by which time 90 people had drowned. The question I have asked all along is: why is it that when we knew these people were in trouble we did not send the appropriate rescue at the time given our obligations under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which is a fundamental maritime obligation?

I still pose that question because, since then, the Australian community has been oblivious to this—and they are oblivious to it because it has not been reported. Why was it reported then and not reported now? There is a story from a lone survivor who has been returned to Indonesia. His story is that he:

… clung to a rubber tube and drifted helplessly for three days before rescue as the sole survivor of a boat that sank en route to Christmas Island.

Habib Ullah, 22, of Karachi, said he was among 34 Hazara from Afghanistan and Pakistan aboard a rickety boat that left Indonesia on October 26.

Speaking from … detention centre in Jakarta, an emotional Mr Ullah said the engine failed and the boat started taking on water in treacherous conditions after about one-third of the voyage.

He described the horror of watching friends, many of whom could not swim, drown around him as he clung to the tube he took aboard with him.

"One by one they were drowning before my eyes," he said. "I could not do anything but watch. I witnessed about 18 to 20 people drown."

He said he was in despair as his hopes of rescue faded fast.

"I saw very big oil tankers but they were too far from me," he said. "I was at the mercy of the ocean and very scared.

"My face was burnt, my legs were sore and my whole body was in a critical condition."

He was semiconscious when fishermen picked him up and nursed him for five days before handing him to Indonesian officials.

Mr Ullah told his story to send a message to Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

"Please accept asylum seekers because it is too dangerous to go back to our homeland," he said. "We Hazaras are very grateful to the Australian Government and people for their generosity that is willing to accept us into their society."

But he did not see offshore processing as the solution.

Mr Ullah said Hazaras in Pakistan and Afghanistan gambled with their lives just walking into the markets. "I want to complete my education in a safe environment where there is no prejudice or religious violence," he said.

Refugee advocate Victoria Martin-Iverson said it was the second boat lost in the last four months with neither reported in the media.

Shahin Tanin, of Brisbane, has grave fears for his cousin Mohammed Jawad, 40, left Jakarta 13 August.

Mr Tanin said none of the 26 Hazara passengers, including women and children, has been heard from. "I fear he has drown or why wouldn't one of them contact us?" he said.

He said Mr Jawad was forced to flee Afghanistan after the Taliban threatened to kill him when he refused to join them.

Ms Martin-Iverson said she wondered how many lives were lost at sea without the public knowing.

In June, it was reported a boat with 67 asylum seekers disappeared en route to Christmas Island.

The issue here is: if the concern is about people losing their lives at sea, why is it that, since the legislation has been passed and these boats have now apparently been lost at sea, it has not even been reported in the media? And, if concern is about people being lost at sea, why is it that this policy has not been declared an abject failure because more people have risked their lives at sea since it was brought than before? Doesn't that say that the legislation that went through here did nothing to help people decide whether or not to get on one of those boats?

What will help to stop people getting on one of those boats is to give them hope, in those processing centres in Indonesia, that they can find a safe passage to Australia or to another country and not to be so despairing that this is their only alternative. Contrary to what Senator Macdonald said about queue jumping, there is no such thing as a refugee queue. You have to be realistic here. There are people in refugee camps all over the world. The Australian Greens are keen to see as many of those people as possible, once their countries get out of conflict situations, enabled to go back home or, if they are refugees from political persecution, helped to be placed elsewhere in the world. Of course we want to see that happen. What has been so mean-spirited about this government and, indeed, the Howard government is that, as they accepted people arriving by boat, they reduced the number of people coming from those camps. That is a decision of the Howard government and the Gillard government; that is not something that the Greens have endorsed.

In one day, 9 November this year, 11,000 Syrians crossed the border and were refugees—11,000 in one day. Would Senator Macdonald say that they were queue jumping because they sought to leave Syria in the most appalling circumstances? It is a nonsense idea. When people are in trouble, when they are being persecuted, when they are being set upon, of course they are going to leave. They are going to try to get somewhere safe and, as that young person said, somewhere to get an education and live a safe life. That is what Australia offers. No amount of leaving people on Nauru indefinitely is going to deter people seeking asylum in Australia. That is why deterrence has never worked. That is why this policy is going to get more and more expensive—and not only because of the operating expenses for Nauru and Manus. When I say 'expensive' I mean in terms of human lives, the deterioration in people's physical and mental health and the long-term exposure to the compensation claims that Australia will have to meet.

We need to reassess this policy and say it has not worked. Let's get realistic here and recognise that there are large numbers of people around the world seeking asylum. Let's do what we undertook to do when we signed up to the refugee convention. Let's respect that convention. Let's actually give people their access to natural justice. It is a disgrace in Australia that the legislation takes natural justice away from people. It takes away their ability to access the courts. One of the most disgraceful things that have been done—and this is a stain on the Gillard government, just as it was a stain on governments previously—is that the government brought legislation into this Senate which was passed by the majority of the parliament, with the exception of the Greens, to exempt the minister from his duty of care to children.

The High Court had said that, as the guardian of unaccompanied children, the minister must act in their best interests and therefore that cannot be to send them into offshore detention. So the government moved in this place to exempt the minister from his responsibility as a guardian of unaccompanied children and, as a result, those unaccompanied children do not have to be dealt with in the best interests. Senator Macdonald says the Greens do not know what Australian values are. I think I know what Australian values are when it comes to the protection of children. I do not think I would find a single person walking down the street who thinks it is appropriate that the minister legislates to exempt himself from guardianship and doing the right thing by children in order to send them indefinitely somewhere else, if he chooses to do so. That is not Australian. That is not something a parliament should be proud to have done, nor should we be proud to have taken away people's natural justice.

I want to see the humanitarian intake increased. I want to see more family reunion places.

I want to see much more than $10 million going to boosting the UNHCR regional capacity, so that people can be assessed and so that they do not feel like they have no other option but to come on boats.

So let us not have any more pretence here: this has not stopped people risking their lives at sea. More people than ever have done so. And my question to the minister is: why hasn't the government made any statements about the lost boats? If there is such concern in the government about saving lives at sea then get rid of this policy and actually save lives at sea by massively increasing that humanitarian intake and by supporting the UNHCR in Indonesia to assess people and give them hope. Hope is the answer here, not despair, not punitive measures, not punishment and not out of sight, out of mind, indefinitely.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank senators who have made a contribution to this second reading debate on the Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and the Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013. These bills seek urgent appropriation authority from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These bills require immediate passage to provide additional appropriation to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. These bills address the increased cost of irregular maritime arrivals resulting from higher rates of arrivals, and the implementation of the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, including capital works and services for regional processing facilities on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. The total appropriation being sought through these two bills is $1,674,982,000.

Turning to appropriation bill No. 1, the total appropriation being sought is a little over $1.4 billion. This includes $110.6 million for Houston report measures, including $92.043 million to increase the humanitarian program by an additional 6,250 places to 20,000 places per annum from 2012-13. It also includes $8.181 million to increase the family reunion stream of the permanent migration program by 4,000 places, and it contains $10 million to fund capacity building or to add to our expenditure to date on capacity-building initiatives in regional countries. It also includes $1.296 billion to meet expenses arising from the management of higher levels of irregular maritime arrivals and the operational expenses associated with the implementation of the expert panel's recommendations to establish regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. This does include $186 million accrual from 2011-12. Despite claims otherwise by the coalition, the funding sought in these appropriations is consistent with and already budgeted for within MYEFO.

The government will be opposing the Greens second reading amendment. I would like to address the series of four points contained in that amendment. Point (a) relates to the 12-month limit: the Greens, as we have heard from Senator Hanson-Young, are seeking to limit the time of detention. This issue was canvassed quite thoroughly when we originally debated the bills to implement the expert panel recommendations and it certainly would render void the concept of no advantage—people smugglers would be able to point to a limit of 12 months and would therefore again have a product to sell. So this amendment undermines completely the recommendations of the expert panel. As I know my Senate colleagues understand full well, we are committed to the whole package of recommendations by the panel.

In relation to point (b) of the Greens amendment, the bill provides $10 million for regional capacity-building measures. Additional funding for future years will be considered as is appropriate during normal budget processes. It would not be appropriate for any fiscally responsible government to agree to funding of this size in a forum like this. Unlike the Greens, this government has agreed in principle, as I just mentioned, to all of the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers and we will continue to progress these recommendations. Obviously, future consideration will need to work through the budget processes and our normal consideration.

Point (c) of the Greens amendment calls for an independent healthcare panel. I would like to refer the Greens—I am sure they are already aware of it—to the submission by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into the Migration Amendment (Health Care for Asylum Seekers) Bill 2012. The department's submission outlines our approach. We as a government are pursuing an oversight advisory model that would include monitoring of mental health. The details and timing of these considerations are, as you would expect, in the hands of the minister. That submission is available on the committee's website and I refer the Greens senators to it for reference.

Point (d) of the amendment relates to contract services. It is important to note that there are available through the AusTender website some versions of these contracts, albeit redacted; we make no apology for not disclosing operational protocols in relation to these contracts and also the breakdown of the costs.

We have provided, and will continue to provide, the overarching costs. Also, I note, in the context of this amendment, that some of those contracts are not yet in their final stage but the heads of agreement are, and we discussed those at length at Senate estimates. We provide information on all that wherever we can and wherever possible, as is the nature of our approach. I should wrap it up by saying that that was responding to the second reading amendment and that the government will be opposing the second reading amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.

In relation to a couple of points raised by Senator Milne, we have not suspended any processing; it is true there are a large number of asylum seekers to be processed, but we continue to do this. We certainly maintain that our processing offshore on Manus Island and Nauru is in line with the refugee convention. In relation to the facts about lost boats, obviously if we are aware of boats we will make available, as has been the practice of the government right from the start, whatever information there is about tracking and issues related to lost boats so that it can be placed on the public record. So I am at a bit of a loss as to that point.

It is only this government, the Labor government, that is fully committed to delivering a proper and sustainable regional solution through the full implementation of the recommendations of the report of the expert panel led by Angus Houston. No-one should doubt the government's commitment to implementing these 22 recommendations and we will persist with it, including the presentation and passage of this bill in the House and now its debate here in the Senate. The aim is to break the people smugglers' business model and help stop people losing their lives tragically at sea on a very dangerous journey. And this is how responsible governments develop policy: by listening to the advice of experts and then acting on the recommendations, and that has included establishing regional processing on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea as soon as practical. We believe that the measures that we are putting in place will be an effective combination. Having an increased refugee intake from offshore and having no advantage for those who arrive by boat removes the attractiveness of attempting the expensive and dangerous journey to Australia. It undermines completely the people smugglers' business model. I have certainly made this point several times in this chamber and it is made consistently in the public debate—and I think that my colleagues, particularly those opposite, understand this full well. The suite of measures in the recommendations is the only way that we will see a reduction in the rate of boat arrivals, and, of course, the immediate implementation of regional processing will help us do that.

We have almost 400 people on Nauru currently and transfers will begin shortly to Manus Island. Nauru will have a capacity of 1,500 beds; it currently has about 500 places. We expect to see 600 places in Papua New Guinea as works continue on the facilities there. We are providing more opportunities for vulnerable and displaced people to pursue safer resettlement options in Australia and we are telling desperate people that there is a better way than taking a dangerous boat journey, a better way as part of an orderly humanitarian program. I remind my colleagues that we have increased that humanitarian program substantially. In fact, it is the greatest increase ever implemented and we are now proudly saying that, if you look at the number of humanitarian entrants on a per capita basis, you see we are the best-performing nation in the world in this regard.

The message here is that taking a dangerous boat journey will provide no advantage, that there is no visa awaiting people on arrival and that there is no speedy outcome or special treatment. This gives the lie to the people smugglers' spin. It exposes what they are offering as a complete sham. I think in the meantime we understand that, given the costs of processing and accommodating asylum seekers, it is expensive. It always has been. But the only way to reduce these costs is to have fewer people arriving by boat.

If the coalition were really concerned about the costs of processing and accommodating boat arrivals, it would not have for so long stood in the way of offshore processing legislation. We know why those opposite stood in the way of offshore processing, refusing to let the government implement its border protection policies. It was to score what can only be described as cheap political points. They do not want the government to succeed as it is not in their political interests, so I reject completely the accusation that somehow we are acting in an unprincipled way or in an inconsistent way. Yes, we took issue with the coalition government over their implementation of these policies and we understand very clearly that, if we were to play politics with this issue, it would come to a bad end for every party involved and, as we have seen in the past, there would be no solution.

The government have taken the politics out of this issue. We have called on the advice of an independent expert working panel and we stand here putting forward our proposals on that advice and on evidence based advice to the parliament. I find it quite offensive to hear the arguments, particularly from the opposition, that are embedded in some challenge to Labor's principle. Our principle is to have a workable solution. This is in the national interest and it is certainly in the interests of those asylum seekers whose lives are at risk because of what they are being pitched by people smugglers. I think the coalition had one little moment of bipartisanship when they supported the legislation that gave form and life to the expert panel recommendations. They should remember that time and that tiny window of bipartisanship, which, frankly, now seems just like another effort of expediency in giving expression to their view through the course of this debate. Since then they have reverted to type. If you review the comments of Senator Cash earlier on, it is opposition for opposition's sake.

Those opposite are not interested in a durable solution. They choose not to see the merit in having a regional approach. I think they understand that we are well on the way to finding a durable solution with the implementation of the expert panel report, and they are concerned that this will render them completely ineffective in the debate. Indeed, I would suggest that they already are ineffective. Opposition for opposition's sake does not work for anybody, and it certainly does not work on very challenging problems such as the one we are addressing.

We know that the game-playing by the opposition is pretty well entrenched in their outfit. We know this because there is a very firm piece of evidence, and that of course is the Malaysia arrangement, a key recommendation of the panel report. We know that the Malaysia arrangement can indeed break the people smugglers' business model, and it is time to allow it to be implemented to build on what we have already built with offshore processing. No-one can deny that the combination of regional processing in Nauru and PNG, along with returns to Malaysia, would stop the flow of boats and provide that ironclad deterrent. So I call upon the opposition to reconsider their position on Malaysia. They have nowhere to hide on this. They say Malaysia is not a signatory, but in the same breath they clamour for returns to Indonesia, which is not a signatory. So there is inconsistency there. But there is consistency, however, with us because we see it as a regional approach. This is what is required. We cannot manage this international challenge as a single isolated country; we need to work within our region.

These bills support the government's measures to reduce the rate of boat arrivals through a proper and sustainable regional solution. As such, they deserve widespread support, albeit grudgingly—and I understand that. Finally I refer to comments by Greens senators. We have been criticised in this debate from the far Right and from the far Left. I understand their concerns, but I also believe that our policy, at its heart, is based on good evidence and principles that we have maintained. I commend these bills to the House.

Debate adjourned.