Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is good to have this opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 today. It is important. What I have heard, though, in what the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bowman and the member for Corio have said is that, whilst there might be bipartisan agreement on this bill, there is still a world of difference in policy, and that is hardly a surprise. Obviously, political parties present a set of policies, a set of views, to the Australian people every three years, and the Australian people make a judgement about that. Then you see every three years what the Australian people think.

I find it disappointing, though, when people talk down the views of the Australian people. I think generally the people get it right. The member for Corio talked about the 'darker angels', reflecting on what John Howard said: 'We decide who comes here and the manner in which they come'. I like to think the Australian people are pretty smart. They supported the government at that time. Of course it was not on every policy. Not everyone in every Australian home supports one side with every policy, unless they are rusted on and all that sort of stuff. The majority of people think, 'I like that; I'm not so sure about that.' But the reality is that people had a considered opinion about those policies and probably about what John Howard said at the time, and I respect that. I think everybody in this place should respect that and not talk down to the Australian people in that way.

John Howard proposed that we—as in the government of the Australian people, the representatives of the Australian people—decide who comes here. The alternative to that is that anyone who wants to come can come. I do not think any person in this country agrees with that.

In Cowan, there are lots of people who were refugees—from Vietnam, Burma, the Karen, the Chin people. We have plenty of people in the Wanneroo Baha'i community as well. When we talked about our alternative policies, which are different from the former Labor government policies, a lot of the people who came here from refugee camps absolutely supported what we did because it was really about the integrity of the system whereby the desperate need of people in refugee camps was the priority. It was not about whether somebody could hop on a plane out of Lebanon, fly to Dubai, then on to Jakarta and to people smugglers. There is a big difference between those sorts of people who put themselves or their family on an aeroplane, compared to those who were stuck in refugee camps. The big difference is the ability to pay versus being stuck in refugee camps, waiting for your number to come up—a huge difference. I think that is why so many people supported us. I have plenty of former refugees who have helped on polling booths, influenced in no small part by a policy that put need before means.

I completely endorse the government's policy and the manner in which it has been implemented because we are seeing people who come from refugee camps on the Burma-Thailand border or from Syria. Christian refugees have been fiercely persecuted in Syria. There are 1,000 places for women at risk and children. These are the outcomes of a system with integrity.

What we are talking about here is the validation of regional processing arrangements and that is just one part of a successful policy. Turn backs have been highly successful as well. Control has been exerted and not broadcasting or telegraphing the government's plans to people smugglers has been exceptionally useful, exceptionally effective. There is more to it than just Nauru and Manus Island.

A lot has been said about and I do not wish to linger on the former government's Malaysia plan. Interestingly the member for Corio mentioned the return of 800 people to Malaysia as part of that deal. That was not regional processing; that was a swap. Why did the member for Corio not mention the 4,000 who were going to come from Malaysia to here? That was an essential part of his plan. That was not 4,000 out a refugee camp like the ones I have been to up on the Burma-Thailand border; it was 4,000 people who had made it to Malaysia, but that is in the past. I do not wish to talk about the pluses or the minuses of that any more. It really is important that to a degree we look at the past. I encourage anyone who is interested in this debate not just to work off headlines on newspapers or on the internet but to look back to see what was said in 2008 and in 2009 and since then. Make your own judgement but make sure it is informed.

As I said before, I absolutely endorse the policies we have. I know that they are derided by many sectors but I absolutely endorse them. When I look around Cowan, I see the Karens and the Chins from Burma doing a wonderful job, fitting into the Australian society, working hard and doing jobs that are not that poplar. They know how to work hard and they know how to be successful.

Looking back further, I have a very big Vietnamese population in Cowan with over 5,000 Vietnamese speakers—men, women and children. So many of them have come from that refugee background, the brutality that followed the end of the Vietnam War when North Vietnam had broken the Paris Peace Accords and public opinion in the US and even here had taken away support for the democratic dream that South Vietnam used to have, when the North Vietnamese soldiers were throwing desperately wounded soldiers out of hospitals and sending people to re-education camps. That resulted in a lot of people fleeing Vietnam. Most Vietnamese came to Australia from refugee camps and that is exactly the way it should be because, to alleviate the suffering of refugees, we should certainly concentrate on their circumstances to determine their need.

If you stop the boats, as Minister Morrison did and now as Minister Dutton is doing so successfully on behalf of the government and the Australian people, then you do have capacity to take people out of refugee camps and from circumstances in Syria, where women and children are at risk. These are the outcomes of a policy that works. I absolutely refute those who want to tear down this system. What we have built here tries to short-circuit and stop the possibilities of those people who want to return to a system where cash is more important than need, where they will try to take this system out in the High Court.

It is very great that this has bipartisan support across this chamber. This is the moment where we can lock in the arrangements that we currently have and end up with a system which, again, is all about need and not about cash, because it has integrity. It is not about people who can afford their airfares, whether those are on Emirates or Qatar or some other airline from the Middle East over to Indonesia. It is a good situation.

Absolutely, there have been problems with Nauru. I find it greatly disturbing that people who want to come here are capable of crimes against women and children. I think it is a good thing in every way that people like that, who are capable of such things, will not ever come here. We know who is responsible for these crimes.

I suspect I have already gone on for too long, and I give my regrets to the minister! Again, without really going into the politics at all, I think this is a good moment, where both sides of parliament can work together to lock in an effective, working element of a policy that is working. As I said right at the start, there is a big difference in many aspects of policy in this area. The member for Corio made that very clear; he did not endorse a whole lot of the policy that we have in this area. But in my case, as someone who was here in 2008 and 2009 when this problem was being created, I say that what we have now under the leadership of Minister Dutton, as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, is exactly the right way to go. It is good for refugees in the region and it is a system that is endorsed by former refugees in the electorate of Cowan. I look forward to us being able to move past this bill and lock in procedures that are working as part of the bigger policy. Thank you.

See this speech in context