Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I heard the word 'necessarily' from the member for Cook and was quite excited by his slip of the tongue. Yesterday we announced that we would seek to amend the Migration Act to allow for offshore processing. If passed by the parliament, these changes would—to use the rhetoric of the opposition—help to stop the boats. Given their past rhetoric, those opposite should support such legislation. After all, they campaigned for it at the last election. Who can forget the tawdry leaflets with the red arrows coming down, produced by the opposition—'Real Action on Immigration'! It reminds you of something from the 1950s.

Of course there is a place for offshore processing in Australia's migration policy. The former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser had offshore processing in Hong Kong and Indonesia when we had the great surge of Vietnamese boat people. Offshore processing has its place in a comprehensive migration policy. It seems, however, that the opposition leader and his immigration spokesman, the member for Cook, who have huffed and puffed about stopping the boats, now will not support such legislation. Maybe his slip of the tongue in here, with 'necessarily', is an indication that they will.

This is despite the fact that the High Court has made a decision which should lead any cautious person—anyone who had the slightest doubt put into their mind by that decision—to at least change their mind, to think about it, to think that supporting such legislation might be necessary in the interests of the country, including the opposition's long-term interest.

Today the Editor-at-Large of the Australian, Paul Kelly, argued that refusing to support this legislation will mean that offshore processing will be doomed. Mr Kelly argued:

This week's Immigration Department briefings mean the onus falls on Tony Abbott to decide whether his aim is to stop the boats or merely sink the Gillard Government ... What is required now is obvious: Labor and the Coalition need to amend the Migration Act to restore power to the executive government to negotiate offshore processing arrangements in the region. It is an open and shut case—except for the politics.

What we effectively have now is the opposition in alliance with the Greens, saying that they will sink this legislation here or in the Senate.

Mr Kelly was not alone in his assessment. Yesterday, the Foreign Editor of the Australian, Greg Sheridan, wrote:

In rejecting legislative change to allow the Gillard government to revive its Malaysia deal for asylum seekers, Tony Abbott is making the biggest policy mistake of his life ... Abbott is in danger of performing a too-clever-by-half trick on himself, making sure that if he does become prime minister he will not have the legislative and administrative tools to fulfil his pledge to stop the boats.

The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, refuses to accept the proposed changes to the Migration Act, because instead of thinking about the national interest, indeed his own long-term interest, he has only one thing on his mind: short-term politics—'How can I best and most quickly get into the Lodge?'

Just this year the member for Warringah and the member for Cook wanted to play the game of fear rather than actually proposing a policy in the national interest. We heard the comments of the members for Warringah and Cook early this year on those who perished during the Christmas Island incident, with both making inappropriate and insensitive remarks about the funerals of those who died. These are the people who claim to be great humanitarians now, who are outraged about people being sent to Malaysia. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? 'It does seem a bit unusual that the government is flying people to funerals,' he told Melbourne Talk Radio on 15 February.

In an article from the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 February, it was reported that the member for Cook said that the Liberal Party should capitalise on the dislike of some of the boat people that were arriving in Australia. Mr Morrison told the shadow cabinet meeting of 1 December at the Ryde Civic Centre that the coalition should 'ramp up its questioning of "multiculturalism" and appeal to deep voter concerns about Muslim immigration and "inability" to integrate'. The Liberal Party's faux concerns about human rights and humanitarian conditions explained today are laughable given their history of using fear and their leaflets during the last election—the ones with the red arrows—about those people coming to our shores by boat.

We all remember the opposition's extraordinary ad with red arrows, indicating that hordes of people were coming to our shores from Asia and the Middle East. This was the official Liberal Party ad, 'Real Action'. Remember 'Real Action' from last year's 2010 federal election? I bet you that, if I asked my friend the member for Goldstein if I could table it, he would not let me table it. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, to table the Liberal Party's ad from the last election.

Leave granted.

Excellent, thank you. Mr Abbott has claimed that his policies were necessary to prevent a 'peaceful invasion'. That is what he said in the Australian on 16 October 2009. An invasion? This kind of hyperbole is designed to win a few political points. It does not solve the complex national policy issues involved with border security and immigration. Those opposite do not seem to understand the complexity involved in this immigration policy. It is much more nuanced than just stopping the boats. Their solution, as outlined by Mr Morrison, the member for Cook, is to send those who come here to Iran and, as we heard today, Pakistan or to drag the boats back to sea.

Even more laughable is that the member for Warringah claimed during the last election campaign that he would have a 'boat phone' to ring border security as soon as a boat entered Australian waters. But even more astonishing is what the member for Cook said when interviewed by Leigh Sales on 7.30on 28 June this year after he had visited Malaysia. He proceeded to criticise the Malaysian government. Leigh Sales said:

You have just been in Malaysia and sat here and given me your assessment of the conditions there, in effect you are saying the Malaysian Government cannot guarantee the human rights of these people?

Mr Morrison said:

Well this is the practical reality, Leigh … and the Australian Government should not be going down this path when they know that that is the case. Now if they don't know that is the case then they should do what I've just done and I'm happy to share my experiences with them—

He is talking about the government. He continued:

I've been to Nauru and Malaysia and I know which is the more humane, cost effective and I know which is proven.

Unauthorised boat arrivals are an issue, but it is far from the end-of-days issue painted by the opposition.

Now we come to the business end of this issue. Will the opposition act in the national interest or will they pursue narrow, short-term objectives? The question is whether the opposition want to come together with the government. As the Prime Minister said, the executive arm of government has the right to make decisions on immigration and foreign policy. If the Leader of the Opposition does not believe this, he must explain to the Australian people why he is running away from his own announced policy. Why is he putting the immigration policy of Australia into total turmoil?

Our policy is about ensuring that Australia retains its rightful role in welcoming a reasonable number of the world's refugees while maintaining the security of our borders. In fact, we have a wonderful immigration policy under which we admit more than 100,000 people to this country. I strongly believe we are sent here to parliament to legislate not only for today but also with an eye for the future. We have a responsibility to look beyond short-term advantage and beyond the elections.

The opposition roared today with concern when I raised the prospect of the Liberal-Green alliance in the other place sinking this legislation. Plainly hatred of the Labor government outweighs any cool, rational examination of this issue, even from the point of self-interest by the member for Warringah. The member for Curtin was full of invective in her contribution today. The member for Warringah kept citing the following words, 'It's not in the opposition's interest to get the government off the hook.' But it is in Australia's interests, as Mr Kelly and Mr Sheridan pointed out. Neither the member for Cook, the member for Curtin nor the member for Warringah addressed the implications of the High Court decision. What happens if boats leave from Indonesia now without any legislation being in place to deal with the boats sitting in Indonesia about to come to Australia? The media and the people of Australia will judge the Liberal Party on this issue whether they back short-term interests or the national interest. It is a ridiculous situation when they are looking only at their own short-term interest, not at the national interest. (Time expired)

See this speech in context