Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his continued interest in my various statements. He retains a very active interest, and I thank him for that. In 2008 the Rudd-Gillard government, against advice, abolished offshore processing and the Howard government's Pacific solution. Since then not one illegal arrival has been processed offshore in a third country by this government. You cannot continue offshore processing if you actually have not ever started it, which is where this government finds itself today.

Since they abolished the Howard government's Pacific solution more than 12,000 people have arrived illegally on 241 boats. For all of this time the Rudd-Gillard government demonised and chastised the coalition for its concerns over the government's border protection failures as every boat arrived. At one point Labor members even called us racists for having these concerns. That is how desperate they were, and that is how demonising they were in chastising the opposition for having concerns about the border protection failures on their watch.

When the Rudd-Gillard government abolished the Howard government's border protection policies they put the people smugglers back in business. That was the result of their policy initiative. And yet today they parade around this place, claiming to be champions of the national interest on border protection—a government that created the problem, denied its existence then and then repeatedly failed to address the problem in any successful manner. How many boats did it actually take—how many boats actually arrived—before this government worked out that they had a problem? Was it 50? Was it 100? Was it 150? Was it 200? You could even argue: was it 241? This is a government that have had a history of failed policy, as every single one of those 241 boats arrived on this government's watch.

This is a government that bungled the Oceanic Viking crisis. This is a government that introduced their failed and discriminatory asylum freeze. This is a government that gave us the embarrassment of the failed East Timor plan. And this is the government that gave us the already failed Malaysia solution, which has already rejected by both houses of this parliament and by the highest court in this land—already overwhelmed by the people smugglers, with 1,000 people having already turned up since it was announced and more than 400, half the quota, since it was signed.

This policy for Malaysia is fatally flawed in design and also fails the test of providing meaningful and practical protections. The five-for-one deal that the minister boasts of highlights just how desperate this government was and just how much the Malaysian government saw this minister coming. The deal has a use-by date of just 800 transferees, and this government cannot answer the question: what happens at 801? The answer is nothing; it goes back to the same arrangement there was before. They had no answer then; they have no answer now. What happens when the exceptions that the government will invariably have to make to their policy of not sending every single person who arrives illegally by boat to Malaysia are sold as the rule by people smugglers throughout the region? What happens then? There is no answer. This is a desperate and ill-considered arrangement and it is already a proven policy failure.

It is not the opposition's job to give an incompetent and divided government a blank cheque for more failed policy. The minister opposite just previously asked why we would not vote for a policy we believe is a failure. Those opposite might be very experienced and practised in voting for policy failures—they do it all the time in this place—but the opposition does not believe that it needs to join that arrangement. The opposition does not vote for bad policy. We vote against bad policy and that is what the government can expect of this opposition. When they get a good policy we might support it, but I am not holding my breath.

Our policy, as our leader outlined earlier, has three core elements to stop the boats. The coalition has held a consistent policy on border protection for a decade and it seeks to stop the boats and preserve the integrity of our refugee and humanitarian program by ensuring, as our former Prime Minister once said, 'We decide who comes to our country and the circumstances in which they come.' There are three elements. Firstly, turning boats back is a straightforward and uncompromising deterrent where the circumstances permit. This is not offshore processing; it is preventing entry to Australia. Secondly, there is offshore processing in a third country—namely, Nauru—subject to the clear protections we have always stood by. Thirdly, there are temporary protection visas for illegal arrivals who are found to be genuine refugees, but it denies them access to the family reunion program.

The coalition's border protection policy has always been tough, always been uncompromising, always been consistent and, most importantly, it has always been effective, and it remains so. Ours has never been a bleeding-hearts policy, but a practical and measured policy subject to reasonable safeguards with a clear objective in mind: to stop the boats and to restore integrity to our refugee and humanitarian program.

Labor's position, though, has been one of constant flip-flops and constant hypocrisy. Over the past 10 years, as the Leader of the Opposition says, they have supported and opposed turning boats back, they have supported and opposed offshore processing and they have supported and opposed temporary protection visas. The minister for immigration, previously at the table, famously said back in August 2006:

We say that asylum seekers should be treated the same regardless of how they land. We say that they should be dealt with fairly, swiftly and on Australian soil.

That is what the minister who was previously at the table said; that is not what his policy is now offering. The government's proposed changes to the Migration Act fail to provide the protections previously provided under the coalition's legislation and fails to properly quarantine ministerial discretion from being open to judicial interpretation. The parliament should not be giving an incompetent government a blank cheque for more failed policy. The coalition has proposed considered and practical amendments to strengthen the Migration Act with respect to offshore processing while ensuring that objective, reasonable and assessable protections are in place. The minister and the Prime Minister should get a little less cranky and a little more constructive in dealing with the bill that they seek to bring into this House.

The former Solicitor-General, David Bennett AC QC, has provided written advice on the two sets of amendments provided by the government to the coalition and looked at our alternative. His opinion is that the coalition's plan provides more protection for asylum seekers than the two government versions and is less likely to be the subject of complex judicial proceedings. That is the advice of the former Solicitor-General.

Our proposal would allow for illegal arrivals to be sent offshore for processing to one of 148 countries which are signatories to the United Nations convention or protocol—including Nauru, which becomes a signatory on 26 September. The coalition's amendment would enable this government to implement their policy to reopen the processing centre on Manus Island. Their choice to reject our amendments would be to vote against their own policy of reopening a processing centre on Manus Island. If Julia Gillard wants to stop the boats she should support the coalition's proposed amendments that provide her government and all future governments with clear discretionary and unchallenged powers subject to reasonable, universally accepted and objective safeguards.

The Prime Minister and this government have no authority, credibility or mandate to storm into this place and make demands on this parliament. The government's majority, upon which they relied to form government in this House, has deserted them over their handling of border protection in this country. They clearly do not have the requisite support to carry their own legislation. The coalition has offered them support subject to only one condition that would bind them and every other government that follows. The minister's angry rejection of the coalition's amendments during his panicked raid yesterday afternoon is not what is needed to resolve this situation.

In government, we will re-establish offshore processing at Nauru regardless of what happens here in the meantime. But what is clear is that this is a government that does not have the resolve or the consistency of policy to address this issue. They have been found wanting on this issue for three years. The Australian people know it and the people smugglers know it, and that is why we need the election option. (Time expired)

See this speech in context