House debates

Tuesday, 14 August 2012

Bills

Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011; Second Reading

5:19 pm

Photo of Rob MitchellRob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw the whole statement. But I will say that I think the gentleman that spoke to me was wrong, because I do not think that there are any circumstances in which you could say the Leader of the Opposition was overpriced. I think he is cheap, as cheap as you can get. That is what we have seen in the carry-on today, in the way that he believes, 'We've got success. We've got Nauru.' Now, Nauru in its Pacific solution form was nothing like what is being proposed by the expert panel—nothing like it at all. If anyone on the other side had actually taken the time to read the report, they would know that what the expert panel have recommended is nothing like the old Nauru proposal. It is not a detention centre. In fact, Mr Aristotle said on Lateline that what is proposed is a very different arrangement from the Pacific solution. He said:

… we're not recommending opening detention centres.

That is what he said, but if you listen to those opposite, that is not what they want to hear. They make up things out of the report. They must have their own copy of the report, a copy they have written. If you compare what they are saying with what is written in this report, it does not make sense. The report says that people would not be in arbitrary detention, that they would have to return to the accommodation in the evenings but that it is not intended any of the proposed transfer facilities would be detention centres. That is very important.

The Nauru and Papua New Guinea solution is a short-term arrangement. This is about getting something to happen quickly to stop people risking their lives on unseaworthy boats coming to this country. The panel also says we should get on with the Malaysian solution. If you listen to those opposite, you would know that they said Malaysia was redlighted. That is factually incorrect. I challenge those on the other side to show where in the report it says that. It does not say that; it says that that is a medium-term solution, that we have to strengthen what we have, to get it all in place with a proper legal framework around it. At the end of the day, the goal has to be a regional solution. It is something we do not attack on our own; it is something for which we need the support of our neighbours. That is pretty much what the report says because the most important priority is to prevent people risking their lives to come here.

We also hear those on the other side carry on about the TPVs, as though they are the great white hope of the world. Nothing in the report talks about TPVs because we know that they did not work. They encouraged women and children to get on boats and that was evident throughout the years. We also heard about how Howard's Pacific solution ended boat arrivals. I am sure George Bush would have coughed into his coffee if he had heard that this morning because it was the effort of NATO and other countries around the world to bring stability to regions affected by wars that slowed the process down. That of course all gets forgotten in the cheap little play that happens when those on the other side pretend they have some big win out of nothing.

No-one wins with this sort of stuff. We have to get on with the job. The Prime Minister said that and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has said we have to get a result. We put up the option of offshore processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea a while ago but it was not backed by the stubbornness of the opposition, who do not really care what happens to people. For them, it is just a game to try to gain a vote

Comments

No comments