Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Shouting down others, shouting down voices which are different, is possibly the point you are trying to make, member for Kennedy, but I do not think that you are doing it in the most effective way. I think all of us in this place do need to be mindful of the lessons of what has just taken place in America. There is a need to engage with all voices, but also a need to raise the tone of our political conversations, not lower it, and to include all voices in our national conversation and to recognise that many do feel that they do not have a say.

At a time in Australia where we are at record inequality since the Great Depression, we are seeing Australian society, under the stewardship of Prime Minister Turnbull and Treasurer Morrison, on a trajectory towards the United States. We are reaching levels of inequality not far off the United States when it comes to inequality. The government does not have a story to tell on jobs. We are seeing the social compact and the social wage consistently under attack. These are the conditions which mean that people are ripe for exploitation and they are ripe to hear the voices of fear. We must counter those voices with voices of hope. We must not allow those who are vulnerable in our society and also those who are seeking our help to be made victims at the altar of the failures of this government's poor leadership and its paucity of vision for Australia.

The real target of this bill is not the people smugglers, of which government members have occasionally spoken about in their limited contributions to this bill. Let us be clear about this: the real targets of this bill are the Australian Labor Party and the Australian community at large. This bill is simply an attempt to wedge the Australian Labor Party, and we say, no, we are not playing that game. We are not interested in engaging in a race to bottom. We draw a line here. We are interested in having a serious debate about this challenging and controversial policy area, in the terms the Prime Minister used a year ago. A year is a long time in politics. We are interested in the policy challenges, not playing cheap politics. We are interested in conducting a debate about these issues in a way that is respectful and honest. The honest bit is pretty important, because one of the most egregious aspects of the Prime Minister's contributions in question time this week is his desperate and demeaning attempt to link his government's policy architecture in this area with multiculturalism. What makes this particularly despicable is that he is doing this at the same time as he is licensing changes which would water down vital protections against racial hatred speech. If the Prime Minister were serious about standing up for multicultural communities, including those comprising the many waves of refugees who have made such an enormous and important contribution to Australia, he would be standing up for those critical protections and he would be joining with the Labor Party in saying, 'We do not need to licence hate speech'. We do not.

Other speakers have touched on the lack of conformity this bill has with international law, and they have done so effectively. I took the time to look through the explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I am sure that government members have done so too. When it considers the statement of compatibility with human rights, we see some really desperate reasoning, because it is completely evident that this bill does not meet our international law obligations. The member for Kingsford Smith talked about the very strongly expressed views of Professor Ben Saul. I do not think there is a single person with any expertise in this area who agrees that this is a bill that stands up with our international law obligations; it certainly does not meet our moral ones, because the proposition it presents is a complete absurdity. There is no rationale for it.

This was very effectively set out by Madeline Gleeson of the Kaldor Centre at the University of New South Wales when she was discussing the import of the bill last Monday on ABC Radio on The World Today. She said there were really two options for the bill: either it could either be a gross breach of the promises we have made under international law or it could be a move that just binds the system up in more red tape. Actually, now we have seen the bill, they have the double. They have done both. It is a gross breach of international law. When we hear the minister squirm about how he can use his discretion, we see that all it really does is impose additional red tape as well—additional regulation. It is funny, because I see all these offices—that of the member for Canning is near mine—which proudly boast of their rejection of red tape; but when it comes to the Migration Act this government cannot let a sitting week go by without a purposeless amendment—an amendment that is purposeless save in one respect: to continue their divisive approach to the politics of this issue, an issue which they should rise above, where they should show some concern for the human beings at the core of these questions.

Resettlement—it has been over three years now and we do not see any meaningful effort. The cynical way in which the government have dropped out hints that this legislation may somehow be linked to helping desperate people get to safer places is shameful. It shows their neglect of their real responsibilities of looking, as Labor has done, to work with the UNHCR and with regional partners to find safe pathways and a genuine approach to resettlement. They are not interested in that. This bill demonstrates that this government is weak. It is not a tough government. A tough government would look squarely at the moral challenges that the forced movement of people places upon us. It is forced movement, including in our region, that will be increased by climate change. A tough government would look hard at itself and come up with solutions. It would find ways forward that do not demonise people, but deal with these difficult challenges in the manner that they demand, a manner that puts people first and cynical politics out the door. (Time expired)

See this speech in context