Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. What are the benefits of the government's transfer arrangement with Malaysia, how has this announcement been received and what is the government's response?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fowler for his question. The government has consistently said that it will pursue an international agreement to break the business model of the people smugglers and that is what the Gillard government has delivered. We have consistently said that we needed an international solution to an international problem and that is what the Prime Minister's of Australia and Malaysia have committed to agree to.

People smugglers now need to find 800 volunteers to part with their money, to risk their lives, to come to Australia only to return to Malaysia. Interestingly, Malaysia is the point of entry for most asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat. This is where they normally begin their boat journey. So why would you part with your money and risk your life to be returned to where you started?

Of course, the government has also used this opportunity to increase our refugee intake and to assist Malaysia with the challenges of managing the 92,000 registered asylum seekers in Malaysia. We will, over the next four years, take 4,000 refugees who have been processed and mandated by the United Nations in Malaysia. I note that this has come in for some criticism from the opposition, from the Leader of the Opposition in particular and from the member for Cook. The Leader of the Opposition says it is a bad deal and that we do not have a good enough deal. The Leader of the Opposition knows a bit about making deals when it comes to asylum seekers. We know he offered to double the refugee intake to the member for Denison in return for one vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. That would have been a bad deal. That would not have been a good negotiating tactic on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition.

We also see that the member for Cook has been criticising this arrangement. On one level that is his job as the shadow minister for immigration. But I must say I was a little surprised to see that. The other option available to the member for Cook would have been to claim credit for the idea. He could have said, 'Actually, this was my idea,' because, when the member for Cook saw the announcement on Saturday—I am sure he was sitting at home watching it on television—I am sure his mind went back to the speech he made on 30 November last year which was very modestly entitled 'A real solution: an international, regional and domestic solution to asylum policy'. The international component to the member for Cook's solution was in his words, 'a trade-off'. He said:

In my view, Australia’s participation in a regional solution for Afghanistan should seek to trade off Australia taking more refugees out of the camps in countries of first asylum in that region in return for the ability to return those who have sought to advantage their asylum claims through illegal entry to Australia, to those same camps or other safe places established for that purpose, as part of the regional solution.

'To take more out of refugee camps,' the member for Cook argued. He went on to say:

Under this proposal—

It was a good speech, Mr Speaker—

Australia would continue to honour our obligations under the Refugee Convention, but use the safe third country provisions provided under the Migration Act ...

When I heard and read that speech of 30 November last year I thought, 'He's onto us. He's onto our idea we are pursuing.' In fairness, he suggested that this deal should be done with Iran. I will leave the member for Cook to explain why Iran makes more sense than Malaysia. The people smugglers should be under no illusions. We will do what it takes to break the people smugglers business model.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Why did it take the New South Wales police just three hours to forcibly remove protestors from the roof of the minister's own electorate office compared with 11 days for detainees to come down from the roof of the Villawood Detention Centre during recent riots?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that the first part of this question is actually problematic, because I am not sure whether it is in the province of the minister but I will allow the question.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Police forces, whether state or federal, when making decisions on operational matters, take into account all the evidence before them as to what is safe in the circumstances. If the member for Stirling is suggesting that he understands the situation better than the Australian Federal Police on the ground, if he is better qualified to make those judgments than the experts who make those decisions every day and the people who risk their lives in those situations, then he should explain that to the Australian Federal Police.