Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move :

That this House:

(1) condemns the Gillard Government's deal with Malaysia that would see 800 asylum seekers intercepted in Australian waters and sent to Malaysia; and

(2) calls on the Government to immediately abandon this proposal.

The government's deal to expel asylum seekers from Australia to Malaysia is wrong and should be condemned by this parliament. The deal, like the now-defunct East Timor plan, is a rushed political fix designed to paper over the failure of the government and the opposition's mandatory detention policy. The deal will mean asylum seekers are expelled to Malaysia. The deal violates Australia's international obligations and is an abuse of human rights. That is why today I am moving a motion that is also being moved and supported in the Senate. The motion reads that this House: 'condemns the Gillard Government's deal with Malaysia that would see 800 asylum seekers intercepted in Australian waters and sent to Malaysia; and … calls on the Government to immediately abandon this proposal.'

I understand the significance of moving this motion, and I have not taken the decision to do so lightly. If passed, this motion will mean that for the first time in the life of this parliament both houses of parliament will have condemned a government policy. The government will need to take this matter very seriously because it will have received a very clear message from parliament rejecting the Malaysia deal and a very strong request that the deal be abandoned.

We all know why we are at this low point in this country's treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. For more than a decade we have had a political race to the bottom between the old parties, as they have chased votes that they think exist in certain marginal seats around the country. On the one side you have the coalition, the party of razor wire and children overboard, peddling fear and stoking resentment in the community; and on the other you have Labor, the party of mandatory detention, promising a new direction at the election but then again giving into fear and refusing to lead public opinion on this issue. It is almost like the old parties are locked in an arms race on refugees, competing to be tough and lacking in compassion. So now, instead of winding back mandatory detention, we have a government expanding offshore detention and now adopting the Howard government policy, so roundly condemned, of expelling asylum seekers to another country—a country that has not signed the convention on refugees, a country that has a history of caning asylum seekers and engaging in other abuses of human rights and a country that has not yet guaranteed any protections of the people which our government intends to expel there. Why do we sign up to international conventions if we are not going to abide by them? Why do we seek to contract out our obligations? We cannot send fairness offshore. It is for this reason that this deal has been widely condemned, including by the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights when she visited Australia last week.

The government will say that this deal is good because, in return for accepting those expelled, Malaysia will send others to Australia. Let me be clear that the Greens' position is that our humanitarian refugee intake should be significantly expanded. But an expansion of our refugee intake should not be bought at the violation of the rights of others or by swapping one person for another. Refugees and asylum seekers are human beings, not a card in a political game. It is a reflection of how low the political debate in this country has sunk that there is willingness in some quarters to accept this as a legitimate approach to immigration policy.

I was elected by the people of Melbourne in part to bring a value of compassion and represent it in this parliament. My electorate of Melbourne thrives in part because of the decades of migrants and refugees who have chosen to settle there. The people of Melbourne do not give in to the fear and hysteria promoted by the old parties. They value diversity and the multicultural community in which they live. They know that there is an alternative. We can do what happens in most parts of the world—that is, allowing people, regardless of how they come to this country, to seek asylum. Detention is a last resort, and even then should only be for the minimum possible period—a period of days, for health and security checks. The people of Melbourne also know that at a time when the country is facing a skills shortage and a mandatory detention bill of over $1 billion there are good economic reasons for a policy of fairness.

I say to the members in this place that I know moving a motion condemning the Malaysian deal is very confronting for the government and the passage of this motion will be a significant event in the life of this parliament. But there are times when, regardless of the implications, enough is enough. The Malaysia deal is wrong. It violates human rights and Australia's international obligations. It should be scrapped and I urge all members to add their voice to this call.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. If someone comes to Australia seeking asylum we have a responsibility enshrined in the refugee convention, to which we are a signatory, to give them protection, to quickly assess their claim and to provide refuge if that claim is upheld. This legal responsibility applies regardless of how asylum seekers reach our shores and should be applied equally to those who arrive by boat as to those who come here by aeroplane.

Our real responsibility goes much deeper than our legal obligation as a signatory to the refugee convention, because we also have a pressing moral obligation to render all possible assistance to asylum seekers in a genuine spirit of goodwill. It is regarding this moral obligation that the federal government is doing the wrong thing by planning on trading asylum seekers with Malaysia, so much so in fact that the Labor Party has now lost the moral superiority it once had regarding Australia's response to irregular immigration. This troubles me because the Labor Party's approach to asylum seekers was a not insignificant consideration some nine months ago when I was struggling with the decision of who to give limited support to in this place.

Frankly, to establish a trade in people fleeing violence and persecution is an abomination. Yes, it may well help to deter asylum seekers from attempting the risky voyage to Australia, but it is wrong, so wrong in fact that I detest it even more than the so-called Pacific solution engineered by the Howard government and still favoured by the opposition. At least on Nauru and Manus Island there were Australian officials to ensure that some safeguards were maintained.

How on earth can conditions in Malaysia be tough enough to deter asylum seekers to Australia but safe enough for the Australian government to claim that refugees' human rights will be protected? They cannot. For a start Malaysia has not signed the refugee convention and nor has it ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It has not even signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As the United Nations human rights commissioner has pointed out, any deal with Malaysia simply offers no protection if the refugee and torture conventions have not been ratified by that country.

The government has a political problem, not an immigration problem. Rather than joining the opposition in singling out asylum seekers who arrive by boat for special punishment, the government should have the courage to inform the community about the facts. Asylum seekers are not breaking any rules. The majority are genuine refugees. And far from being swamped, the number of people arriving by boat in Australia is small compared with the much more worrying number of these overstayers arriving daily by air.

So I call again on the government and the opposition to stop, take a deep breath and focus instead on developing sophisticated responses to irregular immigration into Australia that much more effectively address the conditions in source, first asylum and transit countries. Remember, this is first and foremost a humanitarian crisis and not a border protection problem.

Australia receives just two per cent of the industrialised world's asylum claims. These are some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable human beings on the face of the planet. Let us not sacrifice the modest advances made in our treatment of asylum seekers in the last few years in the pursuit of political self interest. In particular, let us not start trading asylum seekers with a country that often treats such people as criminals, forcibly returns them to danger, routinely relies on the lash of the cane and even resorts to the barbaric death penalty.

The bottom line is that this deal with Malaysia is a shameful public policy that is inconsistent with our international obligations. It must be abandoned. That is why I have seconded the motion condemning the deal put forward by the member for Melbourne and that is why I will vote in support of it.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Denison talks about abomination. I start by saying that the abomination in the world at the moment is that there are some 50 million people who are displaced. Around 15 million of those people are already classified as refugees and of those only about one per cent will be resettled in a third country. So for every one that Australia takes, there are many hundreds that we do not. It is an abomination that people make choices about who to assist and who not to assist. The best that decent people can do in a world like this is try to find answers that are less bad than the answers if we do not help at all. These are very real ethical issues in this, as both members who have already spoken would know, as we try to find answers that provide the most good and the least harm. Whatever we do in this particular circumstance does leave some people in real harm—many more than we actually help.

The government has been talking to our neighbours about a regional solution for some time, and before the tragic events at Christmas Island that saw many people lose their lives. There is no doubt that another tragedy is inevitable if the boats keep coming. But stopping people making the dangerous journey to Australia by boat does require a genuine breakthrough. Much of the talk in the last year or so about people smuggling has centred around Indonesia, because that is where the boats usually come from. But Malaysia is the key. Most boat arrivals in Australia pay people smugglers about $15,000 to get to Australia. They fly to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia and then start their boat journey, first to Indonesia and then on to Australia. So the logic of the Malaysian arrangement is actually very simply. Why would you pay a substantial amount of money and risk your life on a boat only to be returned to where you began your boat journey?

I would expect that an announcement like this would come in for flak from both sides of the debate because, as I said, it is a problem where there is no perfect outcome and where, whatever a government does, there is room for criticism. There will always be a way to criticise. Frankly, if our politicians and the media are not mature enough to lift their commentary above mere criticism and consider the complexities of the world of refugees then it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the community at large to find a path through what are very difficult issues for us all.

I am not going to accuse the member for Melbourne of chasing votes on this—although he has accused us of chasing votes on this—but I will say that the Greens supporters probably share a very similar position on this to his so it is easy and politically expedient to espouse the same view. In the interest of good government and not just good politics, it is incumbent upon those who criticise this deal to suggest an alternative that increases Australia's role in resettling refugees while breaking the business role of the people smugglers.

Australia's role in resettling refugees, from my perspective, is perhaps one of the most important things that we do. Of the 50 million displaced people and 15 million people already classified as refugees, only one per cent are resettled in third countries. Australia is one of only about a dozen countries that resettle refugees from third countries and one of only three—the US, Canada and Australia—that do it on a reasonable scale. So we have a very important role to play in providing homes for people who really have nowhere else to go and are likely to spend many years in camps without the support of Australia.

I am very pleased that, in the deal we have done with Malaysia, we are increasing the humanitarian intake from Malaysia by 4,000 people. Malaysia currently has around 92,000 people who are registered as refugees and in total around 270,000 displaced people living in the community. So Malaysia has a very large number of people. I am incredibly pleased to see that Australia is increasing its intake by 4,000. I would very much like to see a world in which we could concentrate more on that aspect of the important work that we do, particularly since we are one of the few countries that do that. I am glad to see us begin to change the debate towards the importance of that resettlement role for Australia by the taking of this additional 4,000 people.

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

I am not going to cast aspersions on other members of this House. This is an incredibly complex and difficult issue and we all have to make choices about how we think we are going to address it. So I would not for a second seek to question the motives or morals of anybody in this place in how they seek to approach this very difficult issue. But I would also note that no-one would be happier than I if we could stop the boats. This is something I have campaigned for in this portfolio now for some years. It is not a slogan for the coalition; it was our record in government. For more than two years we have argued with this government that its policies are the reason we have seen this unprecedented rate of illegal boat arrivals to Australia. I now notice that the government finally agrees with us and has sought to change its policy because it knows it is the policies that are at fault in causing the chaos that we now see. But this government does not understand that when you implement policy in this area you must think it through.

This five for one people swap deal with Malaysia is a proposal conceived in denial and negotiated in desperation. Five for one speaks for itself. It was rushed out prior to the budget before it was finalised. Confusion still reigns over when it starts, who goes there and who does not. Confusion still reigns about who will decide who goes to Malaysia and the circumstances in which they go. The Prime Minister claims she is making the decision, but the Malaysian government says the opposite. It is quite clear that the Malaysian government will have a right of veto over who goes to their country under this arrangement, and the Prime Minister should be honest with the people about that. Confusion reigns about whether the 21 children and eight women who have arrived since 7 May will be sent to Malaysia. The Prime Minister should answer the question of whether she is going to send those women and children to Malaysia. Confusion continues to reign about the level of support and funding, almost $70 million of which will be paid to international agencies. We do not know what that will pay will for. Will it feed people? Will it send their kids to school and give them health care? If it does any of those things, for how long will it do those things—the entire time they are there or just a little while? We do not have answers to any of the detail because this policy sits in a twilight zone of confusion which is characterised by the way the government deals with this issue and constantly fails to think things through.

Irregular maritime arrivals will be held on Christmas Island indefinitely because this agreement has not yet been concluded and the government has no other agreement with any other country anywhere in the world to send people. As a result, those who are arriving at Christmas Island are being held in indefinite detention in strict contradiction of the government's own stated and legislated detention values.

The government has also failed to address our international obligations here, which others have noted. It is not enough just to get a commitment from Asia not to refoule, as is required under the UN convention on refugees. I understand that the government needs to get that requirement and I accept that they have received that undertaking from the Malaysia government. But what they have not got is an undertaking when it comes to the United Nations convention against torture. The Prime Minister's statement says that those sent to Malaysia will not receive preferential treatment to those who are already in Malaysia awaiting assessment of their asylum claims.

There are laws in Malaysia—actual laws—permitting fines, imprisonment and whipping of people who illegally reside in Malaysia. That is the law in Malaysia. Unless this government has an absolutely rock-solid guarantee that these laws will not apply to people sent to Malaysia then clearly they can give no guarantee about the human rights and welfare of those sent. In fact, the complementary protection law, which was introduced into and passed this House last week and is now before the Senate, may even provide an opportunity for those who are coming by boat to seek asylum from the government's own transfer laws under its own new asylum laws that it introduced into this parliament. As a result, we will see this thing potentially being wholly unwound by the government's failure to think it through. Then there is the commitment that is required in terms of the act itself, which says that human rights need to be protected and that people also are provided protection while they await asylum claims in Malaysia. That is the requirement of our Migration Act, and I learnt in estimates that the government is seeking to work its way around that requirement in the Migration Act in order to send people to Malaysia without giving that undertaking. This deal just simply does not stack up at the end of the day, and the government has options in Nauru. They only have to pick up the phone. (Time expired)

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that the contribution just made by the member for Cook and those of the members for Denison and Melbourne highlight the difficulties of these issues. It is probably best summed up in terms of the contribution the member for Mayo made the other day when talking about detention. He said that you cannot be tough and humane at the same time in relation to asylum seekers. On one side, we have the member for Cook telling us that we are not tough enough; on the other side, we have the contributions from the members for Melbourne and Denison telling us that we are not being humane enough.

I believe we can be both tough and humane, and this Malaysian solution is an attempt to be both—humane in the way in which we treat asylum seekers in terms of the numbers of additional people that we will be bringing here as well as being tough in trying to break the people-smuggling model that is so insidious and terrible in the way in which it treats human beings. Let us not just take that from members of the government; let us actually have a look at what the UNHCR has said. We have had some rhetoric here about how bad this solution is, but that is does not stack up with what has been said by the experts in the area.

Yante Ismail in the West Australian on 16 May, the UNHCR spokesman said:

We don't see it in terms of a swap or a bargain ...

We see this as a commitment by the Australian Government to provide resettlement for 4000 people in need of an opportunity to rebuild their lives safely.

To us, it's a real commitment by Australia in burden-sharing with a country like Malaysia that is now coping with a large number of refugees and asylum seekers.

We think the agreement has the potential to enhance the protection for refugees in Malaysia, as well as the region as a whole.

If it realises more resettlement opportunities for refugees, this would be a positive outcome."

The member for Denison was the one who said that he found the swapping of people abhorrent. As I said, the UNHCR has said that they do not see it in those terms at all; they see it as a breakthrough in this area. We have to understand that with 92,000 registered refugees in Malaysia—270,000 there in total—we need to be doing our bit in making sure that we bring more people here.

It is not just one isolated UNHCR spokesman; it is many. Adrian Edwards said:

As we understand the MOU, Australia's obligations under the refugee convention are not compromised provided that the fundamental rights of asylum seekers and refugees are assured in Malaysia.

Richard Towle, the UNHCR regional representative says:

I think in that sense it has the potential to... make a significant practical contribution to what we're trying to achieve in the region.

And if it's a good experience other countries can look at it and say 'yes, that's a positive way of managing these issues. Perhaps we want to embark on similar or other initiatives under a regional cooperation framework.

The UNHCR Malaysian representative, Alan Vernon said:

… under this agreement, to the extent to which we have all the details— and of course we know that it's a work in progress which is still being discussed...we see that there are opportunities for better protection for refugees here in Malaysia, and more broadly in the region.

What the UNHCR is saying is that they see the Malaysian solution not as abhorrent but as a positive move both for asylum seekers in Malaysia and also in the region.

Most importantly, the contrast needs to made in terms of what the opposition are saying. The opposition's model is to put asylum seekers in Nauru. It does not attempt to break the people-smuggling process at all. This particular Malaysian solution does that: it goes to the source country from where the boats first leave and makes sure there are incentives for people to be treated fairly, humanely. Australia takes more refugees, but we do it in such a way that we discourage the vile trade of people smuggling.

For those on the left and on the right to criticise only shows what a difficult and tight balance this is, but I believe the government has got this right in relation to the Malaysian solution and this is something that should be supported by all members of this parliament.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this motion by the member for Melbourne this morning and, in doing so, question the motives behind this proposed Malaysian deal for asylum seekers and the outcomes. This government's border protection frenzy has become excruciating to watch—like a cross between a bizarre episode of The Amazing Race and a chicken with its head cut off.

There are stark similarities with the reality TV program. Just like The Amazing Race, this government jet sets its policy from one country to the next. We have seen the bungled attempt at using East Timor. We have seen Manus Island and PNG brought into the equation very briefly. Then we jumped on a jet to see if Malaysia could help get this Labor government's border protection right. Then Thailand and the South Sea islands have chimed in wanting a piece of the action, so bad for Australia was the proposed deal with Malaysia.

The key difference is that contestants on The Amazing Race do not know where they are going to finish, and it is not in Malaysia. The Malaysian deal is not a solution. Manus Island was not a solution. East Timor was not a solution. What we are seeing in Australian detention centres is not a solution. They are all just carriages on this train wreck that is the government's avoidance of the real solution to border protection. The Australian people know what the solution looks like. They have seen the Howard government effectively control our borders and achieve results. I believe, 'If it ain't broke don't fix it.' Unfortunately, that is not this government's approach to this policy. They tried to fix the perfectly-working solution and have been running around like headless chooks ever since in a desperate bid to find another solution that does not look like the old one. They cannot go back to the solution that worked; that would be to admit that they got it wrong.

If a real deal with Malaysia ever eventuates—and there is not yet a deal, according to Malaysia—it will be one of the greatest injustices ever thrust upon the Australian people and the asylum seekers at the centre of this malaise. To pack up the asylum seekers and transport them to a country that not only allows but regularly practices caning, contravenes the government's own stance. Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Even if a caning ban was written into this alleged agreement that would be no guarantee because caning is permissible under local laws in Malaysia. The PM cannot guarantee that asylum seekers would not be caned, mistreated or even tortured in Malaysia. She cannot make that guarantee. She might promise but we have seen how much a promise from the Prime Minister is worth with the carbon tax.

With a processing centre at Nauru, on the other hand, the Australian government can make that guarantee. Nauru may not be a signatory to the United Nations convention on refugees but it is willing to be. And, unlike Malaysia, it is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights. The solution was working at Nauru. The question is: why will the Prime Minister not pick up the phone to the President of Nauru? The answer to that is very simple: that would be an admission that this government got it wrong.

It was a wrong call on East Timor and a wrong call on Manus Island. It is a wrong call on Malaysia, unless you are on the Malaysian end of the deal. That is a deal of a lifetime. All Malaysia has to do is take in 800 asylum seekers from Australia and they can offload 4,000 of theirs. It is a great solution for Malaysia. What is more, the Australian government has kindly offered to pay for the whole deal. That makes it an even better solution for Malaysia. But for Australia it is a deal that stinks. It is a deal that is going to cost us an additional $1.7 billion, according to the budget papers. Malaysia is still holding the cards, because the Prime Minister is desperate to find some sort of solution. Malaysia will be holding all the aces in this deal. They will pick and choose which 800 asylum seekers they will take in. They will pick and choose which 4000 they send.

Our current detention centres are in a mess. We have violent riots and a cost blow-out of more than $3 billion. Our detention population is at record levels, more than 60 per cent of detainees having been there for more than six months and the average time spent in detention increasing from 61 days to more than 170 in that past three years. This is a government desperate for a deal.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.