Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That this House calls on the Prime Minister to explain why she continues to pursue a people swap policy with Malaysia when it is now abundantly clear that Nauru provides an immediate solution to deal with illegal arrivals that is cost effective, humane and proven. In particular:

(1) why would the Prime Minister send illegal arrivals to Malaysia:

(a) which hasn't signed the UN Convention Against Torture, rather than Nauru which has;

(b) which won't sign the UN Declaration on Refugees, when the Nauru Government announced yesterday that they will;

(c) where they would be detained and tagged, rather than Nauru where they would have the run of the island under an open processing centre regime;

(d) when she can't guarantee the standard and accessibility of medical care, when I have personally seen the hospital in Nauru and I can make this guarantee; and

(e) when she can't guarantee the access to school for the children, when I have personally seen the schools in Nauru and I can make this guarantee; and

(2) above all, why should the Australian taxpayer be forced to pay over $300 million for a new processing facility in Malaysia when they have already funded one in Nauru that could be rapidly re-opened for a fraction of the cost and has been proven to work.

This is a very important issue. There is no more important issue than protecting the borders of our country. What is manifestly clear is that nothing this government has so far proposed has worked to protect the borders of this country. Back on 24 June last year, a date which will be known forever—at least to the foreign minister—as the day of fundamental injustice, the Prime Minister of this country said:

I accept that the Government has lost track. We will get back on track. I have taken control—

mark those words—

for precisely that purpose.

What control and what track? When it comes to border protection, the Prime Minister firstly announced that she would be sending boat people to East Timor. She made this announcement before the East Timorese government even knew about it. Then the Prime Minister announced that she would be sending boat people to Manus Island. She made this announcement before the PNG government had agreed to it. Finally, on the Saturday before the budget and in a state of desperation over the constant flow of boats to our borders, she rushed out—gazumping the Treasurer's own budget—and announced that boat people would be sent to Malaysia. She announced a deal before it was done. Every day in this parliament and in the public arena, as we saw earlier today in question time, it is clear that nothing about this deal is certain.

The one thing that is absolutely certain about this deal is that this Prime Minister, this minister and this government cannot be sure that boat people sent to Malaysia will be treated humanely. They cannot give that guarantee. I can give an absolute guarantee that any boat people sent to Nauru will be treated humanely and in accordance with decent Australian standards. I can give that guarantee because they have gone to Nauru in the past and they have been treated humanely.

The problem with the Prime Minister's people swap with Malaysia is that it is unfair to our country. Why should we take five times the number from Malaysia that they are taking from us? It is unfair and it is costly. Why should we spend $300 million to establish a processing centre in Malaysia when we have already spent the money to establish a centre in Nauru?

There is no more urgent matter for this House to consider than this, given the urgency of resolving the problem at our borders. We must suspend standing orders because it is the only way we can discuss the inhumanity that is inherent in what the government is proposing. Anyone sent to Malaysia under the government's deal, unlike sending people to Nauru, will be subject to Malaysian norms and not ours. I make no criticism of the Malaysian government. I make no criticism of the standards that the Malaysian government chooses to apply to its own people and to people who come irregularly to Malaysia, but people who have come to Australia deserve to be treated according to Australian standards. That is how they deserve to be treated and we can give a guarantee that anyone sent to Nauru will be treated humanely and decently.

What the government is proposing is that boat people who come to Australia will be sent to Malaysia. They will be detained, then they will be tagged and then they will be released. It is a 'tag and forget' policy. What this government thinks—as if these human beings are going to roam around Malaysia for the rest of their days with tags around their necks—is that somehow this tag, this talisman, will protect these boat people indefinitely from the rigours of the Malaysian penal system.

We have just heard what the Prime Minister said on another subject which involved the standards that apply in another country. She wants to send a flotilla of inspectors to that other country, and until those inspectors have been to that other country there is no way that we can have dealings with that other country. Is there a proposal to send inspectors to Malaysia? Is there a proposal to send similar battalions of inspectors to Malaysia to ensure that this tag is somehow sacrosanct? Of course there is not. I say to the decent, humane and caring members opposite who spent so much of their political careers attacking the Howard government for its alleged inhumanity to boat people: how can you sit there? How can members of the Left sit there silent when this government is proposing to deal with boat people in a way that is infinitely, vastly worse?

Tom Uren has been sitting in this parliament today listening to members of the Labor Party support a solution for the people-smuggling problem which will expose people who come to this country to caning with the rattan. It is necessary that we suspend standing orders because nothing is more important than ensuring that this government does not expose the boat people who come to this country to standards which are not ours.

I have been to Nauru. I have seen the facilities and I know what can be done. I know that there is no caning in Nauru. Detention is more cost-effective in Nauru and in conjunction with the use of temporary protection visas it has been proven to work. I visited many facilities in Nauru over last weekend and one of those facilities was a new police headquarters. I ask members opposite to note this: any people sent to Nauru who fall foul of the laws of Nauru would go to that police headquarters. I did not see any rattans. I did not see any whipping posts. I did not see any. Has Minister Bowen been to Malaysia? Has he inspected the justice facilities there? Can he give an absolute guarantee, any sort of guarantee, that boat people sent from Australia will not be treated by standards that we think are utterly inhumane.

Standing orders must be suspended so that this Prime Minister can explain why it is that she proposes to subject people who have come to this country, who have sought the protection of this country, to this kind of regime. She must explain herself. She must explain why she said, 'I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the refugee convention,' but is now proposing to send people to Malaysia. (Time expired)

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion. It is important that the Prime Minister come in here and explain herself because she has much to explain in relation to this matter. Australia does not want a people swap with Malaysia. It does not need a people swap with Malaysia. It needs a policy swap back to the proven solutions put in place by the Howard government, and that requires reopening Nauru and reintroducing temporary protection visas. The only people swap the Australian people are interested in is not a people swap with Malaysia but a people swap for the prime ministership of this country—from Julia Gillard to the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. That is the people swap the Australian people are interested in.

What we have seen time and time again from this government are knee-jerk reactions and ill-thought-through policies, and then the mayhem follows. The mayhem that has followed this government's decision to wind back the Howard government's border protection policies is writ large on our borders and it is writ large in the detention network, which is in a rolling crisis—every other day it seems that something is burning down, someone is assaulting someone or someone is breaking out. These things happen on average more than three times a day in the detention network. There is a critical incident more than three times a day in our immigration detention network.

Australia is tired of the failed and ill-thought-through policy debacles of this government, whether it is in border protection or anywhere else, and it is incumbent on the Prime Minister to come into this House and explain why on earth she would pursue this arrangement in Malaysia when there is a proven, more humane and more cost-effective solution that can be immediately introduced. On the eve of the budget, almost seven weeks ago, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, who is sitting opposite, declared the Malaysian people swap deal. Almost seven weeks later, we still do not have an agreement. Almost seven weeks later, Minister Bowen was unable to tell this House whether he has visited one school, one police officer's precinct or one hospital in Malaysia that would be available to those whom he intends to send to Malaysia. The Prime Minister was unable to explain whether people who turn up in Australia by boat without documentation—and, as Minister Bowen knows, that is about 84 per cent—will be accepted by Malaysia. Will Malaysia use their right of veto to reject people on religious grounds? Will they exercise their right to take people or not take people if they have communicable diseases? The minister knows that last week there was a case of leprosy in our detention network. And there have been cases of tuberculosis. We have had a pilot refuse to take off because people had not got their tuberculosis screening back. Thank goodness the pilot was doing his job that day because this government, clearly, is not doing its job. It wants to cut corners to try and manage its crisis in the detention network.

The coalition's border protection policies are proven. I know the government are in massive denial about this, but there is one thing they just cannot hide from: in 2001 there were 43 boat arrivals and at the end of that year the Howard government introduced the Pacific solution—which was on top of temporary protection visas—and in 2002 there were no boats. In the last six years of the Howard government fewer people turned up by boat than have turned up in the last six weeks—since the Malaysian deal was announced. If their standard of success is how many people arrive, this arrangement has been less successful in six weeks than the Howard government's solution was over the course of six years.

I commend our proposals to this House because our proposals are proven. They are able to be delivered. I visited those facilities on two occasions and I know it can be implemented. Minister Bowen says that he will not touch anything where they have not signed the refugee convention—well, that went out the window the minute he negotiated the five-for-one people swap deal with Malaysia. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly talked about the treatment that those who go to Malaysia will be subject to. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame because what they are supporting under this agreement is something they would have condemned if any other party had put it forward. They should hold themselves accountable because the Australian people will. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we have seen the walking vuvuzela of Australian politics, the Leader of the Opposition, with his no, no, no and his relentless negativity. He has nothing to say to the Australian people. What is worse about this all opposition, no leader opposite is that he is trashing the foundations of our parliamentary democracy. During those 17 days after the last election we determined a new set of functioning rules. For the first months after the August election we had 20 questions in here every day with one exception, when the Leader of the Opposition moved a suspension of standing orders. We expect a suspension of standing orders to happen every now and again when there is something urgent before the House for which there is no alternative but to move a suspension of standing orders in order for it to be debated.

But the farce has been exposed today. The member for Cook has submitted a matter of public importance on asylum seekers, which has been accepted by you, Mr Speaker, and on which there will be a debate after question time concludes. That debate will include the member for Cook, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and at least two other speakers from each side—so the farce is exposed. Even though there will be a full debate in this parliament on the MPI that has been put forward by the member for Cook, so hopeless are they, so negative are they, that they have moved a suspension of standing orders which will knock off their own debate. That is similar to what happened on a previous sitting day of parliament when an MPI was put in by the member for Wentworth. The opposition moved a suspension which meant that the member for Wentworth did not get an opportunity to have a proper debate on his MPI on the National Broadband Network.

Way over 40 per cent of question times have now been disrupted by the Leader of the Opposition. On 11 separate occasions, out of the 26 question times this year, he has moved a suspension of standing orders. That has real consequences. Decent oppositions, oppositions that have an alternative program, have always taken the opportunity to put forward their alternative program before this parliament to try to hold the executive government to account. But those opposite have simply given up. As a result of the Leader of the Opposition's actions, we in this parliament have missed out on over 100 questions—over 100 questions given up which they could have asked of the executive.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Cook was heard in silence.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is more than five complete question times gone—wasted—as a result of their opportunism and relentless negativism. It is not surprising, because when we do have a debate of substance, we find them wanting, time and time again. Their mindless opposition to our budget proposals comes through. Never before has a budget been brought down in this parliament which the opposition have chosen from day one not to ask questions about. They do not worry about the macroeconomic settings, jobs, programs, savings or the return of the budget to surplus in 2012-13. They have simply moved away, from day one, from trying to hold the government to account.

But their mindless opposition is a risk. They continue to say that they will oppose savings measures in the budget without saying where the alternatives will come from. We know that that is the case from their own statements. We know that there is chaos in the opposition as a result of their determination to claw back money that will be given back to pensioners, to claw back assistance that is given to industry and to claw back assistance that is given to working Australians. Indeed, a senior Liberal was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald today as saying, 'You can't take money away from pensioners, it would kill us.' There we see the motivation of the Leader of the Opposition. He knows that he will not last the distance. He came in here after the August election and said to his colleagues on the front bench, 'I will keep the member for McKellar and I will keep all these jaded hacks on the front bench.' To those on the back bench—the future of the Liberal Party and the future of conservatism—he said: 'You just wait your time sitting up the back, Member for Mayo, Member for Higgins and others. You just be patient, because the government will fall at any second.'

For the first sitting of this parliament, for those five weeks, we actually had question time. Since then, we have had a Leader of the Opposition who is so scared of himself, so busy running away from his own side and so determined to acknowledge the fact that he will not last the distance that he is hell-bent on wrecking the parliament. The fact is that there has never been an opposition in history, since Federation, which has not regarded question time as the most important time for an opposition to hold government to account. But we see here an opposition that cannot hold government to account because at each and every turn they are skewered by their own history. The Leader of the Opposition's gave that great quote on Sky News on 29 July 2009:

I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more, why not ask electricity consumers to pay more, then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate? It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price of carbon, raise the price of carbon, without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: this rant has nothing to do with the motion. He has not even attempted—

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

The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The Leader of the House is aware of his responsibility to talk to the motion, which is the procedural motion for the suspension of standing orders.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right, Mr Speaker. I have mentioned the suspension of the standing orders, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. It is no wonder we have another example whereby they are trying to protect the leader from himself. They are trying to protect the leader from his own quotes. It is one thing to be climate change sceptics but those opposite have also become market sceptics when it comes to action on climate change. It is not just the Leader of the Opposition because we know that the shadow Treasurer had this to say on 20 May 2010:

Inevitably, we'll have a price on carbon. We'll have to.

That is what they said—the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer—all on the record over and over and over again.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to draw the minister back to the purpose of the motion.

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

The motion is a suspension of standing orders. The Leader of the House will refer to that.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Stanley.

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

Order! The minister will withdraw because it seemed to have had some effect.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He does not mind. I will withdraw if he finds it offensive. I withdraw.

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

The minister has withdrawn.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is that their mind­less oppositionism exposes itself each and every day when they fail, even on the question of Nauru. Did we actually see any costings come out from them on Nauru? Did we see any solutions? It is the longest distance anyone has ever travelled to do a doorstop.

Opposition members: Kevin! Kevin!

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

Order! The House will come to order. The Leader of the House has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The good thing about it is that it just showed their mindless oppositionism because we know that the walking vuvuzela over there has only one thing to say to the Australian people and that is no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

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

Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Abbott's) be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:44]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.