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 immediately bring on the government’s Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011 for a vote.

We do have, in the waters off Indonesia, an unfolding tragedy. That is the only way to describe what is happening in the waters off Indonesia. We have six confirmed dead, we have 20 missing and we have 46 rescued. This is a tragedy. Issues like this need to be dealt with, and this is why it is important that the measure in question be brought into this House for a vote urgently. That is why it is necessary that standing orders be suspended.

I want to make it very, very clear that the government is not to blame for the tragedy unfolding in the waters off Indonesia. The opposition is certainly not to blame for this unfolding tragedy. There is only one group of people who are to blame for this and that is the people smugglers, who are putting the unwary and the unwitting at risk on the open sea. But what this tragedy does remind the House is that it is important to have a clear and definite policy to stop the boats.

The opposition has a policy to stop the boats. It has been the same policy for a decade. Our policy to stop the boats is offshore processing at Nauru, it is temporary protection visas and it is turning boats around where it is safe to do so. That is our policy, and it is a policy that has worked. It is a policy that has worked in the past, and a policy that can work again in the future.

By contrast, the government has had no fewer than five separate policies. The first policy was the processing freeze of arrivals from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, the most discriminatory immigration policy since White Australia. The next policy was the East Timor processing centre, a policy that got lost somehow in the Timor Sea because the Prime Minister did not understand that the President and the Prime Minister had rather different roles in that country's polity. Then there was the Manus Island policy, a policy that did not get anywhere because the Prime Minister was not prepared to commission the foreign minister to do his job. Then there was the Malaysia people swap policy, a policy that was struck down by the High Court. And, finally, the fifth policy is onshore processing. That is it: it is onshore processing. So they have gone through East Timor, they have gone through Manus Island, they have gone through Malaysia and now it is back to good old Australia. That is their policy: onshore processing in Australia, unless of course they can get the Malaysia people swap up. There is one way to get the Malaysia people swap up: put it to the parliament. That is what the government should do now. On no fewer than six occasions last night, the Minister for Home Affairs said in his press conference that it was absolutely vital that the Malaysia people swap legislation be supported by the parliament. Well, let us put it before the parliament now and let us see what happens. That is what should be done, if the government is serious about stopping the boats.

We know on this side of the House that the Malaysia people swap is a cruel deal for boat people and it is a dud deal for Australia. It is a dud deal for Australia because it has already been proven not to work. Since the Malaysia deal was first announced on 7 May, there have been—wait for it—27 boats: 1,637 people. Since the Malaysia deal was signed there have been 16 boats and 1,070 people, and since the government failed to put the legislation through the parliament a fortnight or so back there have been six boats and 350 people. But that is what the government says it wants to do. They say that they want their Malaysia people swap deal supported by the parliament. Well, give the parliament the chance. Do not be frightened of the people's representatives: bring the legislation before the parliament.

The Prime Minister said on no fewer than six separate occasions that it would be brought before the parliament. The Prime Minister said it was 'absolutely imperative' that this legislation be brought before the parliament. She said it had to happen because she wanted our votes to be recorded. We are happy to have our votes recorded, but they cannot be recorded unless there is a vote. They cannot stop the boats but, please, bring on the votes—bring on the votes! Here is your chance to bring on the votes.

Mr Speaker, I will tell you why they do not want to bring this legislation before the parliament. They are not just concerned that they are going to be outvoted on this side of the parliament; they are concerned that they do not even have the numbers on that side of the parliament. They think that they do not even have the numbers on their side of the parliament. We know that the member for Fremantle has said that she does not support the Malaysia people swap deal. We know that the member for Chisholm has said that she has grave reservations about the Malaysia people swap deal, and no less a person than the foreign minister himself, the member for Griffith, has warned his own government about a lurch to the right, which is what the Malaysia people swap deal represents.

We know that this government is hopelessly divided on this issue. We know, because they are telling us. They are telling us because they are telling every journalist who will listen. We know that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship himself supports offshore processing at Nauru. We know that because his friends in the cabinet have made it crystal clear to journalists, who have done us the favour of telling the whole world. We know that one of the reasons that the Prime Minister is in such desperate trouble is because she shopped the minister for immigration. That is what she has done: she has completely betrayed the minister for immigration by completely abandoning any real commitment to offshore processing. I say to this government: do not say that your policy is to do something if you lack the numbers in the parliament to do it, because a government which lacks the numbers in the parliament to put its policies into place is a government which has forfeited its right to govern. We know that when the Prime Minister took over back in June of last year, she said that the government had lost its way and that there were three things she was going to fix. She says she has fixed climate change, but only by breaking a solemn pledge to the Australian people. She certainly has not fixed the mining tax, because that is now hostage to the member for New England and the coal seam gas protest. And border protection is just a complete and utter and embarrassing shambles.

This is a government which cannot control Australia's borders. And if you cannot control the borders, you cannot govern the country. And if you cannot govern the country, you have a clear option—that is, to call an election. If this government is not prepared to put the legislation that it says is necessary to a vote of this parliament, it should accept that it has lost control of the parliament and it should do the decent thing—call an election. This is an incompetent and untrustworthy government; it is a divided and directionless government; and, when it comes to border protection, this is a government which should simply have died of shame.

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 imperative that this matter be debated and brought on so that the government can test the confidence of this House on its policies on border protection. That is what is necessary for the suspension of standing orders in this place, Mr Speaker. This government abolished the proven measures of the previous Liberal government. The proven deterrent of the Howard government was abolished by those on that side of the House and, in doing so, they celebrated its abolition in a fit of sanctimonious self-congratulation, only eclipsed by their introduction of the world's biggest carbon tax into this parliament just a few weeks ago. They replaced a proven solution with a series of policy failures and embarrassments that have resulted in catastrophic failure. For years they derided the impact of their failed policies. They derided the opposition as we warned them time and again of the chaos, the cost and the tragedy that would follow. We implored them to restore the policies they had abolished and they ignored our calls. This government rebirthed the people smugglers' business model and they have sustained it ever since.

We have seen overnight, and sadly on other occasions, the tragic consequences. Another of the tragic consequences of these matters is the failure to restore and uphold the integrity of our refugee and humanitarian program. Under this government's policies, one in five protection visas to people in need are now going to those who have arrived illegally by boat. When we left office the figure was one in 400. That is what has happened under this government. We have seen the offshore processing and the offshore processing policies abolished by this government and those who have sought to apply from offshore have had their visas denied. In fact, 17,000 offshore applications were made last year through the office in Cairo and less than two per cent, at this most critical time, received the grant of a protection visa from this government. Their failures are myriad; the Leader of the Opposition has spelt them out. There is the Oceanic Viking debacle of the former prime minister. There is the discriminatory asylum freeze of the former prime minister. There is the East Timor farce that was paraded around the region at great embarrassment not only to those who had to endure it in polite conversation, but also to the international reputation of this country. There is the PNG process that went nowhere. And now, of course, there is Malaysia. Malaysia is a failed policy. It is a policy that is unconscionable and is not supported by those on this side of the House, because it is fatally flawed in design and it is fatally bankrupt when it comes to providing protections for those who are processed offshore. The policy has been rejected by both houses of this parliament and the High Court.

They now refuse to test the confidence of that policy again in this House. They refuse to bring this bill into this place and have it tested. As long as they desperately hang on to their policy failures, they know that the chaos will continue. We do offer them another way forward—a way that has been proven, a way that has been established and a way that continues to be ignored by this government. Their impotence in these matters is only compounded by their division, because we know on that side of the House they are hopelessly divided when it comes to this matter. From a former prime minister who does not want to lurch too far to the Right to a current Prime Minister who cannot work out how far to the Right or Left she wants to go on a daily basis, they are racked by division.

We have a minister for immigration who was stranded by his Prime Minister in cabinet. On that issue alone he should have walked away from the role because he no longer enjoyed the confidence of his own Prime Minister. Now he will not test the confidence of this House for the bill he sought to introduce to this parliament. They engage in a blame game—as the Minister for Home Affairs did last night—in the same breath as announcing tragedy. This is a government that has made a mess of this policy beyond proportion; this is a government that has failed the test of trust on border protection on a daily basis. The coalition has earned the trust of the people of Australia on this issue. We are used to fixing up Labor messes; it is what we do best. We are ready to do it, so call an election.

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

This is an extraordinary position being put by the opposition. Earlier today the member for Cook said that he did not want to politicise the tragedy. Yet, on the same day that this has occurred, the opposition interrupt question time to bring on a motion about business in the House. What is more, the Leader of the Opposition, who has continually used extreme language about a range of issues, today, the day of this tragedy, spoke about the government dying of shame. The sort of language and political discourse created by the Leader of the Opposition does no credit to his great party, does no credit to this parliament and does no credit to this nation.

This motion has been moved in the context of attempting to shut down question time yet again. It was done at a quarter to three so that when Play School comes on, about now, they will have had their 10 minutes from the Leader of the Opposition and five minutes from the member for Cook. They did it because they have put the member for North Sydney in witness protection. We asked two questions in a row about his melting down on the 7.30 program last night, so they shut question time down. And the reason they should not have shut down question time is that we were just getting started! We were just getting started about what they knew—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House is not talking to the motion at all. If he hasn't got enough material to talk about the migration bill he should let the member for—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I remind him that we are actually discussing the motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders, and the reasons that standing and sessional orders should be suspended are relevant. 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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The person in charge of their strategy and tactics in the parliament does not know that this is a motion for the suspension of standing orders. What I am arguing is why question time should have continued and not been shut down by those opposite. This is absurd—they are moving a motion to bring on a bill that they do not support. Absurd! If there is anything that confirms the hysterical negativity—

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat, because I am now going to warn those on my left. You have moved a motion. There is about to be a vote. If you want to misbehave I will ensure that you miss the vote, if that is the intent of people. This is an important motion or you would not have moved it. The Leader of the House has the call and he should be heard in silence.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. By their behaviour they show how fair dinkum they are about this motion. They are worried because they would rather discuss anything than workplace relations and their attitude towards it. That is why we should have been allowed to have question time continue today, because there are questions to be answered had they not shut it down.

There are questions to be answered about what they knew about the proposals that Qantas had to lock out its workforce and shut down the airline, with the consequences for travellers and the consequences for the national economy. In all of their statements over this issue since Saturday there has not been one word, not a syllable, of criticism against Qantas. On this unilateral action by the board of Qantas to lock out its workforce, not a word is uttered because they have form. They would have you believe that what they expected was earlier intervention from the government, but let us have a look at what people have said about it. This is what they said in Battlelines:

The new system requires businesses to engage in 'good-faith bargaining'—a ... misnomer—with, potentially, all unions that have workers at an enterprise. A new industrial regulator-cum-arbiter, Fair Work Australia, is to make binding rulings in the event that the parties can't agree. This is compulsory arbitration by the back door. It means that decisions vital to the survival of businesses and their employees will be made by officials rather than—

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

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Menzies on a point of order?

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

Yes, Mr Speaker. In light of your previous ruling that this is a motion about the suspension of standing orders, where the minister is now going is so far away from that it can no longer be relevant to that.

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

I will adjudicate on that. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Dickson on a point of order?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for you, Mr Speaker—

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

The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The member for Dickson can raise a point of order but he knows that, if he wishes to test me about his interruption and disruption, he should be very careful. The Leader of the House is speaking to a suspension. It is not necessary for him to debate, as I may have allowed, the reason for the suspension; it is whether we should suspend at this time. 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

They will do anything rather than discuss their obsession with Work Choices and their antiworker attitude and they will do anything to shut down question time rather than discuss the minerals resource rent tax that was introduced into the parliament today. What is in common with those two issues is that those opposite will always stand up for the big end of town; they will always stand up for the few not for the many; they will always stand up for privilege; and they will always stand up for an abuse of rights.

We have seen it writ large—have a look at the vox pops about what people think about the grounding of Qantas. People think that their rights were impugned by the management of Qantas; yet there is not a word from those opposite. They pretend that they think we should have intervened, but we know that ideologically they are against arbitration. They are against fair bargaining. It is there in black and white, written down. We know that we do not have to believe him if he just says it, but he told us on 7:30 that you can believe things that are written down. It is there in his book, Battlelineshe did not do much as a shadow minister, but he did write a book. It is there for all to see.

And what are they doing again today, the day we have introduced the minerals resource rent tax that will lead to better superannuation, less company tax and better infrastructure in regional communities? They are standing up for Rio Tinto, BHP and all the big companies who say that they can afford to pay this tax. That is the extraordinary thing; they are saying: 'We can afford to do it. We want to make a contribution to the national economy'—and even that is not good enough for those opposite.

Qantas say they want to negotiate with their unions—and that is not good enough for them either. Those opposite are in favour of lock-outs not negotiation. They are an antiworker party standing up for privilege. It is what they have stood for for decades, but they have got worse as they have wheedled out one by one all the moderates from their party so that what remains is a hard-right ideologically antiworker party driven by the sort of extremism that we have seen in recent days.

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

Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired.

Question put.

The House divided. [15:13]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.