House debates

Monday, 10 September 2012

Documents

Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a Regional Processing Country; Presentation

3:16 pm

Photo of Chris BowenChris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | | Hansard source

I present the Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country under subsection 198AB of the Migration Act 1958, together with the five related documents in accordance with subsection 198AC of the Migration Act 1958. By leave—I move:

That, in accordance with subsection 198AB of the Migration Act 1958, the House approve the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country.

Today, acting under section 198AB of the Migration Act 1958, I designate by legislative instrument the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country. In accordance with the legislative amendments to permit regional processing, which came into effect on 18 August 2012, I am required to present to the House the following documents: a copy of the designation; a statement outlining why I think it is in the national interest to designate Nauru as a regional processing country; a copy of the memorandum of understanding with Nauru, signed on 29 August 2012; a statement about my consultations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in relation to the designation; a summary of advice received from the UNHCR about the designation; and a statement about the arrangements that are in place or are to be put in place in Nauru for the treatment of persons taken there. I now seek the approval of this designation to present the necessary supporting documents to the parliament. I call on my colleagues in both houses of parliament to approve this designation to enable the first transfers of offshore entry persons to Nauru for processing in accordance with the new regional processing arrangements. The need to present this designation to parliament has become a matter of urgency—urgency with resolve, urgency to restore order and save lives.

Less than a month ago the government was presented with the findings of the expert panel on asylum seekers. The government immediately endorsed in principle all of the recommendations contained in the report. In the weeks following we have been working through those recommendations to respond to the complex and difficult issues that we face collectively as a parliament and as a nation. The panel was forthright in its view on how best to manage the incredibly difficult policy conundrum raised by balancing border control with the need to deal humanely with asylum seekers arriving irregularly by boats on our shores and the underlying need to prevent the loss of life occurring as a result of irregular movement. Matters such as these are above politics.

Since the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was passed by this parliament the tragic sea voyages have continued—tragic because in just a matter of weeks another estimated 100 lives have been lost at sea. These are lives that need not have been lost—deaths that could have been avoided. Tragically, those 100 lives lost now take the total estimated toll since 2001 to 1,064. This designation will be another step forward in our efforts to ensure that deaths resulting from dangerous sea journeys at the hands of unscrupulous people smugglers are avoided. Now is the time to take action. None of this is easy, but in the words of Angus Houston:

We recommend a policy approach that is hard-headed but not hard-hearted, that is realistic not idealistic, that is driven by a sense of humanity as well as fairness.

The government agrees with Angus Houston. We are taking action and this parliament needs to also.

Regional processing is an essential part of an integrated, long-term response to asylum seeking in our region. It is but one element, albeit an important one. Australia has always been committed to working closely with regional partners to strengthen the region's response to irregular movement and people smuggling. In 2011 we worked with Indonesia as co-chairs of the Bali Process to produce the Regional Cooperation Framework that was endorsed by ministers at the Bali Process Ministerial Meeting in March 2011. Australia has further committed to fund, establish and maintain a regional support office which will coordinate practical measures to implement the framework. I am pleased to note that the regional support office was officially opened in Bangkok today.

The memorandums of understanding with Nauru and PNG, together with a designation of Nauru as a regional processing country, send a clear message that countries in this region will take the necessary action to ensure the integrity of their borders and undermine people smuggling networks.

The message to asylum seekers who are tempted to engage people smugglers is that if they travel irregularly to Australia by boat they will not have their claims assessed in Australia but in Nauru or Papua New Guinea. To reinforce the message that they should not undertake irregular and dangerous sea voyages, additional and safer regular avenues for migration are being made available through the region through an increased humanitarian program. The government is committed to increasing the humanitarian program to 20,000 places a year, with 12,000 of those being for refugees offshore. The government is also continuing to engage with the government of Papua New Guinea in relation to the establishment of a regional processing centre on Manus Island.

The only condition for the exercise of my power to designate a country as a regional processing country is that I think it is in the national interest to do so. I think that it is in the national interest to designate Nauru, as Nauru has provided the specified assurance required by the legislation. I also think it is in the national interest to designate Nauru as a regional processing country because it will discourage irregular and dangerous maritime voyages—thereby reducing the risk of loss of life at sea—promote a fair and orderly humanitarian program that retains the confidence of the Australian people and promote regional cooperation in relation to irregular migration and addressing people smuggling. The arrangements already in place in Nauru or to be put in place are satisfactory.

We are also continuing to work on implementing the Malaysia agreement. However, our immediate priority is to establish regional processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea and to begin resettling more refugees from Indonesia and other countries in our region as part of our increased humanitarian program. The government has been in regular contact with Malaysia, which remains firmly committed to implementing the agreement. That communication will continue. In 2012-13 Australia will again resettle around 1,350 UNHCR mandated refugees from Malaysia. This meets the commitment provided under the arrangement with Malaysia entered into in July 2011.

The opposition has criticised us for not bringing these designation documents to parliament sooner. It has recorded that the Howard government had offshore processing in Nauru up and running in 19 days. Times have changed and so have expectations. The new legislation contemplates that there will be written agreements between Australia and any country to which persons are taken and requires me to consider whether those countries have given Australia certain assurances about what will happen to an asylum seeker who is taken to a regional processing country. This is an important requirement allowing transfers to be effected but not at any cost.

The government also sees that it is important for Nauru as a sovereign state to have input into the development of any arrangements, and it has been keen to do so. We are dealing with people seeking protection, and there is a need for fully considered arrangements to be put in place. By presenting the designation and accompanying documents in accordance with the legislation, we are providing the parliament with the opportunity to be satisfied that they are appropriate. Again, I call on both houses of parliament to approve this designation, to enable the first transfers of offshore entry persons to Nauru and to provide the circuit-breaker to irregular maritime arrivals called for by the expert panel's report.

3:24 pm

Photo of Scott MorrisonScott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | | Hansard source

The coalition will be supporting this motion and I will be moving an amendment to the motion in my statements. This day has been a long time coming. I had to do a double take when I heard the minister announce that he was designating Nauru as a regional processing country. They are not words that I expected ever to hear from the government, given its constant demonising, denouncing and denying of Nauru for over a decade. That final decision is welcome but, as we have said on so many occasions, there is more to do.

This is a government that is making it up as it goes along. That is particularly the case when it comes to the issue of border protection and the incredible and unprecedented number of illegal arrivals by boat that have occurred under the course of this government. Today, Labor ends a decade of denials and of denouncing and demonising offshore processing on Nauru by voting to establish Nauru as a country for offshore processing. In doing so, it makes a very significant admission to the Australian people. It makes it through gritted teeth and after having been dragged kicking and screaming over years to this point. The admission it makes today, in voting to affirm this designation by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, is that it got it horrifically wrong 4½ years ago when it abolished offshore processing on Nauru and the other critical measures of the Howard government.

Despite this motion, the government still refuses to go the full distance. This government cannot expect Howard government outcomes on border protection if it is not prepared to put in place the full suite of Howard government measures that worked to stop the boats. It simply cannot have that expectation, particularly when it refuses to back up what it says in this place with the resolve that is necessary, and that was demonstrated by the Howard government, to get the job done. This government is still engaged in a half-hearted solution. It is still engaged in dealing with this matter in less than half-measures. That is why I move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the following words be added to the motion:

“and in addition to the opening of offshore processing on Nauru, calls upon the Government to implement the full suite of the Coalition’s successful border protection policies and:

(1) restore temporary protection visas as the only visa option available to be granted to offshore entry persons found to be refugees;

(2) issue new instructions to Northern Command to commence to turn back boats seeking to illegally enter Australia where it is safe to do so;

(3) use existing law to remove the benefit of the doubt on a person’s identity where there is a reasonable belief that a person has deliberately discarded their documentation; and

(4) restore the Bali Process to once again focus on deterrence and border security.”

The statement that the minister has tabled today contains some incredibly stark admissions. Let us be under no illusion about what the government is voting for today. This is the same policy that was implemented by the coalition. People transferred to Nauru previously were given visas, as the statement tabled by the minister today indicates. That happened previously. It will run as an open processing facility, as it did last time. People will not be able to apply for a visa in Australia unless the minister lifts the statutory bar under section 46A of the Migration Act, as occurred last time. All of this is the same.

The government talks of its no-advantage principle. We in the coalition operated on a disadvantage principle. Those on the other side of the House should know very clearly today that these words, 'no advantage', mean this: the average time for someone waiting in Malaysia to be processed and resettled in another country is five years. That came to me directly from the numerous refugees and asylum seekers I met when I went to Malaysia over a year ago. That was a common figure that was referred to. If the government wishes to disprove it I welcome it to do so.

Those opposite should know that they are voting today to establish offshore processing on Nauru. They need to know that they are doing that in the full knowledge that the policy they have adopted means that people can expect to wait on Nauru for five years.

If they are not prepared to vote for that, they should say so. They should come in here and say so in this debate now and they should form a different view. But they cannot leave this place and pretend that that is not what they voted for this afternoon. They are saying that people will be processed and resettled at a time that is no advantage over those who are waiting offshore in camps and other places who are similarly seeking assessment of their claims for resettlement in Australia. If it is as long as those people have been waiting in the Thai-Burma border camps it will be three generations, because that is how long the wait is for those who cannot afford to get on a boat. That is what this government is signing up to today.

It also contained some other stark admissions and is in stark contrast to what the minister himself was saying this time last year. On 12 September 2011 the minister said in this place:

We know Nauru will not work. We … know that it is an expensive option.

The government said on 2 November:

The opposition say that their approach—and it is—is to open a detention centre at Nauru. We disagree because all the expert advice to the government is that that would not form an effective deterrent.

On 18 June Minister Bowen said:

… the problem with Nauru is twofold. Firstly, it did not break the people smugglers' business model.

I am sure the member for Berowra would be very interested to know that all of those measures that he introduced when he was minister for immigration did not break the people smugglers' business model. It would be news to the people smugglers as well because they know full well it did not just break it; it smashed it to pieces.

In this statement today the minister said:

I think that designating Nauru to be a regional processing country may act as a circuit breaker in relation to the recent surge in the number of irregular and dangerous maritime voyages to Australia.

What has changed since this time last year? Nothing has changed. This is a government that make it up as it goes along. They are wedded to nothing; they believe in nothing. As a result, they can change their positions on whatever issue at any time they choose to do so. No wonder the Australian people know that this government do not stand for anything and do not believe in anything. Their handling of this issue of border protection only demonstrates that in spades.

In making their decision today and affirming this motion that the minister has brought forward they also need to take accountability for the decisions they as a government have made in this place. Four-and-a-half years ago they abolished the measures that worked. I note that in the minister's statement today he actually listed the consequences of those decisions by running through what has occurred since those decisions were made by this government. I noticed he used interesting arithmetic when he talked about how:

From 2002 to 2008 there were fewer than 10 boats a year.

That is true; there were a lot fewer than 10 per year. And:

The total number of passengers was fewer than 200 each year.

I will just inform the minister that between 2002 and 2007, the last six years of the Howard government, after all of our measures were in place, there were 16 boats and 272 people on those boats, which is fewer than three boats a year and fewer than 50 people per year.

The other matters were gone through in some detail. We are now up to almost 25,000 people who have turned up on this government's watch. We have well over 10,000 now who sit onshore in Australia today going through the system. That will leave a lasting and costly legacy for the Australian people for many, many years to come. I also note that a substantial number of lives have been lost at sea—704 deaths have occurred since October 2009. Here we are in September 2012 finally agreeing to restore offshore processing in this country.

The substantial financial and resourcing costs to the Commonwealth in dealing with the arrivals, the minister noted in his statement, is estimated to be in excess of $5 billion over the forward estimates period. We know already that the cost blow-outs were in excess of $5 billion over the last three years and we know there are more blow-outs to come because this is a government that has a budget based on an average of 450 arrivals per month and in some months up to five times that amount have arrived, and the minister and the Treasurer are yet to explain to the Australian people what the bill will be for their failure on our borders.

I note that the minister also said:

I also think that designating Nauru to be a regional processing country will make it more difficult for people smugglers to sell the opportunity to resettle in Australia.

I cannot recall on how many occasions the minister said exactly the opposite of that around this country, saying how having offshore processing on Nauru was simply a transfer station to Australia, never once admitting that less than half the people that went through the Pacific solution ended up in Australia.

He said in paragraph 27:

… I consider that the designation of Nauru to be a regional processing country is likely to have the effect that a greater proportion of visas will be given to offshore claimants than is presently the case. I think that this would result in a fairer and more orderly Refugee and Humanitarian Program, and one which is more likely to retain the confidence of the Australian people.

I welcome that admission. I have been making that argument for the last three years—that this government's border protection failures have in the last three years denied 8,100-plus people who have been waiting offshore a protection visa in this country. Their places have been denied them because of the way this government have run their border protection policy. The minister is right—when you run a policy like that, the Australian people lose confidence in the integrity of the refugee and humanitarian program. I believe strongly in it and that is why I am a keen advocate of border protection which protects the integrity of that program.

I note also that the minister said:

I think that the designation of Nauru as a regional processing country will encourage the development of further regionally integrated arrangements …

I again cannot tell you how many times the government consistently claimed Nauru was not part of a regional framework, was a one-off and could not possibly be part of any regional arrangements. This is the day of a backflip of historic proportions from this government. But backflips are not hard for this government when they do not believe in anything in the first place.

I note in paragraph 37 the minister has chosen not to have regard to the international obligations or domestic law of Nauru in making his statement today. The coalition had confidence to approve the designation of Nauru as an offshore processing country more than two weeks ago when we agreed to support the re-establishment of offshore processing. It was not hard for us to do because we have always believed in it.

We were prepared to do that because we knew Nauru was a signatory to the refugee convention. We were prepared to come into this place and designate it. Certainly the operational arrangements that would need to follow, as occurred last time, would need to be sorted through with the government of Nauru, but there was nothing preventing this minister from doing what he is seeking to do today more than two weeks ago. I wish he had, because in the last four weeks we have had around 2,000 people turn up, and the asylum lottery will begin now as the government seeks to decide who it will send to Nauru.

But, as I said earlier today, the key thing that has to happen now—and I urge the government not to mince its words on this but to be very clear in its communication and even more deliberate in its action and its resolve—is that everyone who turns up on an illegal boat from this point on must go to Nauru. That is what must happen. The government says the centre is ready to receive people, and send them there this government must. If it continues to obfuscate, if it continues to wriggle around on this issue, the people smugglers will take advantage.

I hope this measure will slow these boats but, as I said, this government cannot expect Howard government outcomes if it will not implement Howard government policies. That is why I affirm again the amendment that I have moved to this motion. This government must follow through and put in place a full suite of measures that worked—not to deal with its current half-hearted solution, not to deal in less than half-measures but to measure up, to go the full distance, to let those outside of this place, and particularly those thinking of getting on boats, that the policy has changed. It will be proven in its implementation. Under this government, everything costs more, takes longer and is less effective. So far offshore processing seems to be proving that point again. I hope the government will change things in the weeks ahead.

Photo of Ms Anna BurkeMs Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

3:39 pm

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

I second the amendment. I, along with the shadow minister for immigration, welcome this designation here today. I also support the amendment put forward by the coalition. To understand the reasons why I support the designation and support the amendment, I think we need to understand some of the history of this issue, because that history will be a useful guide for how we should proceed in the future.

This is a backflip and a change of heart of monumental proportions. The Pacific solution as it was implemented by the previous government, the Howard government, in 2001 was absolutely demonised by the Labor Party for over a decade. Not only was that policy prescription demonised; the people who put it in place were also unfairly demonised. For well over a decade that has been the response of the Labor Party to offshore processing. The people who are currently still in their ministerial positions have stated this position incredibly frequently.

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has up until very recently said that processing people offshore on Nauru and Manus Island would not work. In the Australian Financial Review in June last year, the current minister for immigration, the person who has just introduced this designation, said:

Nauru, in the absence of a regional agreement, is simply another offshore processing centre … it doesn't break the business model of the people smugglers.

In November last year this minister called the Pacific solution, which was offshore processing in Nauru and Manus, 'discredited'. In May of last year the immigration minister attacked the Pacific solution as 'inhumanely delaying the resettlement of hundreds of refugees'. In June of last year:

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen says he will not reactivate offshore processing on Nauru because it won't break the people-smugglers' business model: "If you go to Nauru you would end up in Australia, that's what happened before."

He also said that going to Nauru was too harsh. He said:

There is plenty of evidence and research showing Nauru caused considerable mental damage to people who were there for long periods of time.

Further, he said:

Nauru, in the absence of a regional agreement, is simply another offshore processing centre. Now that means people would be ending up in Australia, it doesn't break the business model of the people smugglers.

The previous government's approach was to leave people on Nauru for a very long period of time, but eventually they all settled in Australia—

something that of course was not true—

which is the worst of both worlds, in terms of not being able to break the people smugglers business model but a lot of damage done to people along the way.

As recently as this year the minister was saying:

I think you're 100 per cent right—

this is in response to a question on ABC radio—

I think the Opposition has finally realised, finally publicly admitted at least that there's holes all through their policy in relation to Nauru …

The Prime Minister, who prior to becoming Prime Minister was for a period of time the shadow immigration minister when the Labor Party were in opposition, went even further. In debating a migration legislation amendment bill in the House in 2003, she said:

The so-called Pacific solution is nothing more than the world's most expensive detour sign. It does not stop you getting to Australia; it just puts you through a detour on the way while Australian taxpayers pay for it and pay for it.

Instead of stunts like this, it is time the Howard government faced up to engaging in a long-term solution in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. The so-called Pacific solution is not a long-term solution.

These comments were made in 2003, when she went on to say:

Can anyone in this place really imagine that Australia will be processing asylum seeker claims on Nauru in 10 or 20 years?

She went further. She said:

No rational person—I would put it as highly as that—would suggest that in 10 or 20 years we will still be processing asylum seeker claims on Nauru.

…   …   …

To that end Labor has given the following commitments. Labor will end the so-called Pacific solution—the processing and detaining of asylum seekers on Pacific islands—because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I highlight that history just to show you one very important aspect of why this designation today, although welcome, does not go far enough. The fact that the Labor Party have vilified and demonised these policies for over a decade and have now been dragged, kicking and screaming, to introduce these policies reinforces a point that we have made here many times before, and that is that, on this issue, we have been right the whole time. The opposition were 100 per cent correct in our approach when we were in government and have been 100 per cent correct in opposition. For over a decade, we have held the same policies true. During that period, the Labor Party have been wrong for the whole time. They have got it wrong consistently in opposition and they have got it wrong consistently in government, with tragic and very real consequences for our country but also for the people who were seeking asylum here.

To get an idea about the magnitude of the backflip that we are discussing today, all you need to do is look at the terms of the designation and the reasons that the immigration minister—a man who up to and including this year has been saying that offshore processing in Nauru was wrong and was not going to give us a result—has listed. Under paragraph 13, he says:

(2) I consider designating Nauru to be a regional processing country will discourage irregular and dangerous maritime voyages and thereby reduce the risk of the loss of life at sea;

(3) I consider designating Nauru to be a regional processing country will promote the maintenance of a fair and orderly Refugee and Humanitarian Program that retains the confidence of the Australian people;

These are the points that the opposition have been making for over a decade and that the Labor Party have been denying for over a decade. Now, in black and white, they admit that we were right and they were wrong. In his reasons for designating Nauru as a place for offshore processing, the minister talks further about its discouraging irregular and dangerous maritime voyages and he says:

I think that designating Nauru to be a regional processing country may act as a circuit breaker in relation to the recent surge in the number of irregular and dangerous maritime voyages to Australia. The surge in arrivals is indicated by the following figures my Department has provided to me:

(1) From 2002 to 2008 there were fewer than 10 boats a year. The total number of passengers was fewer than 200 each year.

In fact, on average there were three boats per year during that time. He goes on:

(2) In 2009, there were 60 boats carrying 2,726 passengers.

(3) In 2010, there were 134 boats carrying 6,555 passengers.

During that time, if either the shadow minister for immigration or I were to ask a question about the flow of illegal boats coming to Australia, the Labor Party would whistle quietly, and that would intimate that somehow we were dog whistling and it was not a legitimate topic to be asking questions about in the House. They did not think it was a problem. If they did get up and respond to questions about the issue, they would say: 'It's got nothing to do with us. It's got everything to do with push factors. It's the international situation, that we cannot control, that is leading to this spike in illegal arrivals.' They refused to acknowledge that it was the policy changes that they brought in in 2008 that led to people smugglers going back into business. Because they refused to acknowledge that it was their policy changes that created the problem, they refused to do anything about it. The first thing they needed to form a solution was to acknowledge that they created the problem themselves, when they changed the robust system of border protection that they inherited from the coalition when the government changed in 2007.

The minister goes on in this designation to say:

A substantial number of lives have been lost at sea as a result of the activities of people smugglers. Since 2001, it is estimated that 1064 passengers have died (or gone missing, presumed dead). Of these, 704 deaths have occurred since October 2009. The figures above include the most recent tragedy on 30 August 2012, during which an estimated 100 people lost their lives following the sinking of a vessel some 42 nautical miles off the Indonesian coast.

That just reminds the House of the enormous human tragedy that has resulted from the fact that we have not stopped people smuggling. While the burden of these deaths rests solely with the people smugglers, it is a very sad fact and one that cannot be contradicted that it was the policies that have been pursued by this government that allowed the people smugglers to flourish. That is the tragedy—that, when we were faced with all the evidence about people smugglers ramping up their activities in bringing people down to Australia illegally, the government, firstly, refused to acknowledge that it was a problem and, secondly, refused to acknowledge that it was their policies that were creating this problem. With this designation today, we have them belatedly acknowledging that they got it wrong in 2008, when they abolished the Pacific solution. We are now in September 2012, and it has cost Australia very dearly. It has cost the asylum seekers, of course, very dearly—all the people who have lost their lives on this voyage.

The minister goes on to say, within this designation, that he believes that those considering travel to Australia on irregular maritime voyages will become aware that their protection claims may now be assessed in Nauru and, because of that fact, they will be discouraged from risking their lives in taking this dangerous voyage to Australia. That just reinforces something we have been saying for well over a decade and something that was backed up by the evidence—that is, when this policy was introduced, it had that exact effect: it stopped people smugglers being able to tell people who were seeking illegal entry to Australia that they could provide that greatest product of all, permanent residence of our country. All the evidence was there, but the Labor Party refused to acknowledge it until today, when we find the belated acknowledgement, with this designation, that the coalition had it right all the time, that offshore processing on Nauru and in other places in the Pacific was a very important way to stop the people smugglers' business model.

The reason that I go through this history, the reason why I am highlighting that this designation today repudiates so much of what the Labor Party have stood for on border protection for the past decade and the reason why I am highlighting the fact that they have got it so terribly wrong and that there have been such terrible consequences because of those wrong judgements is the fact that they continue to make the wrong judgement on this issue. They believe—and I hope that this will be the case, but unfortunately I do not believe that it will be—that reintroducing offshore processing on Nauru will have the effect that this parliament desires in stopping people smuggling and stopping the flow of illegal boats. But because they have had so many different positions and because they have backflipped so extensively, because they have stood for things that are exactly the opposite of what we are discussing here today, I do not believe that just reintroducing offshore processing is going to be enough.

What they really need to do is send the strongest possible signal that they have learnt their lesson and that they are now serious about pursuing policies that will stop people smuggling. If they were going to do that, if they were going to send the strongest possible signal that they could, they would not adopt only one of the three policies they should be pursuing, one of the three policies that formed the core policies that had the effect of stopping people smuggling when the Howard government introduced the Pacific solution along with turning the boats around and temporary protection visas. Those two extra planks of the policy—turning the boats around when it is safe to do so and the reintroduction of temporary protection visas—would mean that the parliament and the government were doing everything they could do to undermine people smuggling. Because they have had so many false starts on this, that is exactly what the Labor Party must do. They need to show the people smugglers not one crack of light that they still do not have the resolve that they need to tackle them. If they were going to show that they have the resolve and if they were going to make sure that they attack people smuggling in every available way, they would adopt, holus-bolus, the policies that the Howard government used to stop people smuggling in the past.

That is what the shadow immigration minister's amendment does to this designation. It is a sensible amendment. It will do what the parliament desires in terms of stopping people smuggling. It has my wholehearted support. And, if the government were serious about stopping people smuggling, it would have their wholehearted support as well.

3:55 pm

Photo of Jason ClareJason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs ) Share this | | Hansard source

The time for politics on this issue is over. We have been fighting about this issue for too long. As I said a few weeks ago, we have been fighting about this issue since the Tampa, for 11 years, and, while we have been fighting, people have been dying. More than 400 people have died in the last nine months. Two hundred died in December, 11 in February and more than 90 in June. One hundred more died two weeks ago just off the coast of Indonesia. The people of Australia are sick of us fighting on this. They want us to work together. That is why the government brought together the expert panel led by Angus Houston, which also included Mr Michael L'Estrange and Mr Paris Aristotle. This is one of the things that they recommended: the designation of Nauru as a regional processing country.

Today the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has made that designation by legislative instrument. He has just outlined to the House why this is in the national interest and has provided the House with a number of documents to support this. They include a copy of the designation, a copy of the memorandum of understanding with Nauru signed on 29 August this year, a statement about his consultations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in relation to this designation, a summary of advice received from the UNHCR about the designation, and a statement about the arrangements that are in place or are to be put in place in Nauru for the treatment of persons taken there. This motion now before the House seeks approval of this designation. Upon approval of both houses of the parliament, this designation will enable the first transfer of offshore entry persons to Nauru. As the minister said in a press conference this morning, it is expected that that may be in the latter part of this week.

We are committed to implementing this and committed to implementing all of the recommendations of the Houston report. That includes increasing the humanitarian program to 20,000 places per annum. This is another area which should be an area of bipartisanship. A few months ago, the opposition indicated support for this. The Leader of the Opposition said that it was something that they would do in government and something that needed to be accepted now. Unfortunately, since then the opposition have said that they would be reluctant to support this increase. I think that is disappointing. This should be an area of bipartisanship. It is one of the things that the Houston expert panel recommended. It is an important part of making sure that we have people processed in a safe way and that people do not make the often disastrous decision to get on a boat and drown at sea. I urge members of the House to consider this, reconsider their position and revert to the previous position that the opposition had on this issue.

Search and rescue is another area where we need to work together. It is another area where bipartisanship is important. This motion provides me with an opportunity to provide an update on the discussions that took place in Indonesia last week. Last week the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and I travelled to Indonesia. We reached an agreement with our Indonesian counterparts to do a number of practical things that will help to save lives. We received a briefing from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority as well as from the Indonesian search and rescue authority, Basarnas, about the work that they do. They presented us with a number of case studies that outlined the work they do and how they do it.

In particular, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, provided the case study of the Rabaul Queen, in February of this year, just off the coast of Papua New Guinea, where 250 people's lives were saved.

The AMSA team provided an explanation for how that task was done and why it was so successful. The three key points they made were that skilled operators who knew what needed to be done and how to do it were very important, information on where merchant vessels were was very important and the ability to communicate directly and quickly with those merchant vessels was what helped to save lives on that day.

The information that came out of that case study helped to develop the recommendations that were put to the meeting of Australian and Indonesian ministers, and those recommendations were the basis on which we agreed to do a number of important things. That included embedding AMSA officers inside Barsanas and vice versa; providing Basarnas with a near real-time picture of merchant ships in its search and rescue region; and providing Basarnas with the capability to communicate with merchant vessels via Inmarsat satellite communications. Indonesia has a large search and rescue area and approximately 1,000 merchant vessels travel through it every single day. That is a very large number of merchant vessels, and they potentially provide a ready source of assistance when vessels get into trouble.

That is the case for asylum seekers who are travelling from Indonesia to Australia but it is also the case for Indonesian ferries that travel between the many islands along the Indonesian archipelago. Hundreds of people have died trying to travel to Australia from Indonesia over the last 12 months, but many more have died travelling between the islands of Indonesia. We were told, for example, that in the week or two of festivities and recreation after Ramadan 900 people in Indonesia had died either on the roads or at sea. Basarnas has an enormous task—a large search and rescue area—and providing them with the capability to identify merchant ships in their search and rescue area and to communicate with them quickly has the potential to save the lives not only of people seeking asylum but also of Indonesian people travelling from one part of their country to another. That is why it is a practical initiative that will save lives, and it deserves the bipartisan support of this House.

We also agreed, in principle, to further rapid clearance of Australian aircraft to operate in Indonesian territorial airspace and to land and refuel at suitable airfields in Indonesia. Again, this was a discussion that took place after an analysis of the disaster that occurred two weeks ago and how we could address this issue. The ability of Australian aircraft—the Dash 8s and so forth—to land in Indonesia, refuel and get back up in the air and search for vessels that might be in distress is something that will help to save lives and it deserves the support of both sides of the House.

The Australian people are sick of the politics of this issue. They want us to work together to fix it. That is why we have brought together the expert panel and that is why we have agreed to implement all of its recommendations, including the one the House is discussing now. That is what we are doing with our Indonesian counterparts as well. I urge all members of the House to agree to the measure.

4:03 pm

Photo of Philip RuddockPhilip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I support the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country but I also support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Cook. I want first to put a proposition about my own level of engagement in these issues. In the whole of my time in public life I have always taken a passionate interest in the plight of refugees—people who are victims of torture, people who are persecuted, people who have to flee. The difficulty has always been that there are many more people in those circumstances than we are able to help or the rest of the world is able to help. When you see that 10 million people have been found to be refugees and 40 million people have been displaced, the enormity of the problem can be understood.

I have sometimes joked that, given the accommodation that has been provided to people smugglers, to choose who should be helped and given access to Australia perhaps the government should go to refugee camps like Kakuma in Africa, where there are 90,000 people, and say, 'If you pay the government $10,000, we will give you a place'. People look at me in absolute horror for suggesting that the way in which someone obtained a place was that the government charged them $10,000. It has always seemed to me that, if it was so ridiculous for a government to do that, why would you accommodate it with policies that have brought large numbers of people to Australia?

I have been fascinated by the words uttered by ministers—that this is a matter in which we need to work together; that this is a matter where the politics is over; that this is a matter that, in the words of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, is above politics. There were some people on the other side who had no trouble in pursuing politics, suggesting that I have no interest in the plight of genuine refugees in need of help and characterising in a particular way the measures implemented by the former government, which brought the smuggling effectively to an end and enabled us to concentrate on those who needed help most. This government thinks it is now beyond politics yet its measures to unwind the policies that worked have brought about the horrific circumstance we now face.

In the minister's statement, he refers to advice from his department which says:

In the year to 8 September 2012, there have been 135 boats carrying 8,851 passengers. The number of passengers who arrived in the first seven months of 2012 (7,120) exceeded the number who arrived in total in each of 2011 and 2010.

The enormity of that problem was not created by the opposition. The enormity of the problem we face—the loss of life we have suffered—has been brought about because the policies which had been working were changed.

I welcome the fact that this one aspect—the designation of Nauru as a regional processing country—is being pursued. I welcome the fact that the Manus Island option will be pursued. But I have always seen this as an issue towards which, if you are going to have effective policies in place, you need to use every weapon in your armoury. It is not a menu you can pick and choose from. You have to be totally realistic about what you are doing. If you are determined to close down people-smuggling, you have to tell it as it is. This government still wants to use words which suggest they are not serious.

Let me just deal with the matters before us. At the moment, we have a report which the government says it has accepted—it is going to implement all the measures which have been suggested. But we are still only dealing with offshore processing at this point in time. The report suggests more needs to be done. The only other matter the Minister for Home Affairs wanted to mention was an increase in the size of the refugee program.

Nobody seems to have focused on other aspects of the advice. I will mention just two of them. The advice to the government was quite clear:

Australian policy settings do influence the flows of irregular migration to Australia. Those settings need to address the factors ‘pushing’ as well as ‘pulling …

The government's expert panel also makes it very clear:

The single most important priority in preventing people from risking their lives on dangerous maritime voyages is to recalibrate Australian policy settings to achieve an outcome that asylum seekers will not be advantaged if they pay people smugglers to attempt dangerous irregular entry into Australia instead of pursuing regular migration pathways and international protection …

It goes on to talk about some of the other incentives that exist. It says:

Incentives to use regular migration and protection pathways need to be complemented by policy measures that send a coherent and unambiguously clear message that disincentives to irregular maritime migration to Australia will be immediate and real.

I hear the words coming from the government about people being sent offshore for processing. I do not hear them saying unambiguously that the no-disadvantage test will apply. I hear weasel words which suggest that, if you have arrived in Australia on a boat, you 'might be' sent to Nauru—I think the words they use are 'should be' sent to Nauru—but I never hear the words 'will be' sent to Nauru. I understand why that is the case. The government is now trying to deal with numbers which exceed even the capacity of Nauru and Manus Island—numbers beyond what those places can take. That is why they are using the weasel words. We are not creating the perception that Australia is closing its borders.

There are other options the government can pursue. Their own expert panel looked at these. The government say, 'The panel did not recommend TPVs.' The government tells us that they do not want to go down the route of TPVs—denying permanent residence to people who are found to be refugees. If they happen to get to Nauru or Manus Island and are processed and found to be refugees, they are then brought to Australia for resettlement. But the government's panel, in paragraph xx on page 13, said:

Other measures to discourage dangerous and irregular maritime voyages to Australia should include changes to family reunion arrangements as they relate to IMAs in Australia, a more effective focus on the return of failed asylum seekers to their home country and more sustained strategies for the disruption of people smuggling operations both in Australia and abroad.

What they were saying, in talking about 'eliminating the advantages of family reunion', was: 'Use TPVs'. Maybe they did not say it in the same words, but it was quite clear and unambiguous. Yet the government would have you believe that this report did not recommend implementing all the Howard measures.

The second aspect of the report I will mention, which I found particularly interesting, was the panel's view on turning back vessels. On page 53, paragraph 3.77, the report says:

Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures, but only in circumstances where a range of operational, safety of life, diplomatic and legal conditions are met …

That is the advice that this government has received, yet it would have you believe that we should not work to restore turning back boats.

If the government were serious about this issue, if they wanted to get the politics out of it and put in place measures that actually work and are known to work, they would support the amendment moved by the member for Cook. That is how you get the politics out of it and make it clear and unambiguous. Even the government's own Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers—sure, using a few weasel words so it did not look like they were putting it too much in the government's face—made it clear you have to get the migration benefits out; that is essentially TPVs by another name. As for turning back vessels, they say it is possible, yet the government suggest that it is not.

As I said, the problem the government have in their approach to this matter is that they have effectively walked away from cooperation with our neighbours, because they are not seen as being serious about people-smuggling. I found an item in the Northern Territory News, and it was probably in other newspapers, on 9 August this year that was a message from Jakarta, from a senior Indonesian MP, Mahfudz Siddiq. He is quoted as saying, in relation to unauthorised arrivals:

… the apparent lack of a working policy is sending a message that Australia's borders are open.

He went on to say:

'Indonesia is being dragged into the problem, significantly impacted, and it's quite worrying …'

and:

'… Australia must have a strict and clear policy that explains whether they're still open or not.'

The Indonesians do not want people going there, seeking to access Australia unlawfully. They want Australia to be serious about these matters. They were distressed when the Howard measures that worked were unwound, for political reasons, by this government. They made that clear when they said things like, 'What are you doing about the sugar? Why do you expect us to help you when you're not helping yourself?'—in other words, 'What are you, Australia, doing about the incentives that you have put into the system to bring people on boats, on dangerous voyages, to Australia?'

So we are still in the situation where the government thinks it is choosing from a menu: 'We'll take one measure. We'll open Nauru. Hope it works.' Let me say very clearly that I think the task is bigger and harder than the task the Howard government faced. The prospect of the Nauru arrangement alone working is, in my judgement, quite remote. All the measures that we in government used need to be brought to bear, and quickly, on these matters to bring them under control. The sooner the government comes to the realisation you can get the politics out of it by adopting the measures that we have argued for—in other words, accept the amendment—the better.

4:18 pm

Photo of George ChristensenGeorge Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Berowra and what was an enlightening speech. We have heard from government members today that people are sick of the politics. Well, yes, they are right; people are sick of the politics. They are sick of the politics of failure from this government on this issue of asylum seekers. They are sick of the politics of excuses from this government on this issue. They are sick of the politics of no accountability from the government on this issue. More importantly, they are sick of the politics of delay that we have had from the government on this issue.

The member for Cook, in speaking to this matter and moving an amendment to the motion, on behalf of the coalition, belled the cat by saying that, really, the government have been dragged kicking and screaming to the point they are at today of putting before us this motion to have that great no-no of Nauru be an option for offshore processing. I would think that the Labor Party would take away from this whole saga a lesson in life, and that lesson is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Under the member for Berowra's time as minister for immigration, it certainly wasn't 'broke'. In fact, he had fixed it. With the then Prime Minister John Howard, he had fixed the massive problem we had of porous borders, with boat after boat coming in. It was the Pacific solution, under the member for Berowra, that actually fixed the problem. But Labor thought that the fix was the problem. The current Prime Minister, back in May 2003, told the House:

Labor will end the so-called Pacific solution—the processing and detaining of asylum seekers on Pacific islands—because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle—

wrong according to Labor's principles. Sadly, the Labor Party came to government and immediately set about doing what they said they would do in opposition, and that was dismantling the solution that the member for Berowra had implemented. The then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, said, puffing out his chest:

Labor committed to abolishing the Pacific Solution and this was one the first things the Rudd Labor Government did on taking office. It was also one of my greatest pleasures in politics.

I wonder how he is feeling today now that his greatest pleasure in politics—ruining a solution—has come back to bite him and the government.

They did find a solution; they turned it into a problem and the problem quickly snowballed into a crisis. The Prime Minister herself was the architect of this crisis because she was the one who, as shadow immigration minister, devised the plan to undo the member for Berowra's Pacific solution.

With the former immigration minister saying that undoing it was his greatest pleasure in politics, you have to feel sorry for the current Minister for Immigration and Citizenship because he was certainly handed a parcel which was about to go off. I feel some sense of sorrow for him because he consistently said—it was leaked through the newspapers to the cabinet—that Nauru was the solution. He told them repeatedly, but the Prime Minister would not accept it and the caucus would not accept it. He was told, 'No, you cannot go back to the member for Berowra's solution. You have to find a new way of doing it.' He was told no by his current caucus. So the situation deteriorated, as this government lost control of the nation's borders and the government failed to provide one of the most basic functions that any government should provide—that is, ensuring our borders are secure.

The minister then began to look around for some sort of solution, for a saviour, for another country—anyone but Nauru—who would take on and process the illegal immigrants coming onto Australian soil. It was like getting a secret committee together, blindfolding them and getting them to pick a country at random on an atlas, a country where offshore processing could be done. First, it was East Timor. That may have been a good solution, had somebody actually told the East Timorese about it. The first time they found that out was when they read it in the newspapers, as did Australians. That thought bubble came and went quickly when it was popped by the East Timorese parliament. Then Manus Island popped up as another little thought bubble, but it did not last an afternoon. Finally, they settled on the one that they thought would be it—Malaysia.

Malaysia was going to be the new solution, for the Gillard Labor government, to the crisis they had created themselves with illegal immigration. But words come back to bite because, back in July 2010, the Prime Minister told listeners on radio 6PR that she would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the refugee convention. A bit later, at a doorstop press conference, again in July 2010, she went on to say, 'We want to deal with countries which are signatories to the refugee convention.' One month later, at another doorstop, she said, 'My policy, the policy I have committed to, is that I want to see a regional processing centre in a country that is a signatory to the United Nations convention on refugees.' Three times we had the statement that the country had to be a signatory to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to take the illegal immigrants that we wanted to process offshore. As we know, Malaysia is not one of those countries. In fact, it must be said that they have a terrible track record when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants.

This crisis has been created by the government. I know that many decent Australians would welcome genuine refugees, but something sticks in their throat when they see people from landlocked countries who fly to Indonesia and then pay thousands of dollars to get on a boat to sneak into this country, to the detriment of people who are waiting in refugee camps in places like Africa. That sticks in people's craws, but the fact is we still recognise that they are human beings and where they get sent to actually matters. Sending them to Malaysia was not the solution. Sending them to a place where they could have been flogged, where there was a risk that the rattan could have been used, was not an option. The Liberal-National coalition said that from the get go, but this government wanted to push the point.

When they realised we were not going to have a bar of it, they proposed something even more stupid, if there can be such a thing, and that was the Adopt-a-Refugee Family Program. Australians were invited to open their doors to an illegal immigrant, to take the men, to feed and clothe them and give them a bed, and the government would give them $300 a week for lowering the pressure on the already strained detention system in this country. The Greens may love that idea, and there are a few bleeding hearts who would love that idea, but I think to myself that, if the government can afford to pay $300 a week for people to housing illegal immigrants, what the hell are we doing with the homeless in this country? That thought was first and foremost on my mind and on the minds of a lot of other people. From that stupid idea, which came and went, we then came back to this place to find the Malaysia solution being pushed down our throats: we had to fix the problem, we had to fix the crisis—that Labor had created. We said no. We held the line on that.

The Prime Minister and the immigration minister then had to outsource this responsibility to an expert panel.

The expert panel deliberated, and then it came back and recommended a range of measures which were basically straight out of the coalition policy book. One of the key recommendations—and this is what has led to the motion before us here today—was the reopening of the offshore processing centre on Nauru. So the government capitulated and the legislation was passed some weeks back. But, when the legislation was brought to this place, people such as the member for Fremantle got up and told us how wrong offshore processing on Nauru is. I do believe that the hearts of a lot of those members opposite are not fully in offshore processing on Nauru. They do not want to go down this track and they are half-hearted in their approval of doing so; and, as the member for Cook said, they were dragged kicking and screaming to this place to vote for it.

I read earlier that one of the reasons the Prime Minister would not originally support offshore processing on Nauru was the cost. She claimed that it was going to cost $1 billion to reopen the centre on Nauru. We will see what happens to the budget bottom line and the so-called surplus to determine whether the Prime Minister was right, but the fact is that offshore processing on Nauru did not cost that much under the coalition—probably because we are better managers. It cost $239 million.

Photo of Dan TehanDan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Wasteful Wayne again!

Photo of George ChristensenGeorge Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Wasteful Wayne has popped back up! We asked the Prime Minister why there was this big difference: 'It cost $239 million to run offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island over six years under the coalition. Why are you saying that it is going to cost $1 billion in a year?' She told someone, 'What the member might want to recognise is how far away it is and the fact that all the resources need to be flown to Nauru.' One would think, listening to this, that there has been a continental shift—that either we have drifted further towards Antarctica, or Nauru has somehow drifted closer to Europe. It is just ridiculous.

Offshore processing on Nauru is only one policy that would work to stop the boats, but on its own it will not work. We know that. We said it during the debate on the government's latest offshore processing legislation, and we have been saying it all along. Now there are over 1,800 reasons—the number of illegal immigrants who have turned up since the government's legislation was passed in this place—that offshore processing on Nauru will not work on its own. I do not believe for a single second that, after Nauru is designated as a regional processing country today, the boats are going to stop coming. They are going to keep coming, and they will not stop until the whole suite of policies that the member for Berowra had in place is brought back.

One of those policies is the reopening of the offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island, but more important is the reintroduction of temporary protection visas. We need to have a system in place that says to illegal immigrants who arrive here: 'Even if we find that you are a genuine refugee, you've gone about it the wrong way. So you will ever only ever get temporary protection in this country, and that means that, once the threat to your life or wellbeing in the country you have fled from has gone, you will be returned.' That is the only way that there is going to be a real solution to the problem of illegal arrivals. We advocate turning around the boats where it is safe to do so, and the Liberal-National coalition will do this if we get a chance to govern. We also advocate that, if you find that people claiming refugee status have destroyed their identification, you should make the presumption that they are not genuine refugees.

It is this suite of policies, not offshore processing on Nauru on its own, which will stop the boats. (Time expired)

4:34 pm

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the motion before us today, and I acknowledge the role that Minister Bowen has played in bringing it to the House. Members of the Labor Party in this House could be described as refuseniks on offshore processing since it was brought into this House; they have refused all along to admit that Nauru and the Pacific solution were successful. When John Howard left office and the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd came to office, only four people who had come here by boat were in detention.

The member for Berowra, the former immigration minister, assured us that Kim Beazley, when he was Leader of the Opposition, had come to him to say that he would not support the bill which the coalition government brought to the House and which brought into effect the Pacific solution unless human rights obligations were locked into it. When the minister was able to convince him that they were, Kim Beazley brought the Labor Party along with him and we ended up with the Pacific solution.

But what is the situation with this government? Minister Bowen said initially that offshore processing on Nauru was too expensive and would not work. The Prime Minister said the same. The immigration minister then went to cabinet and tried to get Nauru up as an option and was knocked down. Yet today the minister is promoting the government's recent offshore processing bill in which Nauru, along with Manus Island, is held up as the solution to the problem of illegal arrivals. This bill was put together because the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, subcontracted responsibility for policy-making to the Houston committee. There were a number of deaths at sea, and, as a result of those deaths, we spent much time and a great deal of anguish in debate in this parliament. There were tears and emotive speeches and a stalemate; and, after there were further deaths at sea, the Prime Minister subcontracted the three-member panel led by Mr Houston to come up with a policy. Among the panel's policy recommendations was offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island. Why did it take Mr Houston's panel to recommend a policy on border protection that the Labor Party would use?

A lot of florid and unnecessary language has been used in the debate on border protection. In the House today we even heard the Acting Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, accusing the opposition of being responsible for deaths at sea.

We had the member for Isaacs, Mark Dreyfus, at the doors saying Tony Abbott wants people to come by boat so they can drown because that will be an electoral advantage for him. What a disgraceful thing to say about anyone in this House. And he repeated it outside. Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, one of your colleagues—one of the members of the Labor Party—came to me and said he believed that was actionable. I have made that petition known: that one of the Labor Party members said that that language—outside of this House, outside of privilege—was actionable. Yet Tony Abbott is obviously good enough not to pull the trigger on that.

One of the interesting things we are reaching at in this particular debate is, as the shadow immigration minister calls it, the immigration lottery. Since this was brought to this House, we know that 1,800 people—heading towards 2,000—have arrived. They are meant to go to Manus Island and Nauru. As a result of the bill that is going through this House today to put the instruments in place, they are now meant to go by the end of this week. Yet I am confused. On 13 August, when this committee's recommendations were announced and the press conference was taken by the Prime Minister, the immigration minister and others, Andrew Probyn, from the West AustralianI recall it vividly because I was watching it, and the transcript will support this—asked immigration minister Bowen: 'So, does that mean anyone coming after 3.45 today will go to Manus Island and Nauru?' And the minister said yes. What we have today is a backtrack on this. We are not sure now if it really does mean as of 3.45 on 13 August, or, 'we're going to go and select a few who are appropriate to go to these offshore processing centres'. To me, it is absolute hypocrisy.

The amendments the opposition has brought to this House are obviously sensible. You cannot have a three-legged stool with one leg, and the three-legged stool so far has only one leg, and that is offshore processing at Manus Island and Nauru. You have to have the temporary protection visas. The sugar is still in this policy in that, if you can make it to mainland Australia, you will get a visa. And why wouldn't they? Just think about it: you can enter the Centrelink system, you can enter the health system, you can enter the education system. So of course it is still a pull factor.

The other factor I want to raise is the turning back of the boats. We hear from those opposite that it is too dangerous and we cannot put our service personnel in such a dangerous position. I tell you, we are doing it all the time. We are doing in the Middle East; we are doing it in a whole range of areas of conflict. We are doing it with pirates off the African coast; we are boarding boats there, in our RIBs. I have been on these boats, on defence deployments, where our men and women go aboard these generally nefarious boats at sea and check them out. They are trained to do it, and they want to do it.

That brings me to the Sri Lankans. The Sri Lankans are doing it now. Recently I wrote a letter to the newspaper The Island, which was published on Thursday 9 August, backing the fact that the government of Sri Lanka is out there actively turning boats back from the port of Trincomalee that end up out at sea. A few of them still get through to the Cocos Islands. I will just read a little bit:

Australian MP Don Randall has praised Sri Lanka’s efforts to tackle what he called the evil trade in people, while urging the Australian government to throw its weight behind GoSL. MP Randall, in a special statement to ‘The Island’, congratulated GoSL for setting an example of how to deal with the evil trade in people. "Australia needs to get behind GoSL with equipment, intelligence sharing and financial help in support of ongoing operations," the MP said. The parliamentarian assured his support for GoSL efforts to counter critics and criminal elements both at home and abroad.

I would love to table this, but I know I would not be allowed, so you can read it online.

This brings me to the cant hypocrisy of members opposite. The member for Calwell was here earlier; I know she is not comfortable with this. And I know people like the member for Banks are not comfortable with this legislation. But what really sticks in my throat came from the member for Fremantle, a state colleague. I have written to her local newspaper on this issue. I would love to table that letter, but I am sure that if I tried it would be rejected, so I will read a little bit of it. On 16 August I wrote to the Fremantle Gazette:

It was with complete hypocrisy that the Member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke, gave her vote in the Parliament to the Malaysian five-for-one people swap deal that would see those seeking asylum sent to Malaysia.

And, more recently, she voted with the Government and Coalition to commence offshore processing of asylum seekers when she had spoken out against it many times, claiming it was an abuse of human rights.

I went on to say that she has not stopped talking about human rights ever since.

The member then wrote back to the newspaper, on 28 August, and said: 'Don Randall has once again got it wrong, which unfortunately has never stopped him from making personal attacks.' But there were no personal attacks, just the facts—the Votes and Proceedings of this House. She said:

I abstained from the vote on the Migration Act Amendment that passed the Australian Parliament, and while I support the end of the political stand-off on the issue of asylum seekers, I regard the present resolution as a very low-end compromise.

Well, she did not abstain from that vote. I have actually gone and got the Votes and Proceedings of the House, just to show the hypocrisy on this issue. In fact, on 27 June this year, on the Offshore Processing Bill, fondly known as the Oakeshott bill, the member voted for it three times. I would love to table it, but it is there; you can check it out. Where she was a little bit cute was in relation to the bill that came before this House after the Houston committee's report. It was a bill in continuation, which I had spoken on earlier, amended to reflect the Houston committee's report—the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill. That was on 15 August. We the opposition put in a number of amendments trying to make it workable—because, as the former minister, the member for Berowra, said, it is not going to work unless you put the full suite of measures in. That was rejected.

The member for Fremantle voted against those measures. You can understand that because the Labor Party did not want those measures.

Then there were amendments moved by the member for Melbourne, Mr Bandt, who is in the chamber, along with the member for Denison. They brought in two amendments to this bill. Only the two of them voted, and as Votes and Proceedings put it:

The House divided and only Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting “Aye”, the Deputy Speaker (Ms A. E. Burke) declared the question resolved in the negative.

  …   …   …

The House divided and only Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting “No”, the Deputy Speaker (Ms A. E. Burke) declared the question resolved in the affirmative.

Consideration in detail concluded.

On the motion of Mr Bowen, by leave, the bill was read a third time.

There was no vote. She could not absent herself from the vote if there was no vote. In fact, no name was recorded for yes and no on this bill because it was carried unanimously whether she is in the House or not. This is where we are this whole sad saga. We had a situation that worked, where people were not perishing at sea. We had a situation where the integrity of the Australian migration system was intact and people were able to honour our migration system. In fact, the British were envious of it.

People ask me: 'Why is it going to cost so much to go to Nauru? What happened to all those old buildings on Nauru and Manus Island?' They are overgrown, they have been pilfered, smashed and bashed, and the immigration minister at the time, Senator Evans from Western Australia—his office is down Fremantle way—bragged about it. He said it was his proudest day and he was pleased to see the whole thing traduced. What a dereliction of duty that Australian assets have been allowed to be wrecked like that. That is why it is costing billions of dollars to resurrect the Pacific Solution. The minister of the day was proud to see Australian property wrecked. It was a spiteful act, because the previous government had done it and the incoming Rudd government—who by the way said they would not do anything about it and then did—had decided that they would try to make their marks on the ground. Of course, it is going to cost a billion dollars and more, and yet all the time I have people coming to my office trying to help people come here in a lawful way.

I sponsor two families in Sri Lanka from Menik Farm, a refugee camp, because I think that is the best way to help people. You cannot save the world, but you can save one or two people. One guy has one leg, and the young girl and her mother lost her father in the war. I am trying to help in a small way. They want to come to Australia. I have told them not to bother—because they would not even get on the list—and that I would try to help them in Sri Lanka. Australia appears to be utopia to them—it is the end of the rainbow, the pot of gold—yet we cannot get people like the two I have mentioned in Sri Lanka onto the list, because there are people coming before them.

How will this policy work? We are told that the people who are going to end up on Nauru and Manus Island will not be able to come here before all the people who are waiting come. We know there are thousands of people waiting in detention centres and camps in Africa. In fact, there is a camp that has just been established in Jordan as the result of the Syrian war. I suspect that we may want to look at those people, but we cannot because we have something like 12,000 people this year who have come by boat, have jumped the queue and stopped people who have been waiting in an orderly system, and have already been selected and approved as refugees to come to this country. This is one step in a positive direction and it is going to be difficult to make work because the Labor Party will not go the whole nine yards and do it properly.

4:49 pm

Photo of Dan TehanDan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon with no joy or happiness to talk on this matter. It has been said that the opposition have been gleeful in the way we have been debating this issue because of the backing down of the Gillard government. But that is not the case. How could it be? Since this unholy mess started, more than 1,000 people have perished at sea. At least 8,100 people who have been waiting offshore in desperate circumstances have been denied Australia's temporary protection and humanitarian visas over the last three years. The people smugglers have grown bolder and richer. Labor's asylum budget has blown out by $4.7 billion.

In 2007 there were four people in detention who had come to Australia by boat. There was a policy in place that was working. Yet, who pushed for change? Who pressured for change? It all started when the current Prime Minister was the shadow immigration minister. She started the campaign earlier when she said that every boat that came to this country was a sign of a policy failure.

She was the one who led the attack on the immigration minister of the time, Mr Ruddock, who, with good conscience but a conscience that at times was troubled, had to put in place the deterrence that would mean that people would not lose their lives at sea. Yet he was attacked for this. We saw his response in this chamber a few months ago when he spoke on this issue. I suggest that those who did not listen or who were not paying attention look at Mr Ruddock's comments, because he gave what I thought was an outstanding speech in dealing with the issues involved with people seeking asylum in this country.

A lot has been said about the coalition's position, but one thing has been clear: our position—offshore processing on Nauru, the restoration of temporary protection visas and turning back boats where it is safe to do so—has not wavered since 2007. For the last 4½, nearly five, years our position has been incredibly clear. It is not that we have not been opposing the Gillard government in its approach to this matter—not at all. We have stated upfront and clearly what we think will work, because it did work: in 2007 there were in detention four people who had come to Australia by boat. Why was the policy changed? I hope that those opposite did it because they thought that their policy would work. I do not know whether that was the case, because it seems that they saw political opportunism—political advantage—in changing the approach that was working. Maybe they think that this is all just some game of political football. It is not. The facts show clearly that it is not.

We have not changed our policy approach. Against this, let us highlight the flip-flopping that we have seen from those on the other side. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was against offshore processing and the Pacific solution in opposition. She said:

Labor will end the so-called Pacific solution—the processing and detaining of asylum seekers on Pacific islands—because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle.

She accused us, basically, of having no principles on this matter. Towards the end of last year she was again drawn on this. She was asked by the host of Sky News:

This previous criticism wasn’t about any legal advice, it was about principle. Your words were costly and unsustainable, wrong as a matter of principle. What I’m asking is, is that still your principled position?

In response, she said:

Look, David, I’ve just responded to how we will deal with this. I’m not going to be drawn on policy questions of this nature at this time.

So principle was jettisoned. There has not been the principle of saying: 'We as a government got this wrong and we owe those we were criticising—those we called unprincipled—an apology.' I think we would all rest easy if there was the tenacity and courage on the other side, and particularly those who drove the political campaign on this issue in the lead-up to the 2007 election, to admit that they did get it wrong, that they were being politically opportunistic and that as a matter of principle they should not have taken the tack they did. If they had taken a more principled position they would have seen that if you are to deal with the evil trade that is people smuggling you have to be cruel and take a tough position to save lives. They would have seen that you have to throw everything you can at the people smugglers to stop them. If they had done that maybe we would not have seen more than 1,000 people perish at sea and more than 8,100 people waiting offshore in camps in Africa, in the Middle East and in war-torn areas having been denied Australia's protection by humanitarian visa. We might not have seen the people smugglers get stronger, bolder and, sadly, richer. We might not be seeing the Treasurer scamping around looking for ways to fill his budget deficit, to start addressing the huge, $144 billion debt that we now find ourselves with because of the asylum budget now being $4.7 billion. Maybe all that could have been stopped if we had not had the policies that were implemented immediately after the 2007 election and that have taken so long to be redressed.

As a matter of fact, the only reason, ultimately, that those policies have been partly redressed is the outsourcing of the government's policy. If it had not been for the Houston panel I doubt we would be where we are today, once again heading in the right direction. I will say this about the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship: judging on media reports that have been leaked out of cabinet, he at least saw that the Gillard government would have to change tack on this and address its policy. At least he went to cabinet and said: 'We need to do this.' It is a shame that, when he did that, he did not get the support from the Prime Minister that he needed. It is a shame that the Prime Minister basically said to the minister in charge of this area: 'No. I don't agree with the policy that you are bringing to the cabinet table, even though you are the minister in charge of this area. Even though I have given you responsibility for addressing this issue I am not going to take up your policy proposal.'

I think that Prime Minister Gillard should think long and hard about that and maybe, in a quiet moment of reflection, she should think about taking the immigration minister aside and saying, 'There was already damage and harm which had been done but, if I had listened to you, we might have been able to lessen that.'

I do not think anyone on this side comes to this debate thinking that there is joy in rubbing it in to the government on their big backflip and turnaround on this issue and their so-called principled position that they thought they were taking in criticising the Howard government's approach to this which was, in fact, a way forward to deal with this insidious issue of people smuggling. Also, I do not think we should be in any way accused of that. What we all now need to realise is that, if we can have a consistent approach to this issue, if we can send a message to the people smugglers that we will not tolerate their trade, we can solve it.

With that in mind, I would call on the government to also look at the other policies which worked in this area. They also have to look at TPVs. They also have to look at turning back the boats where it is safe to do so. I do not think we should get into legalistic arguments on this matter, especially when it comes to turning back the boats. It has been proven to work in particular circumstances, and the current Prime Minister is on the record saying so. Let's not get into legal argy-bargy over this. Let's look at what works so that we can put in place the policies that we need to address this issue. I call on the government to look seriously once again at TPVs because they were an essential component of the whole suite of policies that were put in place by the Howard government to address this issue which saw us, once again, having only four people in detention who had come by boat to Australia in 2007.

None of these issues are easy. They cause great concern to us on this side, as they do to the government on the other side. We have seen that in the emotion in this debate. We have seen people giving heartfelt speeches in this area. They have had tears rolling from their eyes as they have spoken about how they have been dealing with it. So this is a matter which the whole parliament takes seriously and which we need to see addressed. The coalition has put forward a sensible way to do this. I would hope that the government, in reflection, will look at the whole suite of policies we are putting forward and adopt them.

5:03 pm

Photo of Adam BandtAdam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I will not be supporting this motion and I will be moving an amendment. This is the Labor government taking us back to John Howard when they should be taking us back to Malcolm Fraser. Most galling about this motion to reopen the centre at Nauru is that there is a better alternative available right now that would save lives, comply with international law and domestic law, be humane and march in the great tradition of Australian multiculturalism. That alternative was available if Labor had chosen to work with the Greens on a more compassionate solution. But instead, as we have just been reminded by the previous speaker, we are faced with an intransigent government and minister, insistent on no deal unless it includes expelling people offshore to other countries. That is not something that is consistent with the conventions we have signed up to and it is not something that we are prepared to support.

Casting my mind back, I do not think there is anyone in this country who was not distressed and anguished at the reports and sight of hundreds of people losing their lives as they struggled when their boats capsized, as has happened on more than one occasion. I think everyone in this place and around the country grappled with the question: how do we best stop people risking their lives at sea? We hear a lot about the people smugglers' business model. If there is such a thing, the people smugglers' business model is based on desperation. It is based on people waiting in camps in places like Indonesia or Malaysia, having fled persecution, torture and situations that we think are so bad that we send our troops overseas to fight, trying to find a better life. They may well find themselves in a camp in Indonesia where there are over 8,000 people and joining the other thousand of those 8,000 who have already been declared to be refugees by the United Nations only to wait there years and years because there is no proper processing system in place and because this government and other governments do not do enough. When you have been waiting for years, having perhaps fled the Taliban or the threat of execution, to be taken to a better life and yet you find your hope diminishing day by day because there is no orderly process in the camp, there is no light at the end of the tunnel and you are stuck there wondering, 'Am I going to be here for the rest of my life?' you get on a boat. I would too. I reckon most people around this country would as well.

If they had been waiting desperately for years in a camp and someone came to them and said, 'For a bit of money, I'll get you on a boat and get you out of here,' people would snap it up. If I felt that that was the best way for me or my family to get to safety, I would probably do the same and I think most other people would as well.

So if we really want to stop people getting on those boats there is a simple answer, and that is: give the people in the camps some hope by putting in place an orderly processing system in Indonesia or in Malaysia so that they see light at the end of the tunnel, so that they understand, 'If I wait here long enough my turn will come, so I won't risk my life on a boat.' What would that mean? That would mean that from Indonesia, where there are 8,000 people waiting, we take 1,000 now. Let's beef up the processing capacity of Australia and of the United Nations in Indonesia so that we can process more people right there and then bring them to Australia safely. That is what all the experts told us, and have told us for many years, will stop people risking their lives on these desperate journeys.

During the course of this debate over many months, and indeed today, we have heard that this is a naive solution being proposed by the Greens. It is a solution based on what we did in this country in the decade after the Vietnam War, and our country is better for it. Our country is better for the fact that we took in between 90,000 and 100,000 refugees and their families in an orderly manner at the end of the war and settled them here through a regional processing arrangement. It was not easy and at the start of that process there was a lot of consternation about whether people were being treated fairly, but it stopped people risking their lives on the boats. That is the best way to stop loss of life: reintroduce a proper regional processing system. The Greens have been consistently advocating that. If you say that is a naive solution, then that is a very short-sighted reading of Australian history, because the solution that we have been advancing and will continue to advance is one that is based on appealing to the best in us in Australia and talking about what has worked and what we can do again.

Instead, we have had a government intent on trying to out-tough the coalition. Let me give you this piece of free advice: that is a battle you cannot win. If the government think that ultimately they have made a smart political decision then they are going to have to explain to the Australian population in a very short period of time why we now have people in as good as indefinite detention on island prisons or prison islands. That is one of the most worrying aspects of this approach from the government that over time is going to be subject to the scrutiny that it deserves.

What the government has said is that there is a so-called no-advantage principle underlying this. If you are serious about that, that means asking how long someone waits in Indonesia or in Malaysia and saying, 'Let's make them stay in prison or on an island for that length of time.' The figures we have heard from the people who are actually working in those camps is that it could be a decade. It could be longer. It is appalling that this parliament is being asked right now to vote on a measure to send people to be detained in another country without knowing how long they will be detained there. This will come back and haunt this government.

I accept that this is a tough issue. If you do not think this is a tough issue, you are not paying enough attention. I accept that there is probably no easy answer. This is a global problem and one that we as a country have to manage. It is not a problem that is ever going to be solved, because unless we make our country as bad as Afghanistan and unless our government becomes as bad as the Taliban we are always going to be a more attractive place for people to come to. So the question is not how we stop it but how we manage it. Do we manage it fairly or do we say that we will take a tough approach?

One of the things we must never forget is that this approach of deterrence just does not work. Three hundred and fifty-three people lost their lives coming here on the SIEVX when the full gamut of onshore processing and mandatory detention arrangements were in place—353 people lost their lives. Why? Because, as I said before, Australia, with its democracy and its good standard of living, will always be a more attractive place for people who are fleeing persecution. And so we would want it to be. So people will continue to take to boats and people will continue to die.

It may be that, as a result of this arrangement, people stop coming here. I do not think they will, but let's say they do. Let's take that argument through. People are still going to get on boats; they will just go elsewhere. It might be that they die on leaky boats on the way to New Zealand or to Canada. If we are really concerned about people dying, and I believe everyone in this House is, then we should adopt the solution that is going to minimise the chance of people getting on a boat, and that is a regional processing solution where we take more people directly from the camps, where we process them there and bring them here.

The amendment that I want to move is premised on this motion succeeding in this House. It is clear that, because Labor chooses to work with the coalition rather than working with the Greens on these questions, it wants a John Howard style solution and is going to get it through this parliament.

So, if it is going to go through, then we should at least ensure a minimum standard of decency. We know from all the mental health experts that, if you lock people up indefinitely, it destroys them. What they tell us is that you do not want to have someone locked up in detention for longer than 12 months, at an absolute outer limit. So, if this motion is going to get through, there should be a cap on how long someone can spend in detention. At the very least, the minister should be able to come in here and tell us how long someone is going to spend in detention on Nauru. The fact that he cannot is shameful. So let us try and give some parliamentary oversight to it. I move:

That all words after “and” (first occurring) in Mr Morrison’s amendment be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“calls on the government to put in place a 12 month time limit on immigration detention in Nauru.”

That should be something that the government are prepared to accept. It is premised on them getting their way and offshore processing beginning, but it puts in place an outer limit that will ensure that people's mental health is preserved.

If the government are not prepared to support a 12-month time limit on detention, if they are not prepared to come in here and tell us what the maximum is, then we are seeing a green light for an assault on the mental health of some of the world's most vulnerable people. How can we leave this debate and this parliament not knowing how long one of these people is going to be locked up? Ask yourself this: if you or your family were in a situation where you feared for your life, perhaps because you were politically outspoken, perhaps just because you found yourself in the wrong religion, and you found yourself on a boat, through no fault of your own but simply because you had waited for years in a refugee camp and did not think you were getting anywhere and someone had said, 'Let me find you a way out of here,' how long would you say it was okay for you or your family to be locked up? I challenge anyone to be prepared to fully apply the perils of this no-advantage test, so-called, and say that that means we will lock someone up for longer than a year. That, unfortunately, is the way the government has chosen to go. It is disappointing, given that our history is rich in alternatives that we could be adopting. Instead of going back to Fraser, we are going back to Howard.

Photo of Rob MitchellRob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

5:17 pm

Photo of Andrew WilkieAndrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

I second the member for Melbourne's amendment to the member for Cook's amendment to the member for McMahon's motion on the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country. I expect the government to support the member for Melbourne's amendment, because only 10 weeks ago the government supported my amendment that put a 12-month sunset clause in the member for Lyne's bill at that time. I make that point again. Just 10 weeks or so ago, the government strongly supported the idea of putting a sunset clause in the member for Lyne's bill which would have seen offshore processing resurrected. So there is no reason whatsoever why the government would not agree to support such a move again today. It would be remarkable if the government were not to support the member for Melbourne's amendment. If the government does not support the member for Melbourne's amendment, it means that the government's actions of some 10 weeks ago were at best hollow and at worst misleading. So I hope that the government will come in here and support this amendment and that this amendment will succeed.

This will be another test of the government's moral compass. We all easily recall how five years ago, at the 2007 federal election, the Australian community overwhelmingly rejected the policies of the Howard era, and in particular the Howard-era Pacific solution. Yet somehow the government finds that it is acceptable, just five years later, to frankly show contempt for the 2007 election result. In 2007 the Australian community overwhelmingly rejected the Pacific solution, so it is inexplicable how, only five years later, the government is set to reintroduce the Howard-era Pacific solution.

Given that the government, 10 weeks ago, saw the need to have a 12-month sunset clause in the restoration of the Pacific solution, it would be inexplicable if it turned around and rejected it now. A 12-month sunset clause has an inherent value, in that it would keep this deeply unethical and illegal Pacific solution within certain bounds. It is unethical because, when people come to our shores, we really should give them protection, hear their claims and give them refuge. The restoration of the Pacific solution is unlawful and illegal, because clearly, as a signatory to the refugee convention, we have a legal obligation to do as I have just described—when someone comes to our shores, we should give them protection, hear their claims and, if their claims are found to be accurate, to be justified, we should give them refuge and let them share this country with us. We should not put them on a plane to some microstate in the distant Pacific or put them on a plane to an island off Papua New Guinea.

I make the point again: to do so would be unethical and would be illegal, and it was flatly rejected by the Australian community at the 2007 federal election. It is one of the reasons that the Labor government was elected. I think that the Labor government would be showing contempt for the decision at the 2007 federal election by restoring the Howard-era Pacific solution. Twelve months would be more than enough time for this government to come up with a much more sophisticated solution. Quite frankly, the events of the last couple of months have been a missed opportunity. We did not need to go back to the Howard-era Pacific solution, the solution that was so loudly rejected at the 2007 federal election. We had an opportunity to come up with a really sophisticated policy matched to the complexity of the irregular immigration issue. We had the opportunity to come up with a solution that stopped treating this as a border security problem and started treating this as a humanitarian crisis, because first and foremost that is what this is. It is a humanitarian crisis. The overwhelming majority of people who are coming to Australia by boat are, and they have been found to be, genuinely fleeing persecution. It is a humanitarian crisis, and on a global scale it is a humanitarian crisis of almost unfathomable size and complexity.

What this government should have done—and it should have done it with the support of the opposition, mindful of the rejection of their policy in 2007—was to come up with a very complex solution which, for a start, looks to deal with the situation in source countries. It should have come up with a solution that is built on reconstruction aid—not war-fighting aid but reconstruction aid—in particular in Afghanistan but also in Iraq. That would be how we would most effectively, most ethically and most quickly help to restore stability in those two countries.

It should have been a solution that seeks to help countries of first asylum. We give next to no aid to countries like Pakistan and Iran, yet both of those countries are host to millions of refugees. No wonder so many refugees try and move on from Pakistan and Iran and so many seek to come to Australia, because the conditions in those two countries of first asylum are so dreadful. That is not a comment about the regimes or the governments in those countries. It is a fact of life that those two less well-off countries are overwhelmed with millions of refugees. I am sure that they do the best they can—although I would add that Iran could lift its game mightily and for a start actually recognise that these people are refugees and let them join the workforce and enjoy the benefits of the state, which they are currently not allowed to do in Iran, of course.

Australia could encourage those countries to look after their refugees better and give them the resources they need to help look after those refugees better. They would be more likely to stay there and to join this so-called queue that everyone keeps talking about, a queue that would be even more attractive if we had a much bigger humanitarian intake in this country, which of course is part of the solution. I would be appalled if this government or the next government were to just cherry-pick the recommendations of Angus Houston's committee—just cherry-pick the attractive things like the restoration of offshore processing and the Pacific solution. I would be appalled if it did not also embrace recommendations such as a significant increase in our humanitarian intake.

Our sophisticated solution also needs to help transit countries—countries like Indonesia, of course, but also other transit countries like Malaysia and Thailand, and there are other places. In fact, some of these asylum seekers have passed through a number of transit countries by the time they get to Australia. We should give those countries the resources to look after the refugees that are in their country and encourage those countries to look after their refugees better; encourage them, if they are not already a signatory to the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to become a signatory to the refugee convention; and give them the aid to help those refugees so that, again, they are less likely to move on and more likely to front up at the Australian high commission or embassy and apply for asylum in Australia. They are more likely to do that if they know that we have a much increased humanitarian intake. They would know that they have a much greater chance of finally finding a place of safety for themselves and their family.

Also—and perhaps this is where I might, with all due respect, diverge perhaps a little from the Greens—I have a very hard, harsh view of what we should be doing with the people smugglers. At the end of the day, the only people who are doing anything illegal here are the people smugglers. We should be doing everything we can—and I do not believe we are doing enough—to crack down on the people smugglers, in particular the ones that are based in these transit countries, such as Indonesia. We should be applying a much greater effort from a law enforcement point of view, from an intelligence point of view and from the point of view of cooperating with the governments in these transit countries, in particular Indonesia.

These are all of the many components of a sophisticated approach or a sophisticated response to the irregular immigration issue and the humanitarian crisis that we confront. I make the point again that 10 weeks ago and then a few weeks ago there were missed opportunities. This government, supported by the opposition, could have developed and be starting to implement now a sophisticated response to a humanitarian crisis, instead of continuing to regard this as a border security problem. It is not a border security problem. It is a humanitarian crisis. There have been missed opportunities, and I think that is a terrible shame. As I go about my business, countless people, not just in my electorate but elsewhere, have approached me and expressed their disappointment that, while this government's predecessor was elected in 2007 in large part on a promise to dismantle the draconian Howard-era response to irregular immigrants, we find ourselves back there five years later.

To recap, I do expect the government to support the member for Melbourne's amendment to the member for Cook's amendment. If the government does not support this amendment, it means that the government's actions of some 10 weeks ago were at best hollow and at worst quite misleading. This is a test of the government's moral compass. I call on the government to support this amendment, to understand that, if they are going to go back to the Howard-era Pacific solution, there must be a 12-month limit on it. That is more than enough time to come up with the sort of sophisticated response to this issue that I have talked ever so briefly about. We will find out very shortly. Very shortly we are going to have another test of the government's moral compass. I hope that they do the right thing by the Australian community, that they do support this amendment and that they do ensure there is a 12-month sunset clause in the final bill.

5:30 pm

Photo of Scott MorrisonScott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise again on this occasion to address the remarks of the member for Melbourne and the member for Denison on the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. There are no decisions made in this debate and in relation to policies that address these issues that are free of moral burden. I know that the member for Melbourne has sincerely raised his concerns in relation to these policies, as, I have to say, the member for Melbourne and his colleagues in the Greens have been quite consistent about doing. I may not agree with the member for Melbourne, and I certainly do not agree with the policies of the Greens, but I will give them this much credit: they have been very consistent in their position on these issues. And I think it is important to be consistent in what you believe on these issues. These policies should be matters of conviction.

I can certainly say that, from the coalition's point of view, our convictions on these issues are very strong. We feel very passionately about the need to have strong border protection. I note the member for Denison's comments that this is not a border protection issue. I sincerely disagree; I think it is very much a border protection issue. There has always been humanitarian need in relation to these matters.

The sad fact about the refugee issue internationally is that the demand is ubiquitous. There is always lots of demand, and enough demand for the smugglers to exploit at any point in time. So, while you may have many people coming at certain points in time and fewer at others, it is not because at the latter times there are fewer people who want to seek asylum; it is because countries such as Australia have stronger or weaker policies at particular points in time. It has certainly been the case over the last 4½ years that we have had weaker policies. As a result of having those weaker policies, some catastrophic things have occurred.

I would remind the member for Melbourne and the member for Denison—because the coalition will not be supporting the amendment that has been put forward by the member for Melbourne—that Nauru is not a detention centre. Nauru is not a place of detention. People that are sent to Nauru—as the minister's own statement says very clearly today, and as was the case under the coalition—get visas on Nauru. It is an open centre where people can move freely about the island and have a visa to do so. In that respect, it is not unlike the bridging visa policy that the member for Melbourne convinced the government to adopt in November last year. As a result, the comparison between those two issues is relevant. Having the sort of policy we have on Nauru is one thing, and that can be part of a set of deterrence measures that can be effective, as they were under the Howard government. But, as the coalition has said on many occasions, we are very concerned that the government made the decision to have bridging visas in Australia not out of a sense of compassion but because the detention network had collapsed under the strain of their failures. More broadly, those being available at the other end of a boat trip if people are successful in arriving in Australia only adds to the incentive to make that trip. I make this point deliberately: Nauru is not a detention centre but a place of processing where people receive visas and can move freely around the island, as the minister has made very clear.

I think the member for Melbourne raises a very valid question to the government, and the government have been very sheepish in avoiding the answer to this question. I raised it in my earlier remarks. I can tell the member for Melbourne the answer to his question, 'How long will people stay in Nauru?' If the government are true to their word and there is a no-advantage principle applying, as the government have said, then the average time waiting for people in Malaysia, for example—I am talking about Burmese refugees waiting—is five years. So the answer to the member for Melbourne is five years. I think the government should be very clear that that is the implication of the policies that they are enacting through their motion today.

The other point made particularly by the member for Melbourne but also by the member for Denison is that the approach of deterrence does not work. That is fantasy-land stuff. In those six years in which the policies of uncompromising deterrence were in place, there were 16 boats with 272 people. I cannot begin to contemplate how many people did not get on boats over those six years when I think of the fact that 24½ thousand have turned up in the last 4½ years. If the same soft policies had been running at that time as those which have been running over the last 4½ years, then we could assume 30,000 or 35,000 people might have tried their arm over that period. How many people would have died over that period if we took the view that deterrence did not work? Since the decision was taken in late November on the bridging visa policy, which the Greens convinced the government to introduce, compared to the period of time equal to that—which is around eight months leading up to that decision—and the government moved to even softer policies, as advocated by the Greens, there has been a 320 per cent increase in the number of people coming to Australia on illegal boats. In the eight-month period prior to that decision, we had 2,647 people turn up. That is 2,647 too many.

But after the decision to move to bridging visas and a policy that says 'deterrence does not work' we have now had 11,085 people on 162 boats. Not included in that are the tragedies at sea, which this House has lamented.

I respectfully disagree with the member for Melbourne and the member for Denison when they talk about these policies of deterrence not being the right approach and about needing an alternative model. I note that they both put a lot of faith in the idea of having a regional processing hub and a higher refugee and humanitarian intake. When there is a genuine regional crisis of people directly filling a conflict zone within your own region—which occurred during the Indo-Chinese refugee crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s—the member for Melbourne talked about returning to the policies of Malcolm Fraser.

That was the right decision for the Prime Minister to take at that time. There was a genuine refugee crisis in our region and it required the temporary response of increasing our intake. It was not the Prime Minister's policy at that time to permanently increase our intake to 20,000. It was raised to 20,000 for only two years and after that it was brought back to a more modest level. It was dealing with a genuine refugee crisis within our region. That is not what we are facing today. We are facing the challenge of secondary movement from a part of the world far removed from this country. We are dealing with a people-smuggling network that is completely different from the problems and issues that were being addressed when the comprehensive plan of action—and the regional measures around that—was put in place.

When the government proposed a processing centre in East Timor as part of a regional processing framework, it did not receive support from other members of the region. One reason for this is they, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia, know that setting up a processing centre in East Timor—as was then proposed by our Prime Minister—does nothing more than create an asylum magnet for the region. That is why they would not support it and that is why I do not think it represents good policy, still to this day. That is why my original motion of amendment to the minister's motion called on having the Bali process return to issues of border security and deterrence policies. That is what our partners in the region are focused on and that is what they are actually working on.

The suggestion that there is some sort of broader regional framework operating here is only in the minds of the government and the UNHCR. Our partners in the region are not working on those issues. They are working on issues of document fraud technology. They are working on issues of biometrics. They are working on issues of intelligence sharing. They are working on issues of interception, interdiction, arrest and prosecution. That is what they are working on. The new regional office, out of the Bali process, is working on the issue of returns. They are the policies that the region is wanting to focus on. On the issue of increasing the intake, we have the very real problem of deluding ourselves that creating an extra 6,250 places is somehow going to convince two million people living in Pakistan and Iran to, all of a sudden, put this off.

I would agree with the member for Denison and the member for Melbourne that there are other arguments for increasing the refugee intake. I do not share them, but I think there are other arguments that can be made. The idea that increasing the intake will deter millions of people, including those who are active candidates for people smugglers, who number in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, means we are kidding ourselves. This is why we will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the Greens.

Deterrence policies are necessary. I accept that the policies we have advocated carry a heavy moral burden. Similarly, I would urge other members of the House to understand the moral burden that they too must carry—along with all of those outside of this place who have advocated the soft policies we have had for the last 4½ years. The consequence of that is there are over 700 people dead, that we know of. The minister's own statement says this. Thousands of people have been denied protection visas and thousands of people have taken this risky voyage to Australia. There is the cost as well, which the minister puts at $5 billion. That is the moral burden of the non-deterrence policy and I think those who advocate those policies have to sign up to them.

I conclude as I started. There will be no decision, in this space, that is free of moral burden. The minister does not have that luxury. Nor do I. Nor does any other member in this place who thinks they can propose things in this space and not have consequences. Every single one of those decisions has a consequence. No member can walk into this place and somehow parade some higher virtue in the process. No member in this place wants to see people dying on boats. I would hope all members want to see integrity in our immigration program and I would hope all members in this place believe we should have secure borders. I am happy to concede that, for everyone who participates in this debate, and do not offer lectures on people's motives. But the decisions we make will have consequences.

If this motion is approved today in the original form as moved by the minister, and with the amendment I proposed—which would go further than the government is suggesting—we will have the return of strong deterrence policies that can be effective. To agree to what the member for Melbourne is proposing would only take us further back into the morass of policy we have had over the last 4½ years. It is true. The Greens and others convinced the government back in 2007 to abolish the Howard government policies and, as the member for Denison said, they won an election—and off they went and did it. I remember the member for Griffith saying, when he was recently asked why he made that decision, that the voters made him do it. He said he had made a promise to them. He made himself do it. He made the promise and he followed it through. That has been taken to a whole new level by those who followed him. The consequences of that decision are there for everybody to see.

It is time to start making some new decisions on this. The motion put forward by the minister takes one small step towards that approach. We think there should be more. I do not think the amendment that has been put forward by the Greens removing the amendment put forward by the coalition on this is the approach we should be taking. As a result, the coalition will not be supporting the Greens in that process.

I would respectfully say to the member for Melbourne that I understand the sincerity which he brings to these matters, and I respect the consistency of the Greens' position. They are right to point out the hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue—absolutely right to point it out—because they have been hypocrites on this issue. But the position that they press is certainly not one the coalition could agree with and is one that the coalition has steadfastly stood against for more than a decade. Where the government has stood on this issue from one day to the next is anybody's guess. They are simply making it up as they go along.

5:45 pm

Photo of Andrew RobbAndrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the amendment put by the member for Melbourne, and I rise to strongly support the amendment put by my friend and colleague the member for Cook. Let us have a debate here on the facts, let us have policy that features a discussion and a recognition of the facts, not a political discussion which is some sorry attempt, having been made now for over five years, to hide a misguided political approach. The facts are that, when the Labor government took office, there were four people in detention. If you heard the debate in this chamber, if you listened to the discussion, over the last five years, if you were inclined to listen to what has been said on radio and television and written in newspapers, through the contributions of those opposite you would think that the Howard government Pacific solution failed. In fact, the member for Melbourne perhaps was not properly focused on this issue back in those years. Now that he is a member of parliament and taking a keen interest in this subject he must know that, when you study the facts, the Howard government Pacific solution, as my colleague the member for Cook just explained, was enormously successful. It was appropriate for the times, just as a different solution was appropriate in the Fraser years and was, again, very effectively managed by a coalition government.

When Labor took office there were four people—not even a handful of people—in detention. Over the six years before Labor took office the push factors of Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka were in play. If anything, the last five years has seen Iraq disappear as a push factor and we are left with just two. We had all of those factors in play and there were in the order of 272 people in those six years. This was after something in the order of 10,000 to 12,000 people in 1999-2000—do not hold me exactly to the figures, but there were a lot of people—numbers not dissimilar to those we have seen in recent years where there has not been a policy that has been an effective deterrent.

The Howard government's policy was crafted under all of the pressure, all of the debate and all of the experience that came to this place in those years. It was put in place, and for six years it was enormously successful. There were three boats a year on average; now we are seeing more than three boats a week on average. For two of those six years there were no people. Not one single person arrived and not one single person died on the high seas, as a result of those deterrents. These are the facts. These are the things that people do not want to consider in the context of this debate. But we have to rely on the facts. Surely you can judge policy by the outcomes of the policy.

What did we see when the Rudd-Gillard government arrived? They had had six years of pontificating on the so-called failure of the Pacific solution. They had turned it into the devil incarnate despite the fact that only 272 people had arrived and that it was enormously successful in saving lives on the high seas. It was enormously successful in guaranteeing that those people who had been living for many, many years in detention centres were able to come here under our formal refugee program.

I had the great privilege in 2006 to have ministerial responsibility for refugees, and in that year we brought in 13,000 people. They came, not on boats and not jumping the queue, but from refugee centres. I visited with refugees who came from Africa and Myanmar that year. They were people who were roundly criticised by the very same people who today want to further encourage boat people. Those same people criticised us for bringing in too many Africans and too many people from Myanmar. I am very proud of the fact that we brought those people in. Some of those people were in Dandenong and other places I visited and told me how they had spent all of their lives—and some of them were only 18 or 20—in refugee camps. They had seen mothers raped and fathers shot, killed or with their throats cut by those presiding over those refugee centres in parts of Africa or on the Myanmar border. The people had been put into all sorts of destitute situations. They were refugees who held great hope and finally got to these shores because of our refugee program. Bear in mind we are one of only three countries in the world who, over the last 60 years in an uninterrupted way, have brought in refugees. It is a great and proud record and is shared by both sides of this parliament.

During those six years before the Labor government came to power, only 272 people came to these shores.

All of the other refugees were people who had spent time, often their whole lives, in refugee camps, people who did not have a dollar. Most of them had never seen any money. They did not know what to do with money when they got here. They had to be taught for months what money means, how to spend it, how to save it, how to use it and how to acquire it—how to get a job to earn it. These were the people that we were bringing in.

Over the last five years, people in that situation have been denied the opportunity to come to Australia because others who have $10,000 or $5,000 and can afford an airfare to Malaysia and the money to come down on a boat have been able to jump the queue. What about people who have spent 18 years of their lives in refugee camps, have been tortured and have been deprived of education? These are the people we have a proud history of over 60 years of bringing into this country. We are one of only three countries that have done that, and it has been done by both sides of the parliament.

Let's look to preserve that record, not to play politics, as has been happening the last few years. This is politics, pure and simple. It is grubby politics because it has ignored the facts. It has just been an attempt to find some way to denigrate a political party, the government at the time, the Howard government. It is cheap politics which has used people's lives. What have we seen as the result of the change of that policy—a simple policy which meant there were four people in detention when this government took over? We have seen over 1,000 people die on the high seas. What a despicable result that is, and it is the result of politics. It is not a result of considered policy; it is a result of politics contrived to answer Labor's made-up criticism—the rhetoric that they have come to believe over six years.

The amendment moved by my colleague the member for Cook would take us back to that simple formula. Nauru would simply be a place for processing people, temporary protection visas would be reintroduced and boats would be turned around where it was safe to do so. That worked. You do not have to take my word for it—just look at the outcomes. It worked. Two years out of the six, not even one person tried to come to our shores. In the whole six years, we had 272 people, and three boats a year on average. Compare that with the situation since these changes. We now have three boats a week, or more—sometimes almost three boats a day.

This is of great consequence. I had a year with refugees from Africa and from Myanmar. I very proudly helped to settle these people. We spent $600 million in the first year, and did so each year since, to settle those people. Yet, now, the lives of similar people are being played with—people who have been waiting in refugee camps around the world for the privilege and opportunity to come to Australia under these longstanding programs. Their lives have been thrown into total disarray because they are finding at the last minute that those spots are no longer there.

What do we have now? In five years, we have had 25,000 people—5,000 people a year. We take in roughly 13,000 a year, and have done for a long time, under our legitimate refugee program. Now all of these boat people have jumped to the front of that queue. It is not fair to people who have been waiting out there, have done what is required and have expected for years and years that they would eventually be able to come and be a part of the refugee program that has been such a proud part of our Australian community.

We are looking to adopt a solution to minimise the chance of people getting on boats. As the member for Melbourne said, that is the objective, and I agree with him. Just look in the rear-vision mirror for a minute and you will see what worked not so long ago, up to just five years ago, and worked for six years. It worked and it worked and it worked. Despite endless denigration and misrepresentation of the facts, it worked. And, by God, it gave great succour and great opportunities to refugees who, at the time, were living and had lived for many, many years in refugee camps, in appalling conditions, all around the world. What about those people? They never get mentioned in this place. Yet they are the most deserving refugees of this world.

Of course anyone who does not live in the circumstances that we do would want to bring their family here. I do not blame one person, not one of those boat people, for trying to get to this country. I would do the same if I were in their circumstances. I would seek to do the same. That is not the point. There are tens of millions of people moving around the world, and we cannot accommodate them all. The reason we have been so successful in being able to bring in such large numbers of refugees for so long is we have carried this community with us. Both sides of parliament in the past carried this community with us. People felt comfortable that we were managing that program in an effective and compassionate way. We were, and we had success.

But it has been mauled by a simple exercise in political grubbiness, an exercise to denigrate the government of the day, in the pursuit of power. That is what it was. Let's call it what it was. What has happened is a disgrace. They are now trying to go back, after five years of mismanagement under this poor policy, which has led to over 1,000 people dying at sea, and which has led to 25,000 people arriving here, displacing legitimate refugees who would have otherwise been here—people who have suffered, often for a lifetime. What we have now is an attempt by this government to go just part of the way back. They have finally been mugged by reality. But they are only going part of the way.

Let us do the job. For goodness sake, let us do the job properly. Let us back the member for Cook's amendment, which seeks to reinstate the essential elements of a program that worked, a program that on any measure worked. Let us swallow some pride on the other side there and let us do something for the true and very disadvantaged refugees around the world—those that would otherwise come to our country except for the fact that there are boat loads coming in by the thousands. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation before the House. Let us get it right and back the amendment moved by the member for Cook.

Photo of Rob MitchellRob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne to the proposed amendment moved by the member for Cook be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Photo of Ms Anna BurkeMs Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Cook be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.