Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was going to begin by saying that this matter of public importance proposed by the opposition is preposterous and immoral, but the reality is that it is just terribly sad. Is it any wonder that the people of Australia have an ever-diminishing faith in the ability of our political leaders to represent their interests in this parliament? Here we are arguing what in their eyes is really an insignificant matter, when the reality is that the leaders of our political parties should be sitting down and negotiating a compromise to what is a terribly sad public policy issue in this country. The issue is that vulnerable people who are seeking asylum in Australia are being exploited by unscrupulous people smugglers who are selling them a promise of safe passage to Australia for a very high price, when the reality is that they and their children are getting on board overcrowded, unsafe boats and then being sent out onto the open seas—a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, disaster is what we often get. As recently as last week, we saw another disaster: a boat sinking with children on board, mid-voyage to Australia. The boat was sinking because it was overcrowded and unseaworthy. It brings back all the harrowing memories of what happened on Christmas Island last year, when those poor, vulnerable people were cast onto the rocks in terrible circumstances.

I have been a surf-lifesaver for 26 years, and I am very proud of my involvement in keeping our beaches safe. I have to say that I take great offence at the comments of Senator Fifield, in which he argued that Labor policy has designed the people smugglers' model. That is a simply disgraceful and untrue comment. As a surf-lifesaver—as someone who has invested a hell of a lot of their time as a volunteer in this country in trying to help save the lives of others in the ocean—I take great offence at that comment. I take great offence because a lot of the tragedies that we are seeing on the open seas are avoidable. The government has developed a policy, on the advice of experts in asylum and migration policy, that is consistent with the advice of the Australian Navy, that has been negotiated with our regional partners in this area and has their support and that has the input of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is a policy that will work and that will provide an effective deterrent to the product that people smugglers are selling. It is opposed by those opposite. It is a policy that will stop vulnerable people getting onto boats with their children and risking their lives on the open seas, but it is opposed by those opposite.

The question that Australians must ask is: why is this policy opposed by those opposite? Unfortunately, it is also opposed by the Greens. But it is opposed by those opposite because their leader wants to be seen as tough on this issue, because their leader cannot bring himself to agree with the policy put forward by the Australian Labor Party. Never mind any of the advice or support that the policy has from the experts in the field, never mind the fact that the policy might actually work; it is simply opposed because it has been put forward by the Australian Labor Party—and that opposition is leading to the deaths of vulnerable people on our seas.

At a time when we should be putting behind us the petty bickering that goes on in this place, at a time when we should be rising above politics on this issue, we are not. A solution to the incidence of the death of vulnerable children and asylum seekers is just another political debate for the Leader of the Opposition. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is to be opposed at all cost. This is just sad. Is it any wonder that Australians are losing faith in their political leaders and that their faith in this parliament is ever diminishing?

When the Tampa arrived on our shores over a decade ago, it caused a national and political crisis in this country. Our political leaders—the government and the opposition—were forced to confront the issue. The government of the day, the Howard government, developed a policy to deal with that crisis. But the difference between that circumstance and this circumstance is that Mr Howard dealt with that issue and that crisis with the full support of the opposition of the day. He had the full support of the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Kim Beazley, and his party. This was despite the fact that the Howard government solution was inconsistent with Labor Party policy. This was despite the fact that many members of the Australian Labor Party opposed the compromise that was reached by the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. This was also despite the fact that many Australian Labor Party members of parliament opposed the compromise that was reached at the time.

The leader of the Australian Labor Party and of Her Majesty's opposition at the time put the interests of the nation above politics, put the lives of vulnerable people above politics and reached a bipartisan moral road to settlement on that issue. That was the way in which the Australian Labor Party conducted itself in opposition when dealing with a crisis in immigration policy. It is in stark contrast to those opposite, who are again seeking to play politics with this issue, simply because it is a policy put forward by the Australian Labor Party. It is sad that the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite cannot show the same bipartisanship and the same leadership that was shown by the then leader of the Australian Labor Party, Kim Beazley. Their actions, unfortunately, weaken our democracy and the faith of the Australian people in this parliament.

This government would prefer that it did not have to develop a Malaysia plan. We would prefer that we did not have to negotiate this policy with our regional partners; but, unfortunately, the fact is that we do need to do that. There is a crisis in this area and we must provide an effective deterrent to the product that people smugglers are selling. This is the only way to save lives. I again say to the Greens that I know they believe their policy on onshore processing is a humanitarian one, but the fact is it will not stop the unsafe boat journeys; it will not stop people smugglers selling trips on boats to Australia. One child drowning is one child too many. We have to provide an effective deterrent, and the Malaysia plan is the only credible effective deterrent negotiated in concert with our regional partners that this government has put forward. That is the advice of the experts in this field. That is the advice of Andrew Metcalfe, the former Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, a person who has been described by the former immigration minister herself, Amanda Vanstone, as a first-class public servant. That is the advice of many who work in the field.

I do not doubt the opposition's passion on this issue and I do not doubt their belief, but I do dispute their belief that the executive government should not have the support to implement a policy that this government believes will work. Support was given to the then government almost a decade ago with Kim Beazley as the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that our policy is an effective deterrent and that it will work.

In conclusion, Tony Abbott is a surf lifesaver. He makes much political mileage from wearing the budgie smugglers and the red-and-yellow cap. It is time for Tony Abbott to show some of the spirit of surf lifesaving—to agree to compromise and negotiate to stop vulnerable people, particularly children, drowning at sea and to give serious consideration to the Malaysia plan.