George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cash today relating to asylum seekers.

This morning in the House of Representatives the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship introduced amendments to the Migration Act to try to repair the collapse of the government's border protection policy as a result of the decision of the High Court three weeks ago. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, announced that the opposition would support that bill, which is quite a detailed bill, provided that the government acceded to one short amendment that the opposition will move. The purpose of that amendment is to instate Nauru as an offshore processing country.

Quite unbelievably, the government, rather than reach out to the opposition—whose cooperation the government has sought and whose cooperation has been freely offered—the Prime Minister refuses to accept that amendment. What does that tell you about the government? This is a government that refuses to consider the only option—offshore processing in Nauru—that has ever solved the problem of unlawful asylum seekers coming to Australia. The only option they refuse to consider is the only option that has ever worked. How can anybody take seriously the good faith of the government on this matter, faced with a catastrophic collapse of their policy?

There is a reason, and it is a very ignoble reason, why the only option they refuse to consider is the only option that has ever worked. It is because, if they were to do so, they would be conceding that the opposition had it right all along. And the one thing this Prime Minister's pride will not ever let her do is to concede that the government got it wrong and the opposition got it right.

Mr Deputy President, let me just remind you that, when the Pacific solution, based on offshore processing in Nauru, was introduced in 2001, the number of unlawful arrivals dwindled to a negligible number. In the following six years, there were 18 boats, an average of three per year throughout the period that the Nauru processing centre was in operation. Why was that? Because it did break the people smugglers' business model, because only 43 per cent of the people who were processed in Nauru ended up in Australia. A majority of those people who sought to put themselves and their families into the hands of the people smugglers so that they could get to Australia failed to do so. There were 1,637 people in all processed on Nauru, of whom only 705 were resettled in Australia having been assessed as genuine refugees—43 per cent.

Senator Pratt interjecting—

If you doubt that figure, Senator Pratt, it comes from a press release by Mr Bowen, your colleague, on 2 February 2010. Given that there is a proven solution to this problem, why then, when the opposition is moving an amendment to enable the government to reinstate that proven solution to the problem, would a government be so blind, so pig-headed, so stubborn, so arrogant, so consumed with overweening pride, as to say to a cooperative opposition: 'No. The one thing we won't do is take your successful idea on board as our policy, because it was your idea and to adopt it would mean admitting our failure'?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think in those few moments we got a taste of the arrogance that is driving the position of the coalition in this debate, an arrogance which means—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. We are accustomed to the fact that the courtesies we offer the opposition in these debates are not reciprocated, but the death stare is above and beyond the call!

What we have here is an act of sabotage from those opposite. They may well argue that Nauru is their solution. They are entitled to do so. But they do not seek to simply do that. After having strutted the political stage last week dressed in the clothing of bipartisanship, having offered the Prime Minister all of the assistance that they could muster so that we can come to a joint solution, a bipartisan solution, around this terribly vexed question, what have we seen when the rubber hits the road? The simple answer to that is: sabotage.

The greatest fear in the breasts of those opposite is not that the Malaysian solution will fail but that it will succeed. Their greatest fear is that the boats will stop coming when the people-smuggling model is broken by the Malaysian solution. So what have those opposite constructed? They have constructed this fig leaf which is that they will only assist the government in amending the legislation insofar as it realises the policies of the coalition. We do not have this hubris in the debate. We are suggesting to the parliament that the legislation be amended so that offshore processing can be enabled. We do not seek to stipulate where that offshore processing happens.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

The simple truth of it is, Senator Brandis, that, if in the future you and your colleagues form a government, you will come to this parliament with a piece of legislation very similar, if not identical, to that being put into the House of Representatives by the Labor Party. At that moment, your cynical sabotage in these days will come to the fore.

It is simply an outrage that those opposite will only amend the legislation insofar as it forces the government's hand in Nauru. Our proposition is a far more sensible one. Over 80 per cent of people start their journey to Australia in Malaysia. That is a matter of fact. We simply propose a Malaysian solution, the detail of which is out. Your clinging to the Nauru solution is a matter for you. You can take that to the people as you please, but what you should not be allowed to do is to escape this debate on the basis that, if the Labor Party government does not do what you want it to do, then it can do nothing. On the basis of that proposition, you will not only lose the public debate; you will also lose your pretence to the moral high ground. There is no moral high ground for you in this debate. You can either make good the pledge of the Leader of the Opposition and assist the government in coming up with a piece of legislation that enables offshore processing or, alternatively, you can cling to sabotage in the face of all logic. If you cling to sabotage in the face of all logic, then you will follow the road just set out by Senator Brandis. If you say that the government can only do offshore processing if it does it where you want, how you want, when you want, if that is the arrogant proposition you insist on putting to this parliament, then it will be you that has slain offshore processing. It will be at your feet that offshore processing fails.

We have negotiated with the countries in this region and we have done so in the context of preparing a proper framework. The Bali process has been a part of that. Part of the Malaysian solution is an enhanced commitment to the humanitarian and refugee intake. We are proud of the fact—and those opposite pretend that they are too—that this country takes some 13,500 refugees. Under the proposal put forward by this government, that would increase by a further 1,000 a year. That, we think, is a fine thing. The Malaysian solution not only enhances this government's and this country's response to refugees and increases the refugee intake but also means that we are working with our regional partners on a regional solution that tackles the people-smuggling model. We are taking away the product that those in Jakarta— (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know where to start with that claptrap. I really do not. We are told that the opposition is engaged in an act of sabotage. I remind the parliamentary secretary that the government has sabotaged a succession of its own options for offshore processing before today. They wanted to go to East Timor because they wanted offshore processing. They did not talk to the East Timorese and it failed. They wanted to go to Manus Island. They have not thought that through. They wanted to go to Malaysia and they have only barely scraped that deal together. Even now, it is not clear whether that will work.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And it's illegal.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And it is illegal, according to the High Court. They claim they have regional partners. Name one. Name a regional partner. Some flimsy deal with Malaysia where they give us 4,000 of their asylum seekers and we give them 800 is not a regional arrangement. That is a bilateral deal between Australia and Malaysia which involves no other country. It is not regional at all.

Labor has cycled through a whole succession of failed policies and now finds itself in the position where its latest option is its only option. The only thing it will accept by way of offshore processing is the one option it needs the parliament to support and, not surprisingly, the parliament, as far as I can see, unanimously but for the Labor Party is saying, 'No, Malaysia is not an acceptable option. Malaysia is the worst possible option of all the options available to the government right now.'

We do not demand that they implement Nauru as the only place on which to have offshore processing. We think Nauru is the best place because we know Nauru works. Nauru worked for six years under the previous government, in combination with temporary protection visas and turning back the boats when safe to do so. But our amendment, the Nauru amendment before the House of Representatives at the moment, does not demand that only Nauru be accepted. It only demands that countries which are signatories to the convention on refugees be considered for offshore processing. There are 148 of those options.

The government knows that it is in a bind. The government knows that its preference of recent days for offshore processing now boils down to being prepared to be flexible, and it needs to make a decision. The opposition is not saying, 'No, they cannot have offshore processing.' The opposition is saying that they do have a way out of this dilemma. They can climb aboard the boat to freedom we are offering them, which is a proven method of turning back the people smugglers and deterring the business of people smugglers—and that is to accept that a country such as Nauru provides a valid and viable way of solving their present problem.

As Senator Brandis has pointed out, the only thing that stands between this government sinking into a morass of failure with respect to this matter and returning to a policy of onshore processing, which we know will lead to an explosion again in the number of boats arriving on our shores, and the only thing that stops them from grasping the solution in front of them is pride. It is pride that prevents them from acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, John Howard had it right with the Nauru Pacific solution. Maybe he got it right. They have spent so much time and so much political capital knocking down the solution over a period of six or seven years that they now cannot bring themselves to say, 'Maybe he was actually right.'

The fact is that it is not our job in the opposition to sort out the mess that this government has got itself into with one failed policy after another in this area. But we are offering a way out—a simple way out with a very small amendment to the government legislation, introduced into the other place today. It is the Nauru amendment. All it takes is for them to do the right thing and accept that it is a way out. I particularly appeal to people like Senator Cameron—who has argued within his own party that the Malaysian solution does, indeed, breach Australia's international obligations—to do the right thing and cross the floor to support this legislation with our amendment when the opportunity arises. I have crossed the floor before. It can be done. Senator Cameron has the same privilege and right as a member of parliament. If he believes what he said about not going down this iniquitous path of the Malaysian solution, he can do the same thing. (Time expired)

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

Once again what we have seen from those opposite is a complete lack of leadership on a very important public policy debate in this country. We have seen a complete ignorance of the facts and of the advice of experts on a very difficult and emotive area of public policy. Unfortunately, it is becoming a bit of a habit of those opposite to ignore the facts, to ignore the advice of experts and to spread untruths in the Australian community on important public policy issues. We have seen that again today when they tried to rubbish the Treasury modelling on a carbon price. They have said that Labor's plan will not work and they have spread untruths about that. They have ignored the advice of all expert economists and expert scientists when it comes to that public policy issue, and here we see it again on a very important, very emotive and very difficult public policy issue—one on which in many countries there is bipartisan support and leadership from both opposition and government when it comes to dealing with it. They are ignoring the advice of experts.

The Leader of the Opposition was offered a briefing from departmental advisers and from no less than the head of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Andrew Metcalfe, a person who I will add that former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Amanda Vanstone has described as a first-class public servant—an overwhelming endorsement from a previous immigration minister. What does Tony Abbott do, upon the advice of Andrew Metcalfe? He completely ignores his advice. He completely ignores the advice in the wake of the High Court decision. The Leader of the Opposition was briefed on the ramifications of the High Court decision. The Leader of the Opposition was briefed on the fact that—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thistlethwaite is saying that the government is ignoring Mr Metcalfe's advice that the Malaysia solution was based on conjecture.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Senator Thistlethwaite.

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

No, Senator Brandis, I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is ignoring the departmental advice, the advice of Andrew Metcalfe, who has said on several occasions to the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite that the Nauru alternative will not work. Nauru will not work because it is too costly, Nauru will not work because it is an ineffective model and Nauru will not work because it will not stop the boats. It will not stop asylum seekers risking their lives and it will not stop the insidious trade of people smuggling to our country.

The facts are—these were explained to the Leader of the Opposition—that 95 per cent of refugees that were processed through Nauru ended up in Australia or New Zealand. They ignore the fact that there are no facilities currently available and ready on Nauru to process asylum seekers. In fact, much of the processing centre has been given away to the Nauru people. It has been gifted to the Nauru people. It is providing pergolas over barbeques for the people of Nauru. These are facts that are being ignored by those opposite. They also ignore the fact that many asylum seekers were left to rot on Nauru. For 1,637 asylum seekers that were accommodated in Nauru and on Manus Island the average stay was 501 days—approximately 1⅓ years. One man was left to rot on Nauru for 1,938 days—over five years. More than 120 people, including 19 children, I might add, were left to rot for over three years.

We understand that Nauru will not work. Labor's plan ensures that we meet our international obligations but we provide an effective deterrence to people smuggling. Labor's plan ensures that we also increase our humanitarian intake, that we understand that there are caps that need to be associated with our immigration intake and that we will give priority to those people who are in camps, those waiting in camps as a result of affliction in Burma, those waiting in camps as a result of famine in the Horn of Africa. (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am used to the minister, when responding to questions, stretching the truth; but I have to say, in the short time that Senator Thistlethwaite has been here, I am very disappointed that he seems to have decided to indulge in the same type of misleading of the Senate that the minister does. The statistics that Senator Thistlethwaite quotes in relation to Nauru are just plain wrong. They are not the statistics that Mr Metcalfe, the secretary of the department, gave to Senator Brandis and others when the coalition was briefed by Mr Metcalfe in relation to the government's Malaysia solution. They are also not the statistics that are quoted by the Labor Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen, in a press release dated Tuesday, 2 February 2010. These are the statistics, the correct statistics, as put forward by Mr Bowen, the immigration minister. Under John Howard's Pacific solution 1,637 people were taken to Nauru. How many were resettled in Australia? This is the minister for immigration's statistic: 705. Seven hundred and five people out of 1,637—that is, 43 per cent—according to the minister for immigration's own press release, were resettled in Australia. It is not the 95 per cent that the Labor Party likes to throw around so that they can distort the situation as it was in Nauru. For those on the other side to stand up and say that Nauru did not work, which part of the former Howard government's policies that stopped the boats don't you understand?

What we saw in question time today was yet again a government that, because of misplaced pride, because of sheer stubbornness, will not accept that if they want offshore processing they can have it tomorrow. It is the Prime Minister of Australia who consistently tells the people that she wants offshore processing. Well, if the Prime Minister of Australia listens to the coalition, she will know that this can be delivered by us in agreement with the Labor Party tomorrow. Bring it on tomorrow and we will vote for it. All that we ask is this: we ask the Prime Minister to keep her word to the Australian people when she said again to the Australian people, 'I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the refugee convention.' So to ensure that we have responsible government in Australia the coalition are putting forward an amendment that will ensure that the current Prime Minister of Australia is actually able to honour her word to the Australian people that she will rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the refugee convention. That is exactly what our amendment ensures. It ensures that, when Australia transfers an asylum seeker to a third party, that third party has to be a signatory to the United Nations refugee convention.

Our amendment is not limited to Nauru, and the Labor Party know that. Our amendment asks only that, in terms of responsible government, in discharging our moral obligations and in ensuring that the Prime Minister of Australia keeps her word to the Australian people that she will never, ever send a person to a country that has not signed up to the UN convention, the Labor Party accept our small amendment. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.