Asylum Seekers – Tony Windsor’s Statement

Yesterday, regular Question Time in the House moved aside and Asylum Seekers took centre stage, from 2PM until 8PM, our elected representatives talked about refugees.

Tony Windsor, the voice of reason, during a highly politicised discussion. Here is part of what was said, edited for clarity:

 

Tony Windsor (New England) (17:16):
I would like to speak briefly to the proposals that are before the parliament today. This has been a very interesting day for our parliament. I would just like to thank those people from across the political spectrum who took the time earlier today to come together and sit down and discuss this issue with a view to further discussions at a later time.

This is not the way in which I thought the day would unfold—not that I dictate the way days unfold—but it has put people in very difficult positions. There is urgency, there is no doubt about that.

Obviously the boat that capsized today has brought both sides to the table to promote their agendas, but the thing that disappoints me a little bit is that there is still the smell of politics hanging over today’s proceedings. I wonder if the boat had not capsized whether we would be in here or whether we would have gone into a slightly broader process in coming to some sort of consensus. But I thank the more than 40 MPs who came this morning, particularly those whose ideas probably were not welcomed by their own sides of politics, including the member for Moore, the member for Pearce, the member for Riverina and the member for O’Connor.

The contribution that some of those people and others have made in the past few days in particular is noteworthy, including Steve Georganas and Rob Oakeshott. There is no doubt that has been a contributing pressure factor, but obviously the recent capsizing of another boat has compounded upon that and hence we have gone into the fairly rushed debate today.

What is coming through loud and clear to me is that no solution is going to be perfect. I see people obviously wrestling with their own consciences in relation to how they try to deal with this. There are demands in the community for it to be dealt with in some way. There are political positions that are being taken by various groups and, in the main, I respect those positions. There has also been the political positioning taken by some that has delayed outcomes in the past and delayed constructive debate across the political spectrum to find solutions. If the amendment gets up today we still have a process that is not perfect; if the Oakeshott bill gets up, it is not perfect either.

Whether either of these things gets up, and one will most probably, it is important to say—and this is where I agree with Andrew Wilkie’s proposal—that regardless of what happens today we do need to review the outcome of the process. It would be well worthwhile to have a group of parliamentarians—it may be a group similar to this morning, or another group altogether; I am not trying to dictate the terms of that—from across the political spectrum work on the longer term processes that may be required. In listening to members today, and irrespective of which one of these two options gets through the lower House—and then there is the debate as to whether it gets through the Senate—I think there is still a lot of work to be done.

So I encourage the bipartisanship that has been displayed—genuine concern about genuine issues—and propose that we take it beyond today and try to improve on whatever outcome comes through the parliament in the next hour or so.

 

Source: Hansard
BILLS Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 Consideration in Detail

Asylum Seekers – Malcolm Turnbull’s Statement

Yesterday, regular Question Time in the House moved aside and Asylum Seekers took centre stage, from 2PM until 8PM, our elected representatives talked about refugees.

Malcolm Turnbull, long regarded by those on the Left as a moderate, in a discussion about the deaths of asylum seekers made the following statement “So what is this about, other than an effort to embarrass the coalition and to put pressure on the coalition?”. Here is part of what was said, edited for clarity:

 

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth) (14:47):
There are no measures deployed by governments in the battle against people-smuggling which are particularly palatable. All of them have great difficulties, contradictions and painful choices associated with them. They all have aspects which are cruel, but it is our jobs as legislators and it is the Prime Minister’s job as the head of our government to reach a balance between ensuring that there is a complete end to people-smuggling on the one hand, which could obviously be achieved with the cruellest imaginable measures, and on the other hand for Australia to maintain its duty as a compassionate and generous country respecting its obligations under the convention.

Australia’s domestic policies were changed and the arrivals increased and increased and increased. As a consequence, given the nature of the vessels that these desperate people embark upon, the nature of the seas and, all too often, the inexperience of the captains, the deaths are increasing as well. And so we have come full circle and we are back here seeking to find a way to stop the people-smuggling trade.

The government wants the opposition to agree to the Malaysian solution. It states in its defence the testimony of Andrew Metcalfe, the head of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, a very experienced man, no doubt. He says that the Malaysian solution will be effective. He recognises there are problems with it but he says it will be effective. Our objection to it is not whether it will be effective or not, because only time would tell, were it to be implemented, but because it fails to reach the right balance of protecting human rights. It abandons any human rights protection, the human rights protection contained in the convention.

Politics is the art of the possible. This nation, this parliament, needs to make a decision on this this week. The coalition has resolved not to support the Malaysia solution. That decision has been taken. The consequence of that is that even if this bill is passed in this chamber—and I do not doubt it may well be passed—it cannot possibly pass the Senate, so it can never be law. So what is this about, other than an effort to embarrass the coalition and to put pressure on the coalition?

I appeal to the Prime Minister to do this: to agree to the amendment. Let us pass the legislation so that Nauru can be reinstated. Let us do that; let us effectively reinstate not all but the bulk of the Howard government’s policy. If that does not work—because you will never know until you try these policies—then the Prime Minister has a basis to come back and argue that the balance between the humanitarian part of the equation and the desire to ensure border security should be re-examined. What the Prime Minister is doing is allowing her conception of the perfect to be the enemy of the good. There is something that can be achieved today. Nauru should be achieved. If it does not succeed then she has the opportunity to ask for stronger measures. (Time expired)

 

Source: Hansard
BILLS Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 Consideration in Detail

Asylum Seekers – Bob Katter’s Statement

Yesterday, regular Question Time in the House moved aside and Asylum Seekers took centre stage, from 2PM until 8PM, our elected representatives talked about refugees.

Katter voted with the Government. Here is part of what was said, edited for clarity:

 

Bob Katter (Kennedy) (19:12):

I have been listening to speeches in parliament for 39 years and today was probably one of the better exercises in hypocrisy that I have heard.

Mr Neville: How would you know?

Mr KATTER: Do not provoke me. I do not think that would be a really good idea, Paul Neville. The situation to me seems very simple. If you can get on a boat and get into Australia, then you would be a fool not to have a go. The people who are coming in are coming from countries where incomes may be $3,000. It seems to me the average income for the people who are coming in is about $3,000 a year. Here, even if you do not work, you are on $35,000 a year. It is a pretty good call.

Mr Neville: Come on!

Mr KATTER: The bloke in front of me here, the member for wherever he comes from—Bundaberg—says, ‘Come on!’ Are you disagreeing, my friend? Are you disagreeing that a person comes here because he will get a better standard of living? Oh, you are not—so stop interrupting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The member for Hinkler is not helping the situation. The member for Kennedy has the call.

Mr KATTER: On the figures that have been presented to me by both sides of this parliament, it would appear that if these people are processed—here or overseas—two-thirds of them will end up getting into Australia. I suspect the figure is a lot higher than that, but I will accept the figure that I have been given of two-thirds. So if you have a shot you have a two in three chance of getting in to what these people would probably consider a paradise. So why not have a go? They have a go and a lot of them die because no-one has told them that a lot of people die attempting to get here.

I voted against the Malaysian solution the first time and I think really it was for political reasons that I made the decision. I am ashamed to say that, but that may have been an element most certainly in my thinking at the time. But if you know that when you get on that boat you are going to be at the back of a queue of 250,000 people in Malaysia then there is not much point in getting on that boat. That is what we are talking about and voting on here. I will also be voting for the legislation being put forward by the opposition because I think it is better to have two horses in the race than one horse in the race. But it does not seem to me that too many other people in this place are too interested in that. They have got their idea and they are not going to change it, they are not going to compromise. From my experience, on both sides of the House I have been presented with that approach. I think that the Malaysian solution may not stay afloat in the longer term and we do have to go to another solution, but I just cannot but see that if you know that you get on the boat and you have two-thirds of a chance of getting into a country that they would consider to be paradise then it is worthwhile having a go.

My forebears and the forebears of most people in this House—all mine were here in 1870 or earlier—came out here and were prepared to live on a dirt floor in a galvanised iron shanty in the goldmining towns of Australia, as did the forebears of almost all those who were here before the Second World War. But these people are not coming here to live on a dirt floor in a galvanised iron shanty; none of them are going to do that. They are going to live in what is considered by most people on Earth to be fairly attractive circumstances. Unless you can demonstrate clearly to these people that if you get on the boat you will not get in here then this will continue and get considerably worse.

I have spoken in this place a thousand times that you live in a country that is empty. I represent an area that could support a population of 60 or 70 million people. The electorate of Kennedy has got the water and the land resources. This issue will bring it home to the rest of the world. As the United Nations lady from the Indian subcontinent said, ‘You will take these people because you are a country that can.’ I think that they are very ominous words for the people of Australia. The more attention that is brought to this issue, the worse our country is going to be. (Time expired)

 

Source: Hansard
BILLS Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 Consideration in Detail

Asylum Seekers – Joe Hockey’s Statement

Yesterday, regular Question Time in the House moved aside and Asylum Seekers took centre stage, from 2PM until 8PM, our elected representatives talked about refugees.

Joe Hockey, in an emotional speech, spoke out against the Asylum Seekers bill. However, he fully supported all the Howard Government actions which included shipping people off to Nauru and locking up children. Here is part of what was said, edited for clarity:

 

Joe Hockey (North Sydney) (19:17):
I am always reluctant to speak early in these debates. For a whole lot of personal reasons, the emotions run very deep in me in relation to refugees. The member for Kennedy said that his forebears came here in the 1870s. My father came here as a refugee on 3 September 1948. He came from a country where there was war. He had to wait his turn, but he was desperate to come here. The member for Kennedy is right: there is a great deal of hypocrisy from time to time in these debates. But I will say one thing deliberately to this parliament. I will never ever support a people swap where you can send a 13-year-old child unaccompanied to a country without supervision—never. It will be over my dead body. How dare people?

Some people say they are wrestling with their conscience. I am not; I know exactly what I want to do. The compromise that the Leader of the Opposition offered today went some way forward to offering a solution, be it Nauru, Manus Island or somewhere else. I fought with the previous Prime Minister, my Prime Minister, about Nauru. I opposed it until the moment he assured me that at all times Australians would be able to supervise the people who were sent there, that they would be protected, that they would have health care and education support—until he could assure me that those most vulnerable would be protected. That was when I agreed with him.

I was prepared to cross the floor in a previous government with an absolute majority in this place because I disagreed with the treatment of those most vulnerable by my Prime Minister. Until he assured me personally, together with the minister for immigration, that no child would ever be abandoned in another country once they had come under the guardian protection of Australia—until he assured me of that I would not support it. But he did.

This government is now asking us to support a situation where a 13-year-old child could be sent to another nation without any regard for their welfare after that moment. Even if we have words from the immigration minister about it being a case-by-case basis, it is the threat of it and from time to time the enactment of it that is the most damning thing for our conscience. That is why I feel entirely consistent. That is why I was so angry about being gagged before. I have wrestled, like many others, with their conscience on this debate but I am entirely consistent with my soul. I will sleep easy because I know from my own background and from what I have done in the past that I am going to be consistent no matter how painful it might be in the electorate, no matter how hard it might be explaining it to my constituents.

I rest easy on this because I can be entirely consistent with what beats within my soul.

 

Source: Hansard
BILLS Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 Consideration in Detail

Asylum Seekers – PM Gillard’s Statement

Yesterday, regular Question Time in the House moved aside and Asylum Seekers took centre stage, from 2PM until 8PM, our elected representatives talked about refugees.

First up was Prime Minister Gillard, as the PM said ‘No-one won, no-one lost; we just got something done’. Here is part of what was said, edited for clarity:

 

Prime Minister Gillard (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00):
I can advise the House that a major rescue operation is underway right now, 107 nautical miles north of Christmas Island and 100 nautical miles south of Indonesia. As this parliament sits, we have planes in the air and merchant vessels on the scene and HMAS Maitland has arrived. The information I will give the House now is the latest information available.

In view of these events and in view of the events of last week, I want to say to the parliament now most sincerely that I believe the time for the party divide on this issue is at an end. We have seen too much tragedy, and I cannot—and I do not believe other members of parliament can—now sit here with the prospect of more tragedy to come.

In these circumstances I have requested that Mr Oakeshott be prepared at this moment to bring on his bill on immigration amendments so that the House can now, I hope, by leave and in agreement, deal with it to finality. As the House may be aware, that bill has finalised its second reading and, consequently, we would just need to deal with the third reading stages of the bill.

I actually think it is of significance to this parliament that this is a bill brought to this place by an Independent member of parliament. Given all of the circumstances here, I, as the Labor leader, would want to walk from this place saying, ‘No-one won, no-one lost; we just got something done.’ And I think an Independent member’s bill gives us all the opportunity to do just that—to go from this place saying: ‘No-one won; no-one lost. It wasn’t about party politics. It wasn’t about who has got what sort of party ticket in their pocket. We just worked together to get something done.’

I have reason to believe that the bill moved by Mr Oakeshott may be in a position to command majority support in this House of Representatives. I seek to have that tested now and the bill dealt with to finality.

 

Source: Hansard
BILLS; Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012;Consideration in Detail;Division – 27 Jun 2012