Wilkie, Andrew, MP

Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:27): Last Saturday morning in Hobart I attended the Doctors for Refugees rally. It was quite a successful event. It was early in the day, and the weather was not very good, but probably some 300 attended that rally. Obviously there were a lot of medical professionals. There were all sorts of doctors, a lot of GPs, nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and a number of other members of the community. It was a very passionate rally, and it was obviously put on so that people could express their concern about the bill that is before the parliament today, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. I heard all sorts of comments from the people at the rally, such as 'excessive', 'silly', 'nonsensical', 'unnecessary' and 'ridiculous'. Clearly the people at that rally understand that this bill is unacceptable and should not be supported. I will not support it, and I can say with a great deal of confidence that those people at the rally in Hobart—and I understand that there were similar rallies right around the country put on by Doctors for Refugees—are clearly the tip of the iceberg. There clearly are a great many people in the community who are appalled, not just at the bill before the parliament today but at this country's treatment of asylum seekers over many, many years. One person came up to me and said: 'You know, Andrew? Sometime in the future they'll write a book—or books—about these days, and they'll be astounded at how we could have been so cruel, not unlike the way these days we talk about the stolen generations and other terrible injustices that have occurred in our nation's history.' But the people there at the rally on Saturday were also concerned with our response to asylum seekers generally. They understand very clearly that our response to asylum seekers is unethical, they understand very clearly that our response to asylum seekers is illegal and they understand very clearly that our response to asylum seekers is impractical. Every way you look at it, the way this country—the way this government and other governments—have responded to asylum seekers has been completely and utterly unacceptable. When I say unethical, I regret to say that although many people come into this place and wring their hands and try to look compassionate and act compassionately and talk about stopping deaths at sea, they do not care about deaths at sea. They care about national security. They care about pandering to the xenophobia, racism and bigotry in our community. They care about trying to leverage off those thought lines in our community for their political self-interest. We are a rich and lucky country. We are one of the most fortunate and richest countries in the world. We have it within our capacity and within our hearts to be compassionate when people come to our shores and claim to be fleeing for their lives. We have it within our capacity and within our hearts to give them protection, to hear their claims, and, if their claims are accurate, to give them a permanent refuge in our fortunate country. Our response to asylum seekers is downright unethical and it is downright illegal. Over many years this parliament and previous governments have signed up to a number of international agreements. We signed up because people realised that those agreements mattered and that signing them was the right thing to do. We signed up to the refugee convention. We signed up to the Rome statute. We signed up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But now we are happy just to tear them all up and walk away as though those international agreements do not matter. Yet, when it does serve our interests, we are the first country to criticise other countries for breaking international law and for not living up to their agreements. I will single out one of those: the Rome statute. It is a crime to forcibly transfer people to a third country. It is a crime to forcibly detain someone indefinitely without trial. It is a crime to keep people in inhumane conditions. This country, this government, is guilty of crimes in international law. And what we do is impractical. Over the past four years, from 2012 to 2016, our offshore processing regime has cost $10.3 billion. Over the next four years, from 2016 to 2020, it will cost another $5.7 billion. These are enormous sums of money. And what about last Sunday, or was it Monday morning, at about two o'clock in the morning, when an asylum seeker who had been on Nauru for 12 months but had come to Australia for surgery, was gotten out of bed, some say at two o'clock in the morning, and flown by RAAF aircraft from Melbourne to Brisbane and then by RAAF aircraft to Nauru? What did that cost the taxpayer? What an absurd theatre, designed to do nothing more than to punish some poor soul who did nothing more than make it to Australia and claim to be fleeing for his life. But no expense is to be spared to punish and to be cruel and put in place a deterrent to other poor souls—that we would get him up at two o'clock in the morning at Broadmeadows, put him on a RAAF aircraft, and fly him back to Nauru. It is for these sorts of reasons that I must move an amendment today. In fact, I will now formally move the amendment that has been circulated in my name. It is very brief and it is self-explanatory. I move: That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the House declines to give the bill a second reading and instead: (1) acknowledges that the global refugee crisis is for Australia a humanitarian challenge and not a border security problem; (2) notes that Australia's response to asylum seekers will inevitably require a genuinely regional solution involving most, if not all south-east Asian countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, and be approved by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; (3) insists that Australia's response to asylum seekers be consistent with all of our international treaty obligations including the Refugee Convention, the Rome Statute, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (4) calls on the Government to develop and implement a sophisticated policy response to this challenge that as far as possible deals with the situation in source countries, countries of first asylum and transit countries.' I do not know whether the government and the opposition will support this amendment. I might still be enjoying the optimism of youth, but I feel in my heart that maybe there is still a chance that the government and the opposition will support this important amendment. I suppose I should not hold out much hope. What I am about to say is not a criticism of any one individual—there are a lot of good individuals in both the government and the opposition—but collectively the government is happy to play politics with the lives of people, play politics with asylum seekers, is happy to pander to those xenophobes and bigots and racists in our community and is happy to bring on something like this bill today which I fully suspect has little to do with asylum seekers and a lot to do with trying to wedge the opposition. But, to the opposition's credit, it has not fallen for it. I suppose I do not hold out a lot of hope that the government will support the amendment. I hold out a little bit of hope that the Labor Party will support it given that they are opposing this bill today. But I am not going to let the Labor Party get off scot free. I have seen members of the Labor Party standing up here today and yesterday wringing their hands and talking about the horrors of the way Australia treats asylum seekers, the horrors of this bill and how nonsensical it is. They are making some quite good points about how silly it is that we would treat some people in this way, how cruel it is that we would treat some people in the way that this bill would require, but I am not going to let the Labor Party off the hook, because in just about every respect the Labor Party's position or policy on asylum seekers is identical to the Liberal Party's, identical to the National Party's. It was the Labor Party that created mandatory detention; it is the Labor Party that continues to support offshore processing. It is the Labor Party that approves of boat towbacks. I am not going to let either side off the hook here. You are both peas in a pod; you are both as bad as each other. You are both a black mark on this nation's history. When in years to come they write books about this shameful period in Australian history, they will not let the Labor Party off the hook, because they will put the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party on the same list—parties that regard this as a border security problem, parties that regard this as a political challenge that, if they do not handle it really cleverly, will backfire on them at the opinion polls. I say to the Liberal Party and to the National Party and to the Labor Party, how about you start treating these poor souls who are fleeing for their lives as human beings, how about you start treating this as a humanitarian challenge? It is not a border security problem for Australia, it is a humanitarian challenge for Australia. How about the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party starting to see this for what it is and stop treating it as a border security problem? Start acting like real leaders, start standing up in front of the community and fighting for something. Say that this country has an ethical obligation, this country has a legal obligation, to stand for what is right and that when people come to our shores, whether it be by air or by boat, we give them protection, we hear their claim and we give them permanent refuge in our lucky country for as long as they want to stay here. That would be the right thing to do. That would be the legal thing to do—it would be entirely consistent with the refugee convention, it would be entirely consistent with the Rome statute, it would be entirely consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and it would be entirely consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And how about the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party put their heads together for once and stop being so confrontational and start acting in a collegiate way—I am sure the crossbench will be happy to work with you in a collegiate way—and develop a sophisticated response to asylum seekers and look at ways to settle the situation down in source countries? They should look at ways to give real assistance to countries of first asylum—countries like Pakistan and Iran, who currently get next to no aid from us—and at working cooperatively with countries in our region, yes to clamp down on the people smugglers but also to develop a genuine regional solution. Nauru is not a regional processing centre. Nauru is a gulag. It is a failed state and it is a gulag no better than the hulks we used to put convicts on. How about we put our heads together and come up with a genuine regional solution that is approved by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, where people who come into our region are taken into care, are processed quickly and are given asylum in a number of countries, including this country. I make the point again: we are one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world. If anyone can do this right, it is us. Yet we are a pariah. We are not setting an example for the rest of the world. The minister comes in here and the Prime Minister comes in here and talks about how in Europe they are envious of us and they are impressed by the way we deal with asylum seekers. What rot! No-one can be proud of the fact that we have mandatory detention, that we have offshore processing, that we have boat towbacks, that we treat these people like criminals. We even call them illegals. They are not illegals; they are human beings. They are irregular immigrants and they are asylum seekers, which means they are trying to get to refuge. We should bring them in, give them protection, hear their claims and give them permanent refuge in this country, if their claims are fair dinkum. If they are not fair dinkum, send them back. But most of them are fair dinkum. It is about time we started acting like an ethical country that has respect for the rule of law. It is about time the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party all stopped worrying about political self-interest and started acting like leaders. I tell you what: if you started acting like leaders, your political self-interest would probably improve, because all of a sudden people would stop holding you in contempt and they would start respecting you. Crikey, you might even get people to vote for you. No wonder people are supporting people like the member for Melbourne, the member for Indi and the member for Mayo. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Brian Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded? The member for Indi will need to seek leave, because she has already spoken on this bill.