Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (16:41): We have heard some grandiose language from those opposite today, from the member for Curtin and the member for Cook. We have heard phrases such as the 'dead end of policy failure', 'gross incompetence' et cetera. We have heard since the High Court decision comments by the self-styled and self-opinionated shadow Attorney-General about Nauru. For all of the opposition's criticisms leading up to the High Court decision, I do not recall the shadow Attorney-General pontificating that it would fail legally. I do not recall them saying that they knew the law, that they had expertise in that area and that it would fail on those grounds. We did have the member for Cook parading around with a video outside some purported camps in Malaysia. This is the same man who in a Lowy Institute speech on 30 November 2010 put an alternative about Australian immigration. He talked of sending people back to Iran. I am not here today to defend Malaysia. It is, however, a democracy by any standards. It is a multicultural society. It is a former member of the Commonwealth and has some nuances of its court systems. We saw that a former minister who was victimised at least had some legal rights. We see these people parading around saying how dreadful it would be that people go back to Malaysia. Obviously this government negotiated with Malaysia to ensure some protection for the people who were being sent back, but on 30 November last year the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, said to the Lowy Institute that he would send people back to Iran and Pakistan—that he would have a 'returns policy'. They have the effrontery today to say that Malaysia was the end of Western civilisation. I think the kinds of associations we have with Malaysia, for all its faults, are such that they would lead us to say that it is a preferable policy to that which he put forward. They talk about dead ends of policy, but I wonder where we would be if he had had the chance to operate those kinds of policies back then. We also had them come in here today with crocodile tears about people drowning at sea, about people who are self-harming and about people who are rioting. Somehow they have forgotten about Cornelia Rau and they have forgotten about Solon; they have forgotten about the millions of dollars the Australian taxpayer has had to fork out for those kinds of failures in detention. They are ignoring, as they well know, the kinds of reforms that were instituted at the beginning of the new government in relation to what happens in detention. The problems we still have in maintaining conditions there because of the numbers arriving are not easy for Labor or Liberal governments, but, as they well know, the kinds of protections that have been brought in since the change of government are very significant. Another point I would turn to is this disgust at the dismantlement of their policies. They think everything has collapsed because we got rid of temporary protection visas and Nauru. Mr Entsch: Yes. Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: I want to cite the member for Murray, a friend of the person interjecting opposite, who was their spokesperson at one stage. On 1 December 2008 she said, and this is a very timely comment I have to agree, 'The closure of Nauru and Manus Island … of course they had basically—what shall we say—outlived their need … I do not think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we've got of course Christmas Island.' Today they are saying that this government must operate Nauru and no other alternative in the whole world. Back then, as I said, on 1 December on 2SM, a reputable station, she made the comment that Nauru had outlived its time. Mr Entsch interjecting— Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: If the member opposite is not satisfied with that—there might be some mistake in that quote, I do not think there is—she went further on 16 April 2009 in the Australian, a reputable source according to the member opposite. She said about the Pacific solution: We no longer have that requirement because we've got an alternative place which is in our excised migration zone, Christmas Island. Today and in the weeks past the opposition will not cooperate with this government to get a policy to have some controls on the entry of boats to this country, because we will not go along with Nauru, and yet in 2008 and 2009 there was no need for this alternative. They were getting very excited today about whether or not the Prime Minister had said that 90 per cent of the Nauru people came to Australia or whether it was 70 per cent to Australia and 20 per cent to New Zealand. What a minor issue that is in this broad nationally important issue. Quite frankly, as members on this side have said, it was no disincentive to those claimants to be sent to New Zealand. We all know, for instance, that Fijian Indians predominantly went to New Zealand to come to Australia because of New Zealand's more liberal immigration policy on recognising claims from Fiji. We know, despite some toughening up in social security in recent years, that vast numbers of New Zealanders, which they would become, would eventually come to Australia. Even if for a moment we give them some concessions with regard to that statistical irrelevancy then it certainly would mean that most of those people came to Australia. They talk about a blow-out of costs; they talk about deaths at sea. I do not recall any concern by them when many people died under their policies. The other point is that this government, like any government, needs to have some controls over immigration policy. If we are to have a humanitarian refugee intake which reflects the problems of the time then we, the Australian government, must have some controls about who is coming in in that 13,750 people each year. If we do not, if the opposition does not cooperate with us in getting the government some control in this policy area, again this country cannot respond to the United Nations or even the UNHCR when they come to this government and say to us, 'These Bhutanese have been in camps for 17 years in Nepal. Will you help us take some?' Australia, Canada, America and New Zealand can say: 'Yes, we will help you because we have some control. We will determine some of the people in that intake.' Australia turned around and took 1,000 Bhutanese over a three-year period. To give credit to those opposite, equally when the UNHCR said: 'Australia has not been interested enough in Africa. We have crises in Congo, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone. We have many widows with large families that have no protection,' the previous Liberal government could turn around and say, 'Yes, we will set aside one-third of Australia's refugee humanitarian intake for Africans.' Similarly, in the last year or so, the current government has reacted to the request, again from the UNHCR, that we should take Burmese. In years past the government of this country, when requested by the UNHCR—by the way, the UNHCR says this country has the best settlement process in the world—could turn around and say that we will take some Burmese Rohingya who have been in camps in Bangladesh for long periods. We cannot do that if the opposition is making sure that we cannot do anything about boat arrivals. If they are digging in in some arrogant attempt at partisan politics to avoid supporting the national interest by giving the government of this country, Labor or Liberal, executive power to determine where we can negotiate agreements to send people offshore, then it is on their head. For all their rhetoric about security and migration policy which has international legitimacy, it is on their head if they do not cooperate with this government in making sure that the executive can indeed have power in this area. We have seen, as I said, much rhetoric today from them. They talked also about non-discriminatory policy. They complained that for a period of time this government said that we would look at the situation in Afghanistan and in Sri Lanka before we will examine some cases. I know that during the election before last they went around to Middle Eastern Christian communities in the presence of migration department officials and they said to those very biased, very bigoted groups who have had a bad experience in the Middle East, 'If you elect us, not one Muslim will be let in from the Middle East.' They knew that they could not legally do it, but they went around saying that they would determine our immigration policy on a discriminatory basis. They have the hide to come in here today and say that—because there were conflicting views from various NGOs about the situation of human rights in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and we thought there was a need to slow down processing to see what the state of their internal human rights was—that is discrimination when they went around before that election— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! Before I call the Chief Government Whip, I note in the gallery a school from my constituency, the Nanango State High School, setting a great example of behaviour as well. I commend them for that and welcome them to the gallery. With those few words, I call the Chief Government Whip.