![RB_Anzac1[1].jpg](http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/wp-content/header-images/RB_Anzac1[1].jpg "RB_Anzac1[1].jpg")
Speech to Parliament: The Asylum Seeker Impasse
Mr 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.
Finding that balance is very hard. There was a time after the election of the Labor government in 2007 when there was a view—and I do not suggest that view as anything other than sincerely held—on the part of the Government that the rate of people-smuggling, the rate of asylum seeker arrivals, was entirely a function of push factors and that Australian domestic policy was irrelevant. I recall, as Leader of the Opposition at the time, saying again and again that the push factors varied, certainly. Sometimes they were immense; sometimes they were even more immense. But they were always immense and therefore the factor that impacted on the rate of arrival was Australia’s domestic policy.
Well, we had an experiment. 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 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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
13 Responses to “Speech to Parliament: The Asylum Seeker Impasse”
I pray that some day Australia has the honour to call you Prime Miniister – your speech about this most sensitive issue confirms this fact. I came to Ausstralia through the Refugee Humanitarian Program & this situation tears me apart. Mr Howard did some good things in this area a compromise between those programs & new ideas should find a resolution to this tragic occurrances.
Kind Regards
Carolina Cabezas
In my opinion both parties have credible responses to solve this issue and as a nation we should put politics aside and commit to law off shore processing. Both Nauru and Malaysian solutions should be permitted by Law. Let’s all agree that we do not want people smuggling and do away with the partisan political theatrics. Unite the country and get on with it.
Malcolm – bring this up on your ipad, and take it across to Bowen, and ask him if this is compassion…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-472442/Malaysian-minister-defends-caning-prisoners-gruesome-video-appears-internet.html
re Peter Q comment:
I saw the article and if the statement about the person published is true, this is the way we should punish drugs peddlers in Australia
As far as the LNP position is concerned it appears to me that the LNP has a subtle admiration for these people that are industrious enough to find a smuggler organise a boat trip for themselves
Although I am not a supporter of Gillard or Labour in my opinion the Malaysian solution It bis without doubt the most practical and effective agaist boat people smugglers. Although people swap (as described by Hokey) may appear inhumane, It rewards law abiding individuals (who advanced through the process queue) and punishes the “smartarses” so often dramatically described as “desperate people” but who in fact are simply opportunists (probably secretly admired by Australian politicians as being as opportunists as themselves)
While I too hope you will one day be Prime Minister, I feel the Liberal party using humanitarian grounds as a reason to reject ‘the Malaysian solution’ is hypocritical and convenient. Both Nauru and Malaysia solutions should be employed – stop trying to score points, make some compromises and get on with it.
Congratulations on making more sense in 5 minutes than Tony Abbott has made in 6 months on this issue. I enjoy listening to you and respect your opinions and agree with a lot of what you say, although towards the end of your Speech you sugested the government should go with the Nauru sollution and if that doesnt work, there is then grounds for a Malaysia solution. I think you should try the Government solution first (or at least compromise), after all they are the Government and Ms Gillard is the Prime Minister. Hopefully one day(soon) you will have the opportunity to become PM. Good Luck.
I agree with the sentiments you express but disagree that Nauru is the only option that should be trialled. I fail to see how processing asylum seekers in Nauru will dissuade them from making a boat trip in the first instance. If the govt of Malaysia agrees to strict codes on human conduct, then surely both Nauru and Malaysia can be legislated at the same time? Why do we have to have this beligerent attitude of ‘my policy or nothing’? The Parlt. is dealing with human lives. Abbott’s policy of towing the boats back into international waters hardly seems more humane than flying people back to Malaysia, does it?
As always, well written and presented Malcolm. Australia is a better place with you in it.
I sense an overtone of the party in your final paragraph though.
I believe the government has more right than an opposition to have their policy tried.
I’ll always vote Labor, but Australia will be better the day you can lead us without the shackles of the conservative LNP holding you back.
” It abandons any human rights protection, the human rights protection contained in the convention.”
This is where we part company. Explain to me the ludicrous position of the Coalition demanding we send to countries only party to the Convention. Do they have to abide by part of it, all of it? Because the policies already announced by Abbott and Morrison are clear breaches – like discriminating on the basis of documentation or turning back the boats.
This has been a disgraceful episode by Abbott. I believe any government has a right to implement policies within a legal framework – which is what has been asked for in the legislation.
It is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.
I posted your speech on my facebook page as it is a superb example of your ability to present an argument without flourish or embellishment. To get to the core of an issue. But you have let yourself down when you said that the Government should give the ‘Liberal’ solution a try. They are in government – the Coalition has a responsibility to allow them to make the decisions.
The coalition is being just shameful in it’s use of politics in this matter.
Why is it that the Government isn’t allowed to ‘trial’ their plan for 12 months (and it has a sunset clause) but you expect your plan to be given the opportunity to fail.
Great article. I agree with Janey’s comment about the Convention and meeting all it obligations – I wonder how places like Nauru and PNG would treat people if numbers of people sought asylum thee?
However, I would add, how some of your colleagues would reconcile the inconsistency/inequity in dealing with (processing) people who “pass duty-free” in Indonesia and those who pass duty-free at an Australian airport and subsequently apply for asylum? On the one hand, one group is to be sent offshore for processing while the other gets to remain.
For too long the debate has been about “border security and stop the boats”, isn’t it time that the debate that should be had should be though the prism of how to improve the circumstances of Refugee (as in convention), refugees (other people not covered by the Convention) and asylum seekers (legitimate or not). Through that prism we can better debate:
- the level of our humanitarian intake
- whether disincentives and deterrents allow us to ensure the most people receive our assistance
- whether we owe protection to every Refugee, refugee and asylum seeker in the world or region, or whether we seek to improve the circumstances of as many as possible
- other actions that Australia participates in and supports to improve people’s circumstances (action in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, AusAID and other government sponsored activities)
- how we can improve the circumstances of people in countries that are not signatories to all the international conventions that Australia is signatory to, and ho we can at least seek to give effect to those obligations in those countries.
The Greens really missed an opportunity. Far too idealistic worrying about the one person in front of them and not the thousands represented by each of those people all over the world. They had a chance to improve circumstances by backing either Liberal or Labor proposal and achieving an increase in intake. Similarly, the Howard Government missed an opportunity to substantively increase numbers when “the boats had stopped”.
Emag
Wonderful paintings! This is the type of info that are supposed to be shared across the net. Disgrace on the seek engines for no longer positioning this put up upper! Come on over and discuss with my site . Thanks =)