Mr CREAN (Leader of the Opposition) (10:22 AM) —Labor has always said that you can be strong on protecting your borders but you can show compassion towards asylum seekers at the same time. I have been consistent and constructive in advocating this, because I believe that the government has the balance wrong. I will be moving during the debate a second reading amendment that does a number of things. It seeks to improve the factual base upon which sensible decisions towards a lasting solution can be arrived at. We need to know the facts, and this amendment seeks those facts. If we cannot get them from the minister in this place, we will use the processes of the Senate to obtain them. We believe, in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship, the government should give us this information. If they were to do that, the next step they should take is to sit down with the opposition and work with us towards a lasting solution. We need an international framework, we need understandings with our neighbours and we need to have a lasting solution, and we the opposition are prepared to work with the government to achieve one. So I am calling today for not only the facts but also a commitment from the government to sit down with us and work towards a lasting solution.

Specifically, in terms of the legislation that we are debating today, I am proposing two amendments— and I will outline them later. Today, we are debating a bill which is an admission of failure by the government; a humiliating backdown by the Prime Minister and Minister Ruddock. This is proof positive that the Pacific solution was an expensive, temporary diversion for the election campaign, and it is not working. It was a solution conceived in deceit and delivered in haste. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002 is proof that the Pacific solution is not working—it is sinking—and the government is looking for a way out of another mess it has created simply because it has no long-term solution for this problem.

Six months on from its launch, the `HMAS Pacific solution' is now sinking in the waves. Remember what the Howard government promised the people of Australia when the Tampa affair happened: no asylum seeker from the Tampa would set foot on Australian soil. That is what the Prime Minister said. He was up there, he could not contain himself in the press gallery the night that the flawed legislation— the Border Protection Bill 2001—was rammed through the parliament. He was all pumped up, shaking his fists and boasting to journalists that people on the Tampa would never be allowed to land in Australia. Two days later, he was just as emphatic on the Neil Mitchell program when he said, `They should not be allowed to land in Australia.' Prime Minister, they will land in Australia now, and the reason they will land in Australia is the legislation you are bringing into the parliament today. It takes whatever credibility you had left down the drain with you.

The reason they are having to introduce this is because they have bungled the issue from the outset. In the meantime, it is not just the bungling on the policy—it has cost Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, but they will not tell us the amount. This is a government that have admitted that the Pacific solution is costing more than they told us it would do before the election; it is just that they will not tell us how much. Remember when they told us that they had budgeted for this, that everything was contained in the budget? We now know that, when the budget comes down in May, there will be extra expenditure. The government know already what it is costing; it is just that they will not tell the Australian people.

This has seen our Navy used as an expensive water taxi service to `club Nauru' and `club Manus'. It has contributed to leadership divisions, falling morale, a discredited admiral and splits in the armed forces, when they are engaged in battle, defending Australia in the war against terrorism. Six months on from the Tampa affair, four months on from the election, with hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain, asylum seekers will be landing in Australia, despite what the Prime Minister said before the election, because of this legislation that is coming into the parliament. Doesn't that sound familiar? We have a Prime Minister who says one thing before the election and then delivers exactly the opposite after the election. This is a pattern of deceit, and this is a piece of legislation confirming the pattern of this serial offender. Stay tuned for the removal of the multimillion dollar a day naval blockade of asylum seekers and the closure of the multimillion dollar a day camps, `club Nauru' and `club Manus'. In the meantime, it has cost Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars—but we are still to be told how much.

We would like to know from the Prime Minister when he intends to stop producing a fresh scandal a day as a smokescreen for his lack of a third-term agenda. Every day since parliament has been recalled the government has been in crisis. First, there was the `kids overboard' affair—you know, the circumstances in which on day one we are back in this place and the Prime Minister just happens to drop a report, that he has been sitting on for weeks, that shows the `kids overboard' affair never happened. Then for the next two weeks between this chamber and the Senate estimates process, we saw the people involved in the affair admitting that the government knew that that claim was a lie but they never told the Australian public. Adviser after adviser was shown to have known that this information was incorrect. Minister Reith knew it was incorrect. Minister Reith spoke to the Prime Minister, we know, on 7 November; the Prime Minister has now admitted it. Minister Reith told the Prime Minister there was doubt about the photos, but the Prime Minister still went out the very next day and said at the National Press Club, `No change; the story still stands.' This government have been in crisis over the `kids overboard' affair.

They have also been in crisis over the Governor-General and over Casino Costello's foreign exchange gamble. I wonder what his brother thinks of his gambling habit. It would be an interesting question. This is a Treasurer who has gambled and lost $5 billion. He was asleep at the roulette wheel and he lost the money. Then we find out he moved from currency swaps to interest rate swaps; he changed from roulette to craps. But he was still gambling and still losing. This is another scandal which has got a way to run because we will see in the budget, with the government's losses, who is made to pay for this gambling habit of the Treasurer. It will be the unemployed; it will be the disadvantaged.

We also have the `Michael Wooldridge House' affair. This is a scandal of incredibly significant proportions because here was a minister feathering his own nest just before he left this place—looking after himself while people he was supposed to be looking after were being disadvantaged: the asthma sufferers, people on rural health. These were the programs that were cut, because he took funding from those programs and diverted it into funding for a building which is going to house his office. At the same time as he was giving them the money, he was signing a contract for himself to work there after he left this place—the same as Minister Reith, who was doing his deal. Even as he was still a minister, he was signing his contract for retirement.

Yesterday, there was the attack by Senator Heffernan on Justice Kirby. We have a Prime Minister prepared to condone his parliamentary secretary using parliamentary privilege when the evidence upon which it was based had been rejected by the police, found to have no basis for any charges to be laid. Yet Heffernan was allowed—

Mr Laurie Ferguson —Encouraged.

Mr CREAN —I believe encouraged; we will wait and see about this—to get up in the Senate and malign the justice. We heard that the Prime Minister advised his parliamentary secretary not to use the Senate to do it, and he defied him. If he is defying the Prime Minister, he should be sacked. But if, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, he did not believe it was defiance, then it must have been encouragement. It must have been part of the plot; it must have been the new conspiracy to get themselves off the hook in terms of all of the other scandals.

We also have the situation emerging in which this government gets over a crisis by creating another one. The Howard government lied to the Australian people in the same way that it lied about the claim that asylum seekers threw children overboard. I have said that the so-called Pacific solution is shown to have been discredited, just like the boat in that other farcical comedy. This is not a Pacific solution; this is Gilligan's Island. That is what has been happening here: Skipper Howard and Gilligan Ruddock, dumping their passengers on charted desert islands—only this time it is not a three-hour cruise but a six-month diversion. The joke is on the taxpayers of Australia, paying hundreds of millions of dollars for a stunt that was only ever designed to get the government past the election. Pacific solution indeed! It is Gilligan's Island, and there is Gilligan Ruddock sitting over there.

Yet again, this government has been caught out, telling the voters one thing before the election and another afterwards. They lied about the justification for the Pacific solution and now their actions are showing that the policy just is not working. The first admission of failure was made on Tuesday with the announcement that the government would construct a 1,200-person detention centre at Christmas Island on Australian soil. This was the government saying, `The Pacific solution is working because there are no more boats coming'—forget the fact that the monsoons meant that the boats could not come anyway. If the Pacific solution is working, Minister, and no more boats are coming, why are you building a facility on Christmas Island to house 1,200 people? It sounds like a lot of people to me—a few votes in there, Minister.

This bill is the second admission of failure. This bill is an admission that the asylum seekers who are now at `Club Manus' and `Club Nauru', including the asylum seekers who were on the Tampa, will be back on Australian soil. The government should come clean and admit that the so-called Pacific solution is no more than a hastily cobbled together charade for political advantage, and it is now over. Just admit it. We know that the so-called Pacific solution is sinking, so I offer again to the government—and particularly with the minister in here—in the spirit of bipartisanship: let us get a comprehensive and lasting solution. Let us work through it. Do not smirk about it, Minister; act on it. Because it is a genuine offer. It has been out there now for months and, to date, you have not made a response to it. So do not smirk; act. Because we are serious about developing a solution—are you? That is the challenge for you today.

Instead, this government prefers to continue the pretence that the Pacific solution is not sinking and wants yet another legislative band-aid to try to patch up the sinking boat. If the government refuses to accept this offer of bipartisanship, we will not be opposing the bill in the House but we will subject it to the necessary scrutiny in the other chamber. The government know and we know that the Pacific solution is not working. We want to correct it and we are prepared to be constructive. But it takes two to play that game, and at the moment you are not prepared to participate on the field with us.

I want to make some comments on the process of this bill's introduction, because I had something to say about this yesterday in relation to the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 [No. 2]. Yesterday, we were forced to debate legislation relating to terrorism—100 pages of legislation, in addition to the explanatory memorandum—and we were given 16 hours to consider it. A government that has been saying it needed legislation to be tough on terrorism—it has been saying it for six months, ever since September 11; we said we agree, we put forward a 10-point plan and we said, `Come up with a solution. We are prepared to work with you'—takes six months to develop a solution and expects us to consider it in 16 hours. The debate was a fiasco yesterday because the government was forced to withdraw one of its key bills because of poor drafting. It should have been reintroduced by the Attorney-General. He could not be in the chamber because he was in a crisis meeting with the Prime Minister over the Heffernan allegations against Justice Kirby. But that is what happens when you do things in haste: haste produces bad legislation.

Again we are presented with this very important legislation that we are debating today at very short notice. I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday expressing our deep concerns about the way in which this government was getting into the habit of just rushing through contentious legislation without sufficient time for us, in the opposition, to consider it. I said in the letter that wise and effective public policy is not advanced by routinely requiring such short time frames for the consideration of legislation when no policy rationale can be provided to explain the need for time frames of 24 hours for passage. I say no policy rationale but, of course, there is a political one.

The Prime Minister is giving exclusive after exclusive to the nation's newspapers, saying how supremely untroubled he is by the controversies that he finds himself in, because it seems that it does not matter to him that he never told the truth during an election campaign. I think he protests too much, and the manufactured haste of this bill and the terrorism legislation yesterday prove it. They are smoke-screens, but they deserve weighty consideration. This is about a big agenda switch—when nothing else is working, he always throws the switch to fear.

We in the opposition take seriously our duties as responsible legislators, and we are not going to be part of abusing this parliament to dig this government out of the political hole it has put itself in. We intend to give detailed consideration to this bill through the normal processes of our parliamentary party and through proper parliamentary processes. This will be our consistent practice for the remainder of this parliament, and the government should get used to it. These are the words I will move as a second reading amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Howard government:

(1) for the haste with which this legislation has been introduced and passage requested without the Government providing any policy justification for such haste, and for the apparent intention of the Government to prevent appropriate debate of this bill by the House;

(2) for deceiving the Australian people during the last election campaign by claiming that asylum seekers threw children overboard and that asylum seekers on the Tampa would not set foot on Australian soil;

(3) for continuing the deceit by its failure to admit that its announcement of a 1,200 person detention centre on Australian soil at Christmas Island and the introduction of this bill means the so-called Pacific Solution, which the government promised would stop asylum seekers being on Australian soil, is a complete failure;

(4) for pretending during the election campaign and since that its so-called Pacific Solution is a solution for Australia in relation to asylum seekers when it is clearly no more than an expensive charade hastily cobbled together for gross political advantage;

(5) for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers money on its so-called Pacific Solution and for failing to ever publicly disclose the amount so wasted; and

(6) for enacting legislation to support the so-called Pacific Solution which is so flawed the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has had to manipulate visa arrangements to avoid Departmental officers being liable for people smuggling charges;

and calls on the Government to now truthfully and fully disclose to Australians:

(7) how much money to so-called Pacific Solution has cost to date and how much it will cost before it is finally abandoned the cost of the so-called Pacific Solution;

(8) how many asylum seekers have been brought to Australia from Manus Island and Nauru already;

(9) how many of the 356 asylum seekers on Manus Island and the 1159 asylum seekers on Nauru the Government plans to bring to Australia;

(10) what is the maximum period any of the asylum seekers who are found not to be genuine refugees will be in Australia under the government's new plans;

(11) how many countries have volunteered to resettle those found to be genuine refugees;

(12) how many of those found to be genuine refugees will be resettled in Australia and how many genuine refugees will be left without a resettlement place; and

(13) how many asylum seekers whose claims have not been upheld can realistically be returned to their home countries or third countries and, in particular, how many Afghans the Government will not be able to return until the situation in Afghanistan further stabilises; and, having disclosed the full facts, calls on the Government to work in a bipartisan way with the Opposition to achieve a comprehensive long-term solution to the issue of asylum seekers which is both tough on border protection and compassionate and contains, in the context of this legislation, the following two elements:

(a) that a proper time limited safe haven arrangement for Afghans, like the arrangement used for the Kosovars, given the majority of Afghan asylum seekers cannot currently return to Afghanistan because of the war against terrorism, continued instability and the need for rebuilding that devastated nation, and

(b) that those asylum-seekers from Manus Island and Nauru who the Government returns to Australia, holds in detention and fails to return to their home or third countries for a period exceeding six months have the right of appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal consistent with the process introduced by the Government last year, provided that during the six month period the asylum seeker has cooperated with the return process'.

Labor's second reading amendment makes the point that this bill, and the associated announcement of the new detention centre on Christmas Island, are about nothing more than an end to the Pacific solution. What we are putting forward is constructive amendments that provide a way to balance border protection with the compassion for refugees. The first substantive amendment is the creation of new visa arrangements for Afghans, similar to that of the Kosovars. This is needed to deal with the reality that it is currently extremely difficult to return many Afghans to Afghanistan because of the dangerous political and military situation.

Because large numbers of Afghans cannot be returned at the moment, the government has to face the need for interim arrangements for those who must return eventually. It can be easily done. It is exactly what the government did in the case of the Kosovar refugees, with which we agreed at the time. There were just under 4,000 Kosovars and we estimate that there are only about 11,000 Afghans. If we can do it for almost four times as many people, we must be able to do it in this case in terms of trying to deal with the practicalities of that situation.

We want to work together with the government to develop a sensible regime for safe haven until the people can return, as we all agree they will. This is about Australia playing its part in helping Afghanistan get back on its feet under its new leadership after the devastating war. I might add that it includes helping Afghanistan identify skilled people among the asylum seeker population here in Australia and helping them return to rebuild their nation as a matter of urgency. We know that the government is going to have to come up with a solution like this sometime in the future. All I am saying, Minister, is swallow your pride and do it now. Let us do it now and get a bit of certainty here. You are going to have to do it so, as part of getting this legislation through now—quickly—do it now.

The second substantive amendment provides a way of dealing with those people currently detained on Pacific islands who cannot be returned home because the source country will not accept them, and who must be kept in detention in Australia for long periods. We believe that these people should be allowed access to the Refugee Review Tribunal, but only as long as they cooperate with the return process. Labor's amendment means that these detainees cannot start the process again, but they can complete it. They can complete it consistent with the process that this government has put in place in its legislative amendments of last year. In other words, it has been no more than consistent with Minister Ruddock's own legislation. How could he possibly object to that?

The government claims it is pressed for time. It is telling us it needs the process, not just through this chamber, but through the Senate. We are prepared to cooperate, but we are only prepared to do it if the government accepts these two amendments. Essentially, we are asking the government to do two things. The first is to give a commitment to work with us following this legislation—to sit down and work towards a long-term solution, a lasting solution. We are prepared to cooperate: I have said that before. The second thing that we want it to do is to pass the two amendments.

The government has said that it would never let asylum seekers into Australia. Well, they are now coming in because this government is introducing legislation that will ensure that they come here. We know it was never a real solution, never a lasting one. But one thing is for sure: the Pacific solution is over. Here is the chance for the government to return some sanity to this debate and some balance to the solution. Labor has already offered a number of constructive suggestions to create a lasting and more balanced solution to the asylum seeker problem and these include: getting the children out from behind the razor wire; putting the government back in control of the detention centres; mothballing Woomera and having detainees moved to other facilities; allowing media access to detention centres with appropriate protocols; and extending the Afghan resettlement allowance to Afghans with temporary protection visas and to other ethnic groups to help them return home. And then there are the two initiatives that we have put forward today: the safe haven in relation to the Afghans—which we know you are going to have to do: just do it quickly and admit it—and the bringing of some consistency by allowing people to complete the process if they are brought here, consistent with your own legislation.

We ask the Prime Minister and the minister who is in the chamber—the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—in his discussions with the Prime Minister, to accept our proposals and to accept our amendments for the good of the nation. It is essential that we learn from this exercise. We know that the solution failed and we know that the government was deceitful about it, but that is past; we have to live with that. But I do not think the Australian public will ever live with the government's deceit. They do not like deceit and we will continue to expose it because they are entitled to know about it. As the government was so devious and deceitful on this issue, what else will it be devious and deceitful on? That is the reason we have to disclose that.

This is not an issue of trying to relive the last election. It is an issue of trying to get sound policy as a result of it. It is a recognition that your policy has failed. Your policy is flawed and was conceived in deceit. Your hasty legislation is not working and you are in here consistently trying to patch it up. Let us learn from that. Let us develop a constructive approach and a lasting solution. We have said that the framework exists, Minister, and the framework is this: we need an international framework. We need a framework in which, under the auspices of the United Nations, we can develop understandings about the flow of people to this country.

We are the country at the end of the pipeline. Unless we get agreements with the countries from which they come, we are not serious about dealing with the problem at source. We should be trying to get some understanding that recognises that processing takes place at country of first asylum. It is not a hard concept, but you have to believe in it and you have to be prepared to pursue it. But it was not on the agenda of CHOGM. There are eight countries that are not signatories to the 1967 protocol on refugees. Seven of them are Commonwealth countries and they happen to be in the pipeline between the Mediterranean and Australia. Why was it not on the agenda, Minister? For the life of me, I cannot believe that, if you are looking for a solution, you would not be going to the Commonwealth countries and saying, `Can we have an agreement, a framework, that deals with the flow of people?' The eighth country that is not signatory to the protocol is Indonesia. The Prime Minister had the perfect opportunity with his dealings with Megawati and the discussions in Bali on people smugglers recently when the circle could have been squared with them as well. We say: get the international arrangements; stop the flow; close the gate, if you like. You also need a cop on the beat. That is why you have to come to grips with the coastguard.

Then we have to have circumstances in which, if people still get here, they are processed expeditiously. That is the basis for a lasting framework, Minister. We are prepared to cooperate in developing it. We know the ideas and we have the direction. What we want is for you to sit around the negotiating table and work through it with us. These amendments that I am moving today provide the basis for it. If you are serious about getting speedy passage, adopt them and then work with us towards a lasting solution. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to condemn the Howard Government:

(1) for the haste with which this legislation has been introduced without the Government providing any policy justification for such haste, and for the apparent intention of the Government to prevent appropriate debate;

(2) for deceiving the Australian people during the last election campaign by claiming that asylum seekers threw children overboard and that asylum seekers on the Tampa would not set foot on Australian soil;

(3) for continuing the deceit by its failure to admit that its announcement of a 1,200 person detention centre on Australian soil at Christmas Island means the so-called Pacific Solution is a complete failure;

(4) for pretending during the election campaign and since that its so-called Pacific Solution is a solution for Australia in relation to asylum seekers;

(5) for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers money on its so-called Pacific Solution and for failing to ever publicly disclose the amount so wasted; and

(6) for enacting legislation to support the so-called Pacific Solution which is so flawed the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has had to manipulate visa arrangements to avoid Departmental officers being liable for people smuggling charges;

and calls on the Government to disclose

(7) to Australians the cost of the so-called Pacific Solution;

(8) how many asylum seekers have been brought to Australia from Manus Island and Nauru already;

(9) how many of the asylum seekers the Government plans to bring to Australia;

(10) what is the maximum period any of the asylum seekers who are found not to be genuine refugees will be in Australia;

(11) how many countries have volunteered to resettle those found to be genuine refugees;

(12) how many of those found to be genuine refugees will be resettled in Australia and how many genuine refugees will be left without a resettlement place; and

(13) how many asylum seekers whose claims have not been upheld can realistically be returned to their home countries or third countries and, in particular, how many Afghans the Government will not be able to return until the situation in Afghanistan further stabilises;

and, having disclosed the full facts, calls on the Government to work in a bipartisan way with the Opposition to achieve a comprehensive long-term solution to the issue of asylum seekers; and

to provide:

(a) for a proper time limited safe haven arrangement for Afghans, like the arrangement used for the Kosovars, and

(b) that those asylum-seekers from Manus Island and Nauru who the Government returns to Australia, holds in detention and fails to return to their home or third countries for a period exceeding six months have the right of appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal consistent with the process introduced by the Government last year, provided that during the six month period the asylum seeker has cooperated with the return process”.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr H.A. Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Gillard —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.