Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (11:24 AM) —I noted the intervention by the member for Herbert in the debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002. I am always reminded of my father's description of a few colleagues in state parliament as `strangers in paradise'. In his contribution, the member for Herbert described it as `just a technical amendment'. Let us get serious. This legislation severely affects the lives of many people. It affects their legal rights and it intervenes in our relationship with our neighbours. It is far from technical. Quite frankly, I do not know whether the member for Herbert is aware of what the fundamental, driving motivation behind the legislation is.

In moving this second reading amendment today, Labor seeks to add to a number of initiatives on detention policy and the issue of entry into this country which I think should broadly appeal to the middle ground of the Australian people. Over recent months, Labor has been saying that something should be done to release the children in detention, because it creates a sense of unease in the Australian people. They might want some controls in place, they might want the bona fides of people investigated and they might want people held for a reasonable period of time until we can explore these issues, but they have a sense of questioning unease about 10- and 12-year-old children being held in detention for long periods of time.

Labor has also said that there should be government control of these centres. When private corporations are motivated by money and self-interest, you really cannot be sure that they do not cut corners and treat people very improperly for the dollar. Why is the government terrified about the media knowing things about these detention centres? Shouldn't we give the media some access so that the Australian people can get a view of what is occurring? Labor has said that the government's initiative with regard to an offer of compensation for people to return home should be extended to other nationalities. It should not be extended only to Afghanis. There might be Iraqis, Iranians or Palestinians who would take up this offer. Most particularly, the offer should be extended to people on temporary protection visas—the numbers of whom are growing every month and becoming a larger problem for both the government and the Australian people.

In the past few months, Labor has come up with a series of initiatives that represent a reasonable alternative. I, for one, do not subscribe to the views of a small minority of people in this country who run around decrying the Australian people as xenophobic, racist et cetera. This is a very complex issue. Governments of both varieties have grappled with it for over a decade. We have a significant international movement of people. As of January 2001, the UNHCR had identified 21.8 million people as being of concern. That number includes 12 million refugees, eight million internally displaced persons, 900,000 asylum seekers and 800,000 refugees who had return to their place of origin. Nearly 8½ million people of concern were in Asia. Such is the dimension of the problem that the UK Home Secretary and others have actually asked whether the international conventions should be looked at. It is a massive international problem. I am not saying that the form of detention that the Leader of the Opposition has reiterated the need for in recent weeks and months should be abandoned. Obviously we do need processing controls. But today's amendments move towards a sensible middle-ground compromise to very complex problems.

Another thing that concerns me—and I do not think other speakers will be going to this matter—is our relationship with our neighbours in the Pacific and the impact that this is having on them. It is interesting to note that some of the countries that have been suggested as being desperate enough, financially strained enough, to beg us to take these people—Kiribati and Palau—are not signatories to the 1951 convention and neither is Nauru. It is interesting to note their experience with refugees and whether it is appropriate that you have this Australian facility on their lands—a clear indication of virtual colonialism—because of their financial desperation. But how experienced are they themselves in dealing with refugees? The senior legal officer of Nauru—Solicitor-General Kerry Smith—when talking about the proposal to have refugees there first said that she could put them to `work on public projects' and that it was a `perfect opportunity to build the islands up'. That demonstrates Nauru's knowledge of refugees and how they should be treated—they should be shoved out there to dig up grounds and put up buildings for Nauru. This is a real issue.

Australia's Prime Minister, indulges in simplistic, patriotic `sloganising' and says, `We will do nothing about greenhouse and climate change. We will let our neighbours eventually sink into the ground, thereby creating a very new and very strong immigration impact on our country.' Long term, these people are going to be coming here. The Prime Minister says that Australia will not take any responsibility or do anything about climate change but, on the other hand, he is running around the Pacific to countries that are desperate, basically compelling them— let us be realistic about it—with a gun at their head to take this Australian problem.

It is interesting to note that the $30 million offer to Nauru is 18 per cent of the total Pacific islands budget for foreign aid. Regardless of whether that money is going towards 26 houses, or petrol and diesel bills, that country has no experience in regard to refugee policy. Nauru is not a signatory to the convention. In financial desperation, it is doing Australia a favour. This is part of the problem. The government should be out there trying to persuade countries in our region to become signatories. Part of the problem we have in this country is that, unlike Europe, the countries around Australia are not signatories. Do we see much government activity to try and get them to sign? No, we do not.

The fundamental issue that is driving the real motivation behind this bill is not, as claimed, to let a few people come here for medical treatment. It is not to have five or six people come into this country to be witnesses in regard to people-smuggling activities. It is equally not to deal with people who are in short-term transit to Finland, Ireland or wherever. They are not the real motivations behind the bill. The minister knows that; it is a pity the member for Herbert has not been told. The real motivation behind this bill is the reality that in the next few weeks large numbers of people are going to be told, `Sorry, Australia has rejected your refugee claims; they are not bona fide.' What is going to happen then on Nauru and in other places? Are they going to accept them willingly? Are they going to wave their hands and say, `Thank you very much'? Of course they are not. The government has a very real problem as to what they are going to do with these people.

Mr Ross Cameron —Send them back.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Well, unfortunately, the minister says the government cannot do that because not only do we have a lack of diplomatic relations with Iraq but we have the Syrian government deciding, in recent months, that it will not take Arabs without proper travel documentation. We have difficulties with Iran. Yes, we might be able to send a few people back to Sri Lanka; we might be able to get a few people on a plane back to Turkey, but in reality we have vast numbers of people who will never be able to go back to the country they came from or claim to have come from. This is what this bill is all about: bringing vast numbers of them back to the Australian mainland. We have heard earlier a variety of speakers saying that the Australian Prime Minister, frothing at the mouth, rushed into the press gallery boasting that these people were never going to set foot on Australian land. They are going to set foot on Australian land. That pre-election commitment is going to be repudiated. Large numbers of these people in the next few months are going to be put on planes back to this country and the government has a very real problem in regard to their legal rights.

We are dealing with this legislation because it is unsatisfactory. Ten days into the new parliament we are faced with legislation of a very serious nature to change people's rights because it was drawn up in the short term in panic. It was rushed through for short-term electoral imperatives. That is why it is having to be dealt with again now. Or is the government saying it had no vision—a government which says so many of these people are fraudulent, that they have corrupt claims? Is it saying it never envisaged a problem with them? No—it knew there was going to be a problem but its legislation did not properly deal with it.

The September 2001 legislation that we now have to amend, as in so many other areas of government activity, had three fundamental changes: firstly, it gave powers for authorised officers to board vessels for people that are seeking unlawfully to take people to Australia and to take those vessels to a place outside Australia; secondly, it presented a bar on unauthorised persons arriving at an excised offshore place—namely, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Ashmore Island and Cartier Island—from being able to lodge an onshore visa application; and, finally, it gave the power to transfer those people to places such as Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Those changes were passed with Labor support notwithstanding our doubts about the long-term sustainability which we are facing today.

The so-called Pacific solution is not going to be a Pacific solution; it is going to be an Australian problem. The government has failed again to properly inform parliament of the full details of those arrangements and we have had to utilise a Senate committee, which is currently investigating the `Pacific solution'. It will investigate the nature of the negotiations leading to those agreements, the nature of the agreements reached, the operation of the arrangements and the current projected cost. One thing that the government is not too forthcoming about is the cost of this alternative to the Australian taxpayer. The government presents an image of financial difficulties for people on the street in regard to having these people in Australia, or their absorption into society—whether they will get jobs, whether they are employable, or whether they will cost us money in AMES. But they are not too forthcoming to the Australian people about what this cost will be. We know, as I have said, that Nauru is being paid off with the offer of $30 million. Obviously, that is only one of many costs.

Yesterday the minister announced that a further detention centre is to be built on Christmas Island. The media statement referred to it as:

It is to accommodate 400 people in the short term and 1,200 by the end of this year. Once again, the government did not see fit to inform the parliament, which represents the Australian people, of the details of the announcement. In the last day or so we have seen not only an unwillingness to tell parliament exactly what is occurring on Christmas Island but, in regard to terrorism and other measures, incompetence in drafting, incompetence in presentation to parliament, incompetence in delivery by ministers of their material to this parliament and, as I say, an unwillingness to tell the Australian people exactly what is happening on Christmas Island.

Mr Tuckey—who is infamous after recent investigations into the use of charters: he is very inclined to use these taxpayer-funded planes—hopped on a plane to Christmas Island to make the big announcement. He thought it was more important to big-note himself by flying to Christmas Island and making a big announcement up there. They were not as forthcoming here in Canberra, the national capital, in regard to what was going on.

There are a number of looming deadlines on these matters. Nauru's deadline is May. The media has repeatedly quoted indications from the Nauru government that they wish the arrangements to end as soon as possible. I should say that this issue is causing trauma in Nauru. Two members of the opposition Nauru First Party were suspended as public servants when they dared to question this policy. Because of the way Nauru operates, they were put out of their jobs for a while. There have been a number of surveys of people on the island expressing disquiet about the whole thing, so there is pressure there.

Those on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea will shortly receive, as I said, the first instance decision on their protection applications. They will have a limited opportunity to put in some submissions, which will, of course, only be of any value if there are significant additions to the material already received. Then we will see how many protection applications are successful, how many successful applicants will be granted an Australian visa and how many will be resettled in other countries. We understand on that front that the government is having some success in placing these people in a number of other European nations. Let us hope that people are resettled and that they do get a new life. Finally, we will be interested to see what arrangements are made for those whose protection applications are unsuccessful.

The government have made four major changes that allow the government to bring a transitory person from an excised offshore place to Australia for a temporary purpose. They are very good on a variety of other definitions, but they do not define `temporary purpose'. That leads one to question exactly what the motivation is. I say the real motivation is their knowledge that many people will be in Australian detention centres for many years—they will not be coming in for a day or two before they get on a plane to Helsinki or Dublin—while this government tries, and I hope they are trying, to negotiate their return to their country or a third country. That is what is really motivating this legislation: the government does not want to give those people any legal rights.

I think that probably the vast majority of Australian people are concerned when they see people utilising our legal system for as long as eight or 10 years, fighting cases, having children here and establishing longer claims for residence. However, Labor is saying that probably the vast majority of people think that, if someone is actually physically on our land—and the government has tried to stop this—if they are physically brought to this country, maybe we should give them some minimal rights.

What Labor is proposing is not that they start all over again, back at their first application—that has gone, we say; they have had that go—but that they should be treated just like anyone else who has landed here and they should at least be given access to the Refugee Review Tribunal. We are saying that once they are here for six months, not six days or six minutes, they should be given that access. Quite frankly, I reckon that, while we could debate that maybe they should be here for a longer period, there is a positive for people who believe in hastening process. We know RRT decisions take a while, so if they are here for six months, let us get it on, get it decided and get to the end of their legal rights—not wait a year and then maybe reach a stage when the government have finally got around to picking up the phone to Teheran or Baghdad and negotiating their return to those countries, and they are still fighting cases. That is the first thing that Labor is suggesting here today.

The other point is the question of the Afghans. We know that many people have launched claims on a situation that no longer exists. They came here saying that the Taliban are baddies, they are discriminating against women, they persecute the Shiah minority, they treat Uzbeks and Tajiks badly, and they have a variety of claims that were around the Taliban's existence. The Taliban, obviously, does not run downtown Kabul these days. Equally, Kabul, Herat and Kandahar are not exactly Brighton or Hastings either.

There is a legitimate argument that the current situation in Afghanistan is very unstable. As with Kosovo, it would be reasonable that these people be given safe haven and protection in this country for a period of time, until we see what occurs. As I say, many of their claims are now doubtful. They will be rejected because the current coalition, although led by a Pashtun, consists of a variety of ethnic minorities. There is probably an increased case for Pashtuns to claim they might be persecuted in the future. The grounds for those claims have disappeared but—obviously, to my mind—we cannot send them back in the current situation.

We had the experience of the Kosovars, where people were allowed into this country for a set period of time and then, when the situation was improved, they were sent back. That is a good alternative. The Australian people were supportive of it. They were accepted into communities very strongly. We suggest this again—that there should be a limited time that these people are allowed to stay here.

Labor today says that the real motivation behind this legislation is essentially to stop people, who will possibly be here for years, from having any legal rights. The government knows that there is a critical problem around the corner. There will be rejection letters; people will be unhappy in Nauru; people will be unhappy in Manus. Can those places sustain the outbursts of anger; will the guards and the detention centres be able to hold the line; will people be killed? The government will bring these people back to Australia knowing that they will be here for a very lengthy period of time.

I reiterate: Labor says that the solution to this matter is essentially support of large measures of the government's bill but an acknowledgment that we must give these people minimum rights, given the long period of time they will be here, and that we should provide a safe haven for those Afghans who are technically rejected because their applications are not bona fide in the current change of environment. They should be given a period of time in this country until the situation settles.