Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (11:01): As I was saying, this is an extra tax grab of $900 million. Basically, it is the government with its hands in the pockets of Australians. This is Robin Hood in reverse. While it may be understandable to some that a government and a Treasurer that have totally lost control of their fiscal policy would be desperate to rip every dollar that they can out of the pockets of Australians, the fact that they attempt to hide it through this bill is what frustrates and angers the community and certainly leads them to not trust the duplicitous actions of this government. More than half the Gillard government's promised surplus 2012-13—and I said 'promised'—is to be achieved through the increased revenue from this bill. This is the sole purpose of the government removing this money from your accounts. This is what the government is doing.

Its addiction to spending has left it unable to balance its budget. The government will, as it has so often previously, resort to negative comparisons to somehow justify this incompetence and its wasteful spending. How often have we had to listen to the Treasurer basically gloating that Australia's debt position is not nearly as bad as that of other nations? It is an absolute nonsense argument: 'We might be in a bad way, but others are worse, so that makes it fine.' This government is saying that, although they have propelled Australia down a hole, we are not as deeply down that hole as perhaps somewhere like Greece or other at risk nations, so that should give us some comfort. That is a farce perpetrated on us all by a Labor government in a desperate state. And they are looking at walking away from that budget surplus promise—just watch this space.

Australia was in a good financial position. The previous Liberal government left the current one with a budget surplus, no net debt and billions of dollars invested in savings. The Labor government did what Labor governments do: they spent all the money and wasted so much of it. They are now gorging on debt. Through our amendments, the coalition is seeking to fix what is just the latest legislative debacle from this government. Our amendments seek to redefine the appropriate timeframes needed for fairness in this process. For example, the three-year inactivity threshold for bank accounts is far too short. I have articulated any number of reasons why your account may not have been active over that period. That definitely should be reviewed. The most appropriate period needs to be reassessed. There also needs to be a better explanation as to why the first homeowner account is included. It is just an extraordinary inclusion. Many aspiring homeowners struggle to attain that much-needed deposit. They are working so hard and we should be encouraging such people, not making it harder for them, not having them live in fear: 'If you don't make a contribution to that account, then the government will take it.'

There are also questions about the range of accounts captured by this legislation. It remains the position of the opposition that the new rules should apply only to accounts that earn very low or zero interest, typically at-call accounts.

The coalition also believe that accounts should be grouped under account holders so that if someone has one or more active accounts which are currently in use, then any inactive accounts should not be claimed by the government. They are working their accounts; it is how they are working their financial affairs. In such circumstances, the account holder is obviously known to the banking institution and their account is not lost; it is simply inactive. And that is okay and should be okay with this government. It is not okay for the government to take your funds in that instance.

The government has already acknowledged that this latest piece of legislation is flawed. I wonder why the government cannot get its work done right the first time. Why can't it do the work that is necessary to get this type of legislation right? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer has put out a media statement outlining a months delay in implementing the bill, which will now come into effect on 31 May next year.

This is just another example of the government's incompetence. We also know that further delays will almost be inevitable, as the government struggles to get its act together. The government also needs to tell the House and the banking sector how these amendments will change the financial impact of the bill over the forward estimates. We need to know more about this and so do the people of Australia. Let us hope that the government actually tries to improve this legislation and bring it into this House in the form it should have brought it in in the first place.

The amendments that the coalition are proposing certainly deserve support.

Mr RANDALL (Canning) (11:07): I am pleased to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012. Let us be clear about what this bill is about. For those listening out there in the wider Australian audience, this is about a government that is trying to legitimise the ability to put its hand in the pockets of everyday Australians and take moneys out of superannuation accounts, home saver accounts and a whole range of accounts that have been inactive for some time. As the member for Forrest just explained to us, the problem is that the government has reduced the time thresholds.

Having an inactive account is not a sin, it is not illegal and it is not wrong. There are a whole range of reasons why you might have an inactive account. But the government, because they need to prop up the bottom line, because they know that they are in financial trouble—they have this fascination with a $1.1 billion surplus, which they know is just a fantasy—but to make it look good they are rushing this legislation through the parliament today, without industry consultation and without proper scrutiny by the Senate's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. The joint committee wanted to examine this bill and it has not been given the opportunity and time to do so in any meaningful way. So it has been rushed through today because, at the MYEFO update only weeks ago, Treasurer Wayne Swan said he wanted to grab this money to prop up the government's bottom line.

This government has financial problems; it is running out of money. The fact that it is borrowing $100 million a day from China is not enough. It now wants to raid the bank accounts, the superannuation accounts and home saver accounts of ordinary Australians who are out there in the wider community. So we are going to reserve our position on this bill until the outcome of a further Senate inquiry, at a date to be announced. This is desperate legislation and it is quite unseemly that it would be in this place today. This year the amount of unclaimed money held by ASIC has risen to $677 million and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is licking his lips in anticipation because he wants to get this money—after squandering the money he had been given through the taxation system. This bill seeks to reduce the length of time unclaimed money sits in an account before it can be transferred to government coffers. In other words, it would expedite this government getting their hands on money which Australians are entitled to.

Imagine if we had made such a money grab. Imagine if Peter Costello had done this. You would have heard a hue and cry: 'What are you doing to the workers of Australia? What are you doing to the ordinary mums and dads of Australia? You are raiding their bank accounts. You are raiding their home saver accounts. You are raiding their superannuation accounts.' We would have been, in the words of those on the other side, the ultimate Tory thieves helping ourselves to Australians' moneys. But, as the Prime Minister says, 'This is the Labor way.' It is the Labor way today—helping themselves to this money.

This bill was introduced the last time we met—three weeks ago. It was introduced, I understand, on the Tuesday night. I happened to be on duty in the chamber on the Wednesday morning when it was brought to this House. The shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, was here ready to speak on this bill and he was furious because he had only received notification that it was coming into this House the night before. There had been no opportunity to consult with industry. Given the complexities and the significant implications associated with the bill, the coalition sought to have the bill referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. A meeting of that committee was called immediately and at that meeting it was decided that the bill should be referred to the committee for review. As I said, on the Wednesday that decision was respectfully overturned by the Speaker and it became clear that the government wanted the bill passed that week.

The SPEAKER: The member for Canning is treading on dangerous ground here.

Mr RANDALL: I am just giving the history of what happened.

The SPEAKER: No, you are giving other people's interpretation of what happened here. I suggest you exercise great caution to ensure you do not reinvent the history of this matter based on other people's interpretation of events.

Mr RANDALL: Thank you, Madam Speaker, but I did happen to be in the chamber at the time. I will leave it there. Given the consequences of this legislative amendment, it would have been wise for this bill to have been carefully examined before a vote was held. Given the Labor government's desperation to secure more revenue, however, I can see why such scrutiny was bypassed.

There are many Australians who would be affected by this proposed legislative amendment. An article titled 'The quest for buried treasure', written by Lesley Parker and published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 November, shows that the average parcel of unclaimed funds in Western Australia is the highest in the country at $791. I do not know why that is, but our state—I happen to be a member from Western Australia—seems to be leading the charge in quite a few areas. While there are many inactive accounts which have only very small amounts of unclaimed money sitting in them, there are many examples where significant sums of money rest in an account without the knowledge of the account holder. In Western Australia, for example, there is an account with an unclaimed balance of almost a million dollars. The government has decided, through this proposed legislation, that this money should be redirected to federal coffers as a matter of urgency. Anyone in this place who takes even a cursory glance at this proposal will know that it warrants further scrutiny—especially given the number of Australian account holders who will be impacted by this bill.

Many thousands of my constituents in the Canning electorate would, because they are superannuants or self-managed superannuation fund holders, demand that parliament investigate the implications of a tier of government claiming money from Australians before we rush ahead with such a proposal. As I will come to later, this bill has unintended consequences—for example, where there is health insurance linked to a superannuation fund. This is a sadly accurate reflection of the disregard the Gillard government have for taxpayers' money. It is apparently not enough for them to recklessly waste the money which, as I said, is given to them through our taxation system and through the revenue the Commonwealth attracts; now they wish to rush through a process which will result in additional money being effectively placed in trust with the government—I emphasise the word 'trust'. It will be handed over to the government and held, but the government have a terrible track record with the responsibility of handling public funds. With the speed at which it is being rushed through the parliament, the coalition objects to this legislation.

This bill will have major implications for unclaimed bank accounts, life insurance policies, which I did not mention earlier, a range of superannuation accounts, home savers accounts and unclaimed company moneys. It seeks to allow the government to gain control of moneys in people's inactive accounts after three years. Currently it is seven years. So after three years they are coming for you. It also allows the government to gain control of workers' unclaimed superannuation money where an account has been inactive for 12 months—12 months, rather than five years. What if you have been up north on a contract and you just have not got around to tending to your self-managed superannuation fund, for example?

An opposition member: Goneski.

Mr RANDALL: You return to Perth and look to get your account going again because you have come back with a pocketful of money. Sorry, it is not there. The federal government has taken your account because you have been out of circulation for 12 months. It increases the limit of lost super funds it can raid from just $200 to $2,000—in other words, a multiple of 10.

Inactive First Home Saver Accounts and life insurance funds are also under attack by the Gillard government. What about parents who establish a First Home Saver Account for their children? Have they thought of this unintended consequence? Parents with a bit of money who want to do the right thing by their young child so that they can get into the home mortgage market later in life may put it into a home saver account. Unfortunately, as things go on and bills get bigger, they may not put any money into this home saver account for their child and it may go inactive for several years because of financial circumstances. Goodness me, the government has come and got it!

What about people who travel overseas for a period of time? Dare I say, I have some missionaries in my electorate who go to Africa and other parts of the world offering their time almost free of charge. They do this for two or three years. They will come back to Australia and find that, because their account was inactive and they were working almost in a charitable fashion, not earning, they have been hit. What about soldiers sent overseas? I am not talking about soldiers in Afghanistan or on peacekeeping missions but those who go away to other areas where they might sign on for a longer period of time. When they come back after 12 months: goneski—not the Gonski that most people know but the goneski that will happen to their account.

So we can see that this bill will have major ramifications for many Australians. It is incumbent upon this parliament to rigorously explore the implications of the bill rather than rush it through both houses, as is the apparent intention of the government today. We often hear about the new era of transparency, with this 'rainbow coalition' that was cobbled together in 2010. Dare I refer to the time I sat in this chamber three weeks ago, when the member for Lyne was occupying the chair? He wanted to leave the chair because he was not happy with the bill and wanted to contribute to debate. We helped facilitate it. The Greens member for Melbourne said the Greens were not happy with this bill because it had suddenly been thrust upon them as well and they had not seen the detail. Obviously, in recent times they always protest and then eventually roll over and have their tummies scratched by this government and go along with it.

The SPEAKER: The member for Canning!

Mr RANDALL: It is a good analogy. Legs in the air, getting a tummy scratch by the Prime Minister, because they fall in line with her all the time. They have never really voted against anything that would cause this government any grief.

The coalition opposes this bill because we do not want this to be added to the growing list of embarrassing examples where transparency has been discarded for political expediency. And we know what they are: the formulation of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax; and the failure of the Labor government to deliver on the single promise with the country Independents to introduce spatial accounting, to help understand federal expenditure in the regions of Australia. I will just briefly expand on that, because this is part of the transparency. With great fanfare the Independent members said that, along with Minister Crean, they would involve themselves in what is called spatial accounting, so that we could see where the money was spent in each electorate in the regions. We have asked the questions now, and they cannot do it. I think it is that they do not want to do it. And how about the bungling of the Australia Network tender; the reversal on the carbon tax floor price; and the ongoing deals with the Greens to maintain power. It is all part of a shambolic government, and this legislation is part of that.

In addition, yesterday I spoke with industry people and industry sources about this issue and they are deeply concerned about the speed with which this bill has been rushed through the parliament without proper scrutiny. One of the unintended consequences raised with me was the implication involving insurance policies associated with superannuation funds. Many Australians with superannuation accounts have health insurance policies connected their super policies. A client's ability to lodge a claim through their policy would be taken away if their account were claimed by the Commonwealth after remaining inactive for several years. The fact that it is inactive does not mean to say that the health funds still could not come out of funds that were in there. This has massive implications for many Australians, and the government should respect the fact that their suggested legislative amendments need to be adequately scrutinised to ensure their actions do not lead to negative outcomes for Australians. (Time expired)

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:22): I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012. The bill before the House seeks to enact various changes to unclaimed money measures, which were flagged in the government's 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

The bill makes amendments in five areas: the Banking Act 1959; the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008; the Life Insurance Act 1995; the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999; the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001; and the Corporations Act 2001. The bill effectively brings forward the time at which money is recognised under the relevant law as lost or unclaimed, which will in turn have the effect of moving approximately $700 million into the federal government's general consolidated revenue fund for the 2012-13 financial year and beyond. Make no mistake, these bills are merely a cover-up for this disastrous Gillard Labor government. They are designed to cover up $172 billion of accumulated deficits—record deficits—with more deficits likely to come in the 2012-13 financial year and beyond.

The changes in today's bill are one of many so-called saving measures announced by the Treasurer in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. As we know, the vast majority of what the Treasurer referred to as a saving was merely taking more money away from Australian taxpayers and businesses—and taking it away sooner than the government did previously.

The bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, after which stakeholders had five working days to make a submission to the committee. As Labor does with so many important pieces of legislation, similar to the rushed implementation of their Future of Financial Advice rules, they rammed their measures through parliament without any regard to the intended and unintended consequences of their legislation. In this case, for a measure to be worth potentially up to $760 million, there were only 18 days between referral to the committee and the committee's report being released. This is simply not enough time for those interested—consumers, business groups and industry associations—to consider the consequences of these changes. The coalition senators of that committee released a dissenting report which highlights many of the bill's problems. They made two recommendations: firstly, that the government withdraw the bill in order to facilitate further consultation and that the explanatory memorandum be revised to be clear about how the legislation is intended to work; secondly, if the government does not withdraw the bill—which it has not done—that the bill be amended to delay implementation until at least 31 December 2013 for Schedules 1 and 2 and that there be further delay for Schedule 4.

More recently, the government announced just yesterday afternoon significant changes to the bill in response to many of the concerns noted by the coalition senators' dissenting report. It takes seven paragraphs into the media release of the Parliamentary Secretary for the Treasurer, the member for Oxley, for the government to admit that it is making significant changes to the original legislation and to then admit that it is changing the implementation date to 31 May 2013. What it does not say is that the original date in the legislation was 30 April 2013. So all organisations affected by this legislation will be given a total of just one extra month to implement costly reforms and introduce compliance regimes. As I have noted, the coalition believes that one month is not enough. Authorised deposit-taking institutions—ADIs—first-home saver account providers, life insurers and superannuation funds need and want at least a year. However, this Labor government does not listen to stakeholders. It pays lip service to their concerns by giving them one extra month to significantly alter system-wide processes.

This is a symptom of what the coalition has been saying all along about this legislation. The government has abused process with the manner in and timing with which this bill was introduced into parliament. Most fundamentally, the government must update the explanatory memorandum and be upfront about the impact this legislation and its subsequent changes will have over the forward estimates. The government has not yet done so. It is more interested in rushing through the legislation, making hurried changes and leaving it to the industry and consumers to worry about the consequences afterwards. This hurried process did not have to happen. From the outset, Australian authorised deposit-taking institutions told the committee that the government should delay implementation. The coalition senators noted the response of the Australian Bankers' Association, which acknowledged that:

…the proposed timing for implementation and a commencement of 31 December 2012 is unrealistic, being in less than 2 months and falling during a period when banks implement freezes on any technology or IT systems changes. It is estimated that banks and other ADIs will require at least 6 months to make all the necessary changes, inform customers in a legally compliant manner, and meet compliance requirements.

I turn now to look at the individual sections of the bill. Firstly, Schedule 1 of the bill amends section 69 of the Banking Act 1959 to provide for new arrangements for unclaimed moneys held by Australian authorised deposit-taking institutions. These changes will reduce the period before an amount payable by an ADI is treated as unclaimed money from seven years to three years. The test of engagement the government has chosen in determining whether an account is to be treated as unclaimed money is whether a transaction has occurred in the account for that period of time. What is even more alarming is that until yesterday the inactivity test would have been applied at the account level, not the customer level. So we could have ended up with the situation where an active customer with a pre-existing relationship with an ADI had several accounts but might have had one account that they were not using. For that one single account, the money would have been deemed 'inactive' and transferred to consolidated revenue, despite their being an active customer. This change had potential widespread consequences for many Australians.

As the shadow Treasurer has highlighted to the House, there might be many examples of an Australian worker who has been offered a post overseas for three years, who has money sitting in a bank account, who leaves their money in that account accumulating interest and who does not make any further deposits or withdrawals in that period. For the purposes of this bill, their deposit is treated as unclaimed funds and therefore is able to be transferred into consolidated revenue. The coalition still has deep reservations as to the potential unintended consequences that this legislation may have for many Australians with untouched funds in bank accounts.

Secondly, Schedule 2 to of this bill amends the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 to provide for new arrangements for unclaimed moneys held by first-home saver account providers. The new law amends sections 17A and 51C of the FHSA Act to change the unclaimed funds period from seven years to three years. Since the introduction of First Home Save Accounts in the 2008-09 budget, the Australian economy has continued to grapple with the effects of the global financial crisis. Many Australians may have started up a first-home saver account and then been affected by economic circumstances such as rising cost-of-living pressures, and therefore they may not have been able to make contributions. Today's bill means that some of these accounts are at risk of being claimed by the government.

Thirdly, schedule 3 of the bill amends section 216 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 to provide for the new arrangements for unclaimed life insurance funds. Unclaimed moneys include sums payable on the maturity of a policy which are not claimed within seven years after the maturity date of the policy. The new arrangements will reduce the period from seven years to three years before life insurance funds are treated as unclaimed.

Fourthly, schedule 4 of the bill amends the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 to change arrangements for the transfer of lost member accounts to the tax office and to provide for the payment of interest on unclaimed superannuation money. Lost superannuation with balances of less than $2,000 will be deemed inactive after only three years; currently it is seven years. The coalition's dissenting report notes that this has the potential to make worse off those already vulnerable in our community—that is, those who take the most time to accumulate anywhere close to $2,000 in a superannuation account. We are talking about young people, low-income earners and new earners.

I was very concerned about the reduction in the time of inactivity from five years to only 12 months. Yesterday afternoon, the government acknowledged this problem in their legislation and announced that accounts which are active but where the member is uncontactable will not be transferred to the ATO. This is an embarrassing turnaround from the government. I am glad that they finally acknowledged the concerns relating to the nature of superannuation accounts.

Many young people and low-income earners will have multiple jobs and multiple super funds. The immediate pay packet of someone earning a low wage might be more pressing in terms of updating addresses and other contact information. Yet, if they then move house—and even if their super account is still receiving contributions—their account can be deemed lost if communication has been attempted twice. Therefore, to assist in protecting active but lost accounts, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and the Financial Services Council recommended a minimum two-year period before an account can be deemed lost, and that the two-year clock be reset when a member receives a contribution or any form of contact has occurred.

This is a very reasonable proposition which would add a safeguard for Australian superannuation accounts. I reiterate my gratitude that the Labor government has at least listened to the concerns from industry and consumers so that active accounts will not be transferred to the ATO unnecessarily.

Fifthly, schedule 5 of the bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. We should consider today's bill in the wider context of tax reform—more precisely, the complete lack of fundamental tax reform over the last five years. The Rudd Labor government first commissioned the Henry tax review, which began in 2008. The review received more than 1,500 submissions, cost more than $10 million and finally delivered a report over 1,300 pages long. The report included 138 recommendations to the government, the vast majority of which have not been appropriately considered by the government. Instead, we have a record of no real reform and all we see is new taxes and tax increases.

Successive Labor governments have introduced an additional 20,900 regulations and only repealed 104. Labor promised that they would follow a strict 'one in, one out' approach to the growth of regulation. Instead, for every regulation removed, 200 regulations have been added. While the Treasurer wants to rush this unclaimed money bill through parliament, they do have form when it comes to rapidly raising taxes in Australia. Among many other things, in 2008 they increased the alcopops tax and raised the luxury car tax from 25 to 33 per cent. They have attacked superannuation on numerous occasions. They attacked the medical expense tax offset and abolished the entrepreneur tax offset, and their most recent reform was to force large businesses to pay their pay-as-you-go instalments to the government every month instead of every quarter. This measure is supposed to net the government $5.5 billion in the next financial year.

Mining companies were slugged with a mining tax that has, to date, not raised a single dollar in revenue. With the mining tax, Australian businesses were supposed to see a cut in the company tax rate of 30c to 29c and then to 28c per dollar. The company tax rate today still stands at 30c, and Labor has completely abandoned reform in this area. As a result, the government has amended the net debt ceiling limit four times in the last five years. It first increased the limit in 2008 to $75 billion, then again in 2009, 2011 and 2012, with the limit now standing at $300 billion. As a consequence we have a government that then has to introduce measures in today's Treasury legislation amendment bill—a short-term fix to raise more than $760 million to smooth over the budget figures.

However, these changes have been rushed and ill-considered. The last 24 hours has seen the Labor government confess that it has introduced deeply flawed legislation, something it does not admit to very often, although there are countless examples of legislation passed by the Labor government which should not have been introduced, let alone passed, and which has required significant revision after its passage. With this Treasury bill, the government must at the very least delay the implementation of the bill and listen to the concerns of all stakeholders before imposing unnecessary and additional compliance cost.

The shortcomings that I and my coalition colleagues have outlined, both in the Senate dissenting report and in parliament, must be addressed in the form of further consultation. Despite the changes announced yesterday, this bill is still a bad bill. I therefore strongly oppose today's bill in its current form.

Mr IRONS (Swan) (11:36): I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012. As the shadow Treasurer has said, this bill should not be called the 'unclaimed money bill'; it should be called the 'government claims your money bill'. I guess you could also call it 'use it or lose it'. Anyone with a bank account should rush out and put in 10c to make sure the account is active. For one of my accounts I will probably have to do that because it is a family trust declared account. It is on my register of interests. It has been sitting there and earning interest for the family trust but it has not been activated or used for four years. That means it will be claimed by the government. This is another typical example of a government putting up a bill when it does not understand the consequences; it does not think through any of the legislation. If there is one thing that the business community knows it is that the government does not understand the knock-on consequences of a lot of the bills that are introduced and how they affect business.

Essentially this bill is an attempt to manufacture a paper surplus for this current financial year in the face of predictions from analysts around the country that there is going to be no budget surplus. In fact, more than half of the Gillard government's promised surplus for 2012-13 is supposed to be achieved through increased revenue from this bill. The government is clearly worried that it will break yet another political commitment that has been repeated time and time again by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. Those opposite are desperate for cash.

We all support getting the budget back to surplus, but the coalition wants a real surplus, not a paper surplus. The context of the legislation is the four largest deficit budgets in Australia's history, remarkably coming after four of the largest surpluses at the end of the prosperous Howard era. The rushing of this legislation will impose costs which will be borne by the account holders and consumers, and we must consider the interests of consumers who are the holders of bank accounts, superannuation accounts and insurance accounts while we assess the merits of this bill. On the other side of the coin are the account providers: banks, super funds, insurance companies or other financial institutions which are having the ill-considered measures imposed upon them without warning or consultation. We heard the Assistant Treasurer at a recent function in Melbourne talk about the Labor government and how much consultation it undertakes with business, but this bill is typical and it shows that the government does not consult with people when bringing in bills. Inadequate warning or consultation is stated in the coalition's dissenting report to the Senate inquiry. The stated objectives of this legislation are sound: to prevent erosion of small, lost or inactive account balances from fees and charges and to reunite unclaimed balances with their owners. However, as with many Labor bills, the substance of the bill does not match the objectives. We had the same problem with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill, which I spoke about in September—a bill with stated intentions that no-one could disagree with but with consequences that almost everyone disagreed with. This bill has the same problem.

However, while it was possible to conclude that the charities legislation debacle was just another example to add to the list of incompetence in the Labor Party, with the pink batts and the school halls, this legislation is more of a deliberate attempt to mislead. It is a grab for cash; there can be no doubt about that. The costs imposed on account providers from this legislation, which will be far greater due to the rushed nature of the introduction of the legislation, will inevitably be passed on to consumers—and I think the last thing Australians will want to see at the moment is higher bank charges.

The coalition will move amendments to introduce more realistic implementation time frames, and if these amendments are successful we will not oppose the bill. There may well be some elements in this bill that have merit, but these are largely wiped out by the rushed, ill-considered and disorderly manner in which they are being pursued. Specifically, given the number of problems raised concerning the legislation, the coalition senators of the Economics Committee determined that the sensible decision would be to undertake further consultation and, failing that, the implementation dates for schedules 1, 2 and 4 should be delayed.

I understand that at the eleventh hour the member for Oxley, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, who is in the chamber at the moment, has flagged changes that push back the reporting and transfer deadlines by a month for both banks and superannuation funds. While it is positive that the government has recognised one of the elements of concern with the legislation, this does not appropriately address the concerns that were raised by industry. From the outset we say that the government needs to explain, in an updated explanatory memorandum to this bill, how these changes will impact the key dates as outlined in the explanatory memorandum for changes in schedules 1, 2, and 4. The government also needs to inform the House, in an updated explanatory memorandum, how these amendments will change the financial impact of the bill over the forward estimates. These last-minute changes give an air of chaos and, by their very nature, limit time for consideration. I am the last speaker on this bill, and many have spoken over the last two sitting weeks. To rush through these changes at the end, without giving people a chance to digest them, analyse them and see what the impact is on the budget, is poor.

This bill seeks to make significant amendments to the Banking Act 1959, the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008, the Life Insurance Act 1995, the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Corporations Act 2001. The bill makes various cut-and-paste amendments to existing acts that give effect to the unclaimed moneys measures announced in the 2012-13 MYEFO. These amendments will impact arrangements relating to the transfer of unclaimed moneys to ASIC for bank accounts and life insurance policies, lost member accounts to the ATO for the superannuation, and unclaimed moneys for company moneys. This bill will bring forward the time at which money is recognised under the relevant law as lost or unclaimed, leaving Australians everywhere vulnerable to this government's greedy reach.

This bill affects many financial institutions and many different kinds of assets held by Australians. Schedule 1 of this bill amends section 69 of the Banking Act 1959 to provide for new arrangements for unclaimed moneys held by Australian deposit-taking institutions, or ADIs. These changes will reduce the period before an amount payable by an ADI is treated as unclaimed moneys from seven years to a period of only three years. If this bill passes, money held in ADIs will be deemed as unclaimed if a transaction has not occurred in the account for that period of time. This excludes payment of interest accrued. This change has mammoth potential widespread consequences for many Australians. For instance, say an Australian worker who has been offered a post overseas for the next four years decides to leave a sizeable amount of money in a high-interest bank account to accumulate interest. This person, who for whatever reason has chosen not to make any further deposits or withdrawals for that period of time, will, under this bill, have their deposit treated as unclaimed moneys. These funds will be moved to the government's own account, known as the consolidated revenue fund, and used to pad out the bottom line of that financial year's budget. In the Senate report a number of concerns were raised, which were shared by coalition senators, about the reduction by four years in the inactivity test period. The senators concluded that the three-year inactivity test for bank accounts is too short and needs to be reviewed to consider whether five years would be a more appropriate duration. Accounts which might be affected include those of Australians being posted overseas and accounts owned by children or set up for children's savings but without a contribution during the three years. In the case of a first home saver account, hard times can mean that contributions are not made for at least three years. Can you imagine the number of people that might be affected by an arbitrary three-year test? I imagine that is why the government is so keen to act this financial year.

The coalition dissenting report also pointed out that many account types should be excluded. A submission from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia stated:

A high level analysis by CBA indicates that the majority of account balances at CBA which would be impacted by the proposed changes to unclaimed monies currently receive an interest rate higher than the CPI linked rate which the Bill proposes to be paid on those balances once transferred to unclaimed monies.

So, a three-year requirement would be detrimental to a large number of Australians. Another recommendation from the coalition Senate report was that inactivity should be tested at the account holder level. If an inactive account is held by a consumer with one or more accounts at the bank, strongly suggesting that the customer is still alive and engaged with the bank, then the balance of the inactive account should not be deemed unclaimed and transferred to consolidated revenue. As such, where a customer holds multiple accounts with the bank, the inactivity test should be elevated to the level of the customer to help avoid unintended consequences.

The government also plans to appropriate funds from first home saver accounts by amending the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 to provide for new arrangements for unclaimed monies held by the first home saver account providers. This is outlined in schedule 2. Once again, the bill before the parliament today would amend section 17A and 51C of the FHSA Act to change unclaimed monies for the period from seven years to three years as with the changes to the ADIs.

The government announced the introduction of first home saver accounts in its own 2008-09 budget to assist parents in saving for their children's future. Many parents have established these accounts for their children but may not have been able to make contributions recently for a variety of factors, be it the ever rising cost of living that this government does not acknowledge or a temporary lack of disposable income. Some of these accounts have a very real risk of being claimed by the government, particularly when holders of these accounts have not been able to afford to contribute to their deposits over the past three years or have not been in contact with the bank which holds these deposits. The coalition considers that this four-year reduction also increases, unreasonably, the risks of unintended consequences and we suggest that this bill be delayed a year to allow sufficient time for consultation.

This bill will amend the Life Insurance Act 1995 as per schedule 3 to provide for new arrangements for unclaimed life insurance monies. Life insurance companies are required to report on and pay unclaimed monies to the Commonwealth. Unclaimed monies include sums payable on the maturity of a policy which are not claimed within seven years after the maturity date of the policy. The new arrangements outlined in this bill will reduce the period before life insurance monies are treated as unclaimed from seven to three years. It is, again, not clear how these provisions will apply to contemporary life insurance products or policies, and this confusion has arisen because the government has not had time to properly develop the legislation.

Schedule 4 to the bill amends the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 to change the circumstances in which small lost member accounts and accounts of unidentifiable members must be transferred to the ATO to provide for the payment of CPI interest on unclaimed superannuation money. Again, the coalition recommends that the proposed amendments in schedule 4 of the bill be delayed for a full year to 31 December 2013 to address the critical issues raised since the announcement of this measure. Lost superannuation accounts with balances of less than $2,000 that have up until now been inactive for only three years—currently this is set at seven years—and accounts of identifiable members that have been inactive for 12 months will now be required to be paid to Australian Taxation Office. It is not clear how legislative change will apply to people who have moved jobs and have multiple superannuation accounts, spent time overseas or moved residences. The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees noted in its submission that the problem of transferring such active accounts to consolidated revenue was that it was most likely to impact new employees, young people and low-income earners as these contributing members typically take the most time to accumulate account balance over $2,000.

This bill seeks to amend longstanding pillars of our financial services industry. Changes to these acts must never be made lightly, and the coalition will not facilitate a government that is acting out of self-interest as opposed to properly considered public policy. The coalition has advocated for a wide range of review measures to ensure that this bill has had due assessment to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. This is a bill that this government has concocted out of desperation to save its crumbling budget bottom line.

The coalition senators reached three recommendations, which include various parts of the schedules 1, 2 and 4, and the amendments to be moved by the shadow Treasurer this afternoon will reflect this. I urge the government to support them for the benefit of both consumers and industry who have been caught unawares by this rushed legislation. One of the other unintended consequences is for people who develop dementia. What will be done with their accounts? Will the government take money from people who are getting ill? Is that right? You have said they will keep their money; will they?

Mr Ripoll interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer will have his chance to speak later.

Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (11:51): I stand today to speak to the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012. From the outset, let me say that I have real concerns with the speed at which this bill has been brought to this House. I understand from the government's perspective why it needs to introduce this bill, which will bring $700 million into consolidated revenue and some $886 million into consolidated revenue over the forward estimates. This consolidated revenue benefit is designed to do nothing more than prop up the budget in an attempt to produce a surplus to make the government look good. This is not earnings by government. This is taking the money which individuals or corporations own and that is in bank accounts, life insurance and superannuation policies that actually belong to someone. Your excuse is that this money does not belong to someone, so therefore it belongs to the government, and therefore the government can use it to prop up its ineptitude in managing a budget. I have real concerns with the speed.

These concerns have been expressed in dissenting reports put down in the Senate. In particular, one of the things that really concerns me is in relation to superannuation, and the fact that the government will deem an account lost or inactive if there has been no action within 12 months. There are a large number of people, particularly young Australians who, when they leave school and start work might have a multitude of jobs; might amass a lot of small amounts of superannuation which they have not consolidated into one account. They might go travelling or they might go overseas for 12 months as a rite of passage as they explore offshore opportunities. Indeed, they might even go bush for 12 months and jackaroo or work up in Cairns in the tourism industry and be deemed non-contactable. Therefore, their hard earned money will go into consolidated revenue for this government. It is true that when it is claimed back they will be able to get an interest supplement from the government at the lowest rate.

Mr Ripoll: Less fees and charges.

Mr BALDWIN: Well, Parliamentary Secretary, let's be honest about it: this is about a cash grab to line up the bottom line of your budget and nothing more. That is why it is being done with this speed. And those young children sitting up in the gallery watching you would say, 'What are you doing to my future earning capacity when you have designed a scheme that now, within 12 months of deemed inactivity, by criteria set down by you and your colleagues that will take that money away?'

I have real concerns, and I believe that this bill before the House is going to be supported by Independents because there was a deal done. And that deal is the poker machines legislation which will be brought into this House tonight, which the government previously said would not work—in fact, Minister Macklin said on a number of occasions that the voluntary precommitment would not work. But, such is the demand from perhaps the member for Denison that he wants his bill through, and the government needs his support on this bill to get it through to prop up the bottom line. This government is selling out the hotel and the club industries for the purposes of getting this bill through. I will have more to say on that tonight, when I speak to the gambling reforms legislation.

I want to say that I feel very uncomfortable with this bill. I am glad that the shadow Treasurer will be moving a number of regulatory changes to make sure that it conforms more with sound, sensible responses—particularly at the time in which this will all come together. But I want to say I feel uncomfortable, because it is clear that this bill does nothing more than raid the bank accounts and superannuation funds of people to prop up the government's bottom line. Be honest about it.

Mr Ripoll: You're just making it up!

Mr BALDWIN: I'm not making it up, Parliamentary Secretary. Here you are, with your forward estimates, your schedules to the bill—schedules 1, 2 and 3: banking, first home saver account, life insurance this year will deliver you $93.4 million as you raid it off people; schedule 4: superannuation, $513.5 million; schedule 5: companies and corporations, $94 million; $700 million to your bottom line. So it is not true revenue, it is not income, it is not money the government has earned—it is money you are taking out of the accounts of everyday Australians to prop up your financial position to make you look like you could be somewhat of a responsible financially accurate government. You are not: you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is not your money.

I am not going to speak any further on this bill. I will be opposing it. I think it is wrong. I think the delivery method is wrong. I think the speed and access are wrong. And in particular I feel that the fact that this bill has brought other bills into action because of deals and swaps and a need for votes is going to do immeasurable harm to Australia.

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (11:57): With the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012 the government yet again travels down a well-worn path, with another blatant cash grab of Australians' hard-earned income. I have no hesitation in opposing this bill, because of the haste with which this government has chosen to introduce this legislation. Gone is sufficient time to assess the impact and unintended consequences, replaced with a desperate dash to the next budget—framed by creative accounting towards a non-paper surplus.

Again, the people of Tangney and all other Australians are left disregarded by a shambles of naive legislation and ignorant policy. Reforms to the Banking Act 1969 make new arrangements for unclaimed moneys held in deposit-taking institutions. The coalition had sought to refer the bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for prudent and measured assessment. Why this government has not sent this bill to the parliamentary inquiry lends itself to the question: what are the members of this Labor government seeking to achieve? And do they fully understand the potential implications for Australians? Instead, this bill has been rushed to the House for debate because Labor sees opportunity to profit from those who can least afford it. We are three days from this place rising for 2012. It is quite apparent the government is bent on rushing this and a swathe of other bills to a vote to temper current debt of $252.9 billion. In addition to the Banking Act 1969, this bill also seeks to amend unclaimed money measures which were flagged in the government's 2012-13 MYEFO, to the First Home Savers Account Act 2008, the Life Insurance Act 1985, the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Corporations Act 2001—the focus: arrangements relating to the transfer of unclaimed moneys to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for bank accounts and life insurance policies, lost members' accounts at the Australian Taxation Office for superannuation, and unclaimed moneys for companies' moneys.

Similar to most of the economic policies of the current Treasurer, this legislation will bring forward to 2012-13 a significant sum of money that the legislation will recognise as unclaimed, lost or abandoned. This figure is forecast to be $762 million. To do this, changes will reduce the period before an amount payable by an Australian deposit-taking institution is treated as unclaimed moneys from seven years to three.

Let me be clear. If a worker who has money sitting in a bank account accumulating interest and does not make any further deposits or withdrawals for that period of time, at the three-year mark they will have their deposit treated as unclaimed moneys. These funds will then be moved to consolidated revenue. It is towards Orwellian that government would come in and just pluck money from a private account because it has not been active for three years. This is the reverse Robin Hood. It means that 'small' Australians—not the big end of town but the small end of town that Labor purports to support—will be robbed by the biggest institution in the land, the Australian government. This is from the Labor Party, which prides itself on fighting for the little guy. Some fight!

How can an Australian government head down this path—to tap into private funds just because Australians rightly chose to leave money in a particular account? This is not the type of government I want. This is not the type of government the people of Tangney want—and they are telling me just that. Should this bill pass this place, I imagine many people, young and old, will step back 50 years and stuff their money under the mattress—better having it stagnant and not interest bearing than losing the money all together. This policy is archaic, deceptive and impractical.

Schedule 2 of this bill amends the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008—an amendment to a bill introduced by this government relatively recently to provide for new arrangements for unclaimed moneys held by the first home saver account providers. Amendments change, once again, the unclaimed moneys period from seven years to three years. Again, this schedule makes us question Labor's due diligence when introducing legislation it has drafted, with amendments after just a few years because the government has seen fiscal opportunity and seen fit to amend legislation for government gain at the cost of the individual citizen.

Surely there is a better way to balance the budget—even after this government has produced four of the biggest budget deficits in Australia's history. Prudent, fiscally responsible and competent government should always strive for higher productivity and higher standards of living for all Australians. Pinching $2,000 here and $3,000 there, while unjust, is also bureaucratically implausible. The cost of administering this poorly developed policy surely outweighs the net gain to the government.

Now I go to schedule 3, concerning life insurance. Currently life insurance companies are required to report on and pay unclaimed moneys to the Commonwealth. Unclaimed moneys include sums payable on the maturity of a policy which are not claimed within seven years after the maturity date of that policy. The new arrangements will reduce the period before life insurance moneys are treated as unclaimed moneys from seven to—you guessed it—three years. Once again, we see a reduction in the time frame, and it will allow the government to step in and take that money. If someone legitimately choses to have a bank account and leave money in there for more than three years, and not wish to add to it and not wish to subtract from it, surely they have the right to do that and not be worried that a government is going to step in and appropriate the money.

Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act. Lost super accounts with balances of less than $2,000 that have until now been active for only three years—currently this is seven—and accounts of unidentifiable members that have been inactive for 12 months are now to be paid to the Australian Taxation Office. Note the figure of less than $2,000. Once again, we are not talking about the big end of town. Schedule 5 deals with the Corporations Act. Once again, the government seeks to move the goalposts so it is easier to get hold of private citizens' money.

This bill just beggars belief. It changes the pillars of our financial services industry. It is clear that the rushed time lines and implementation of this bill have been driven by nothing more than a Treasurer pretending that he can deliver a surplus, a surplus that is at risk without the passing of this bill. The coalition and I will not support or facilitate a government that acts on political interest with disregard for properly considered public policy. Good government is the goal of all members in this place, Labor and Liberal, and it saddens me that the Labor Party have sold what was left of their dignity to manufacture a superficial surplus.

The Leader of the Opposition's team have left this government naked. The bill exposes the wanton greed and lust for power endemic in tired and troubled Labor. This bill generates $762 million, which is a very convenient sum when the surplus is expected to be a wafer thin $1.077 billion. There is no way around it. The Treasurer is robbing not only Peter but also Paul. The only people getting paid are Labor cronies in unions and backroom boys.

In the final analysis, it is difficult to understand not the bill itself but where it is coming from, who is driving it. Is it the Australian Bankers Association? No, because they remain sceptical of its necessity and of the transitional administrative arrangements. Is it the lobby groups and/or academic groups? No, because they point to the lack of any evidence to suggest that three years is the optimal time to take a person's money. The job of a government should be to safeguard and protect the properties of people, not to meander into their bank accounts and confiscate their hard earned treasure. This bill goes to prove the point that the Leader of the Opposition and I have made, time and time again: a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (12:08): I thank all members who have spoken and contributed to this debate. I can understand that there is some confusion, although I find it difficult to understand why that is the case. We have clearly articulated exactly what this bill does—and the amendments to this bill—in protecting people's savings and superannuation, protecting their money and, for the first time, ensuring that people's lost accounts are not eroded away by fees and charges, and that for the first time they also have an opportunity to continue to earn interest. These are good for consumers and good for the country. The bill is certainly not what has been described by a number of members opposite. In fact, it is the case that the rules on how unclaimed moneys are dealt with, with ASIC and the ATO, are in currently place. They currently exist. In that effect there are no changes. The changes are to when it takes place. It will happen more quickly, but that is a really good thing for consumers because the earlier it happens the earlier their lost accounts can be reconnected and the quicker they can re-access their funds.

The interesting part about the different elements that have been raised is that the reason the accounts are lost in the first place is people have for whatever reason become disconnected and they have no mechanism to reconnect with their lost account in whatever form. No method exists. If it is with the bank it is not in the bank's interests to put forward that you reconnect with your funds and take them out, but it is in the government's interest that ordinary people are reconnected with their funds, that the fees and charges stop being taken out and eroding a person's savings, and that savings are added to by giving people CPI interest—yes, at the lowest rate, but interest so that the value of their money maintains value over time. These are really good, sensible changes.

I am prepared to have debates and arguments over time frames—whether it is seven years or three or whatever other time frame—but that does not change the principle. The principle we have before us is that we are trying to save people's money by giving them interest for the first time, to stop the erosion of the value of their money by having fees and charges taken out for the first time, and to make sure that the government, through the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, actively reconnects people with their money. Right now, what happens in the absence of these very good changes we are putting forward is that those unclaimed moneys go on for not three years or seven years but 10 or 15 years because people do not know. The reason they are unclaimed is a lot of people do not know they exist, or they are overseas, or whatever the case may be. The faster we can reconnect people the better it is.

There is a whole range of other issues that have been raised by opposition members trying to confuse this area—that the government is somehow reaching into people's accounts. That is not the case at all. This is an amendment to existing laws about things that currently happen, and this is an improvement to what we have seen in the past. This bill is directly intended to do exactly what it does, which is re-unite Australians with their lost moneys faster and to protect that lost money from inflation and fees. I am astonished that anyone in this place would oppose it.

We have made a number of technical amendments and we have clarified a range of areas—because there are a lot of technical issues in some of these matters—and this now means it is clear for banks and for consumers. We have given the appropriate time frames for organisations to be able to implement these new measures. Contrary to the suggestions from the opposition, this bill does not introduce a new regime for lost moneys. Rather, the bill will deliver better outcomes for consumers by making a small number of refinements to the existing regime. This is the disingenuous element of some of what has been said in this debate.

These are laws that existed under the Howard government. What we have done and what we continue to do in government is take those laws and make them better. Following consultation with the industry the government will move amendments to the bill that will provide industry with more time to implement the changes. There is no argument from industry about whether this is right or wrong, because it is currently being done. We are giving industry a little bit more time to be able to properly—

Mr Hockey interjecting—

Mr RIPOLL: We get laughter from the opposition. More time—isn't that what they were saying? Isn't that what they wanted? That is exactly what we have done—we have given them a little bit more time. It will happen in good time because the faster these changes happen the better it is for consumers. If we used the principle that the opposition brings to the table there would be no time, because they could never find the time in 12 years in government—there was never any time. There was never any time to make any good changes. We will take the time and we will do it.

Specifically, we have also authorised for deposit-taking institutions, First Home Saver Account providers and life insurers to be required to make supplementary assessment and transfer by 31 May 2013. That is sufficient time for the changes to be adopted, adapted and implemented so that people can be earlier reconnected with their money. This provides an extra five months for these institutions to identify lost accounts and an extra two months to transfer them, as requested by industry groups such as Abacus. We agree with them. Let us give them a little bit more time. Let us make these changes. But the faster we get there the quicker people will be reconnected. All the evidence is on the table. All you have to do is go through the evidence from history. Have a look at what happened with unclaimed moneys in each previous year. There were more and more of them over time and no effort was made—nothing was done—to reconnect people. As soon as this Labor government started to make an effort, we saw a change. We saw people who had lost accounts being reconnected with their accounts. We are seeing people with lost super being reconnected with their super. We are seeing the things that this bill intends to do working.

We have had more evidence recently. There has been a bit of media activity around this issue, including on the radio. The government and ASIC have promoted the fact that people ought to go and use the free search tool at ASIC or the ATO to look for their lost accounts. A whole drift of people have gone there to reconnect for the first time. This bill will assist people to do that.

This is the key that the opposition needs to understand. Most people have no way of knowing that they have lost money. Even if you thought you had, where would you look? It is lost. Where would you start? But as soon as it transfers from the institution—the bank or wherever it might be—to ASIC or the ATO you can search for it. It does not matter how long you wait. You can search it now or you can search it in 10 years and your money will still be there. It will not have been eroded by fees and charges. The real value of your money will have been maintained because you will get interest. For the first time, you will get interest. How could you oppose that? In 10 years time, somebody who lost their money will be able to reconnect with their funds. Under this mob's rule, what happened was that it just stayed lost. That is what they want: they want the money to stay lost. They want the lost accounts to stay lost. They want to make an amendment all right: one to take the time period from the old seven years to forever, because they are not interested in reconnecting people with their funds. We are and that is exactly what we are doing.

Consultation with industry has identified some areas in which the intent of the amendments can be clarified. These issues can and will be dealt with through regulations, as per my press release yesterday.

These reforms will ensure that more Australians are reunited with their lost moneys. They will also ensure that this happens faster. That is the whole point. Why wait any longer? If somebody has a lost account—lost moneys in either their life insurance policy, superannuation, bank accounts or even property—why should they have to wait any further? Let us reconnect people with their money and let us do it now.

There were a range of issues raised by speakers on the other side. I will make a few points to clarify things. The principles in the existing legislation will not be changed. The principles remain exactly the same. At some point in time, be it seven years or three years, that money will be transferred—and this was done during the Howard era—from an account that is lost, unidentifiable or inactive to the ATO or to ASIC. What we are doing is making that happen faster so that you can reconnect with your funds faster. The principles have not changed. When those opposite say that the government is taking your money, that is not the case, because that is the existing law—it is exactly what happens now; it is exactly what happened during the Howard era. We did not hear them at that point in time saying that they were taking that money. The key principle differences are that it stops your money being eroded through fees and charges for the first time and that you get interest for the first time.

The other concern from the opposition revolves around speed: it is all too fast, according to them. We may be moving too quickly for the opposition, but we can walk, chew gum and breathe at the same time and introduce good amendments. This is not too fast. This is appropriate. It is about time that people are reconnected with their funds in a more timely manner. Whether that lost money is in superannuation, life insurance policies or bank accounts, the settings that we are putting in place are appropriate—and particularly for super. There is a complexity to super, particularly for young people with multiple accounts. In fact, superannuation is one of the areas in which there is an enormous amount of lost money. The shorter the time period, the quicker it moves across, the faster that you will be able to identify and reconnect with your superannuation. That is great for consumers. It means that they can get their money faster.

The issues that have been raised have been more than amply dealt with. The amendments that we have put forward, after good consultation with the industry about implementation periods, are sensible and appropriate. The government commends this bill to the House, because it is good for consumers and good for reconnecting people with their lost moneys.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (12:20): I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

The coalition is moving an amendment to delay the start date of schedules 1, 2 and 4 of this bill, which deal with changes to bank accounts, first home saver accounts and unclaimed superannuation. Under schedule 1, the coalition is seeking to delay the implementation date of the changes, which reduce the period before an amount payable by an Australian deposit-taking institution or money held in a bank account is treated as unclaimed money from seven years to three years. As the Senate inquiry found:

Submissions from the Australian Bankers' Association (ABA), the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) suggested three years was too short a period of inactivity to deem an account unclaimed, particularly given the growing number and type of accounts that customers intentionally leave inactive for extended periods.

Submissions from institutions provided to the committee also challenged the government’s claim that owners of inactive accounts would be better off once the money in those accounts was transferred, with examples provided of many accounts where interest paid on those accounts was currently higher than CPI or inflation.

In relation to this measure, the coalition thinks that it is particularly disturbing that information provided by Treasury confirmed that they were unable to quantify the number of affected accounts. Treasury did not even know how many accounts were going to be affected but mentioned that approximately 14,000 accounts were transferred to ASIC last financial year. When questioned whether inactive accounts of active customers—for example, customers with other active accounts would be excluded—Treasury simply stated that the definition of unclaimed moneys had not changed.

It is important to note that the test for unclaimed moneys within the legislation before the House is whether or not a transaction has occurred on that account, not whether or not you have other active accounts within one institution. When the coalition pressed Treasury around current statistics for bank accounts that will be impacted by this legislation, they were only able to refer to current data under the current seven-year time limit. Of the accounts listed in ASIC's database that were transferred in the 2012 financial year, half had a balance below $1,275 and the mean account balance was approximately $4,400. Perhaps the most disturbing feature was the current largest unclaimed bank account listed in the ASIC database was for $992,750 in Carlisle, in Western Australia. If this is what is going on on ASIC's register after seven years, then how many people are going to be affected after three years? The government does not know. The coalition deems this to be an unsatisfactory policy motivation. The coalition will also move an amendment to delay the implementation date of schedule 2 to this bill, which deals with the changes to first home saver accounts, for similar reasons to that which I have outlined for the delay of schedule 1. Our amendments will also delay the start date of schedule 4 of this bill which amends unclaimed moneys in superannuation. This delay will provide a more timely introduction for the government, given the autoconsolidation changes that are due to commence on 1 January 2014.

In short, we are giving everyone time to properly consider this legislation and to properly implement it. The policy intent might be there, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer is right to say we had similar in principle unclaimed policy proposals under our government. But this government is just doing a fix to try and get the budget to surplus this year. That is all it is about, and quite frankly we are not going to cop it because we will not support legislation that is fundamentally flawed and adds to the red tape burden of everyone on an everyday basis.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The question is that opposition amendment (1) be agreed to. I think the ayes have it. Do the noes have it? Is a division required? In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the division is deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.

Mr Morrison: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having been in the House when you called the result of that vote, I would ask that you review the proceedings between now and when you have indicated the debate may take place on this matter. My distinct recollection of the last few minutes is that the amendments were determined by the vote that was taken here. There was no voice calling for no and there was no call for a division before you declared the matter.

Opposition members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I called for noes and there was a no. The member for North Sydney and the parliamentary secretary will resume their seats. I said: 'The ayes have it?' and the ayes said yes, which is often the case in a division. I then called for noes and, although there was a quiet no, there was a no and I asked if a division were required.

Mr Hockey: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to reflect in any way upon the chair, but I distinctly did not hear—and I am sitting right here—any members on the other side of the House call out no when you invited them to do so. Therefore you declared the vote in our favour. I would ask you to refer the matter to the Speaker for checking the tapes, because I think you acted entirely properly. There were no declared noes against the amendment; therefore, the matter is passed. If the government seeks to have the matter resubmitted for a vote at a later time, then that is something it can discuss with us. But I did distinctly hear that there was no dissenting voice.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will resume his seat, as will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer.

Mr Ripoll: I ask for a similar opportunity to what you gave the member for North Sydney. There were clearly two voices for no, and if they have a problem hearing that is their problem and not ours. There were clearly two noes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did call for the noes. I started by calling if the ayes had it, as would normally be the case: you would call for the ayes and not immediately call for the noes. They were very quiet noes, I will admit.

Mr Ripoll interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer does not have the call. The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat.

Mr Hockey: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that this matter be referred to the Speaker for consideration and that the Speaker advise the House prior to any vote that is being held over until after the MPI. I think that is a perfectly reasonable approach. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not suggesting that you were in any way wrong, but I do suggest that, long after the vote was declared, there was a voice of dissent. Let the tapes determine that. I really do urge you to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not declare the vote.

Mr Ripoll: Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: if it helps the House, if I was too quiet on this occasion—although I made it quite clear that it was a no and I looked at you at that point; you may not have seen me or heard my the voice—I ask that you call it again and I will make sure that I yell it very loudly. We can go to the video ref as many times as you like. My intent was clear. The no was clear. If others did not hear it, that is their problem. I am asking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to consider that the intent was clear—and it is quite clear what we are trying to do—and re-put the question. If you are concerned that somehow it was not loud enough—it was loud but not loud enough—I am prepared to make it as loud as necessary to ensure that it is loud enough. No-one questions that it was loud; it was just not loud enough.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the parliamentary secretary. I have ruled that the noes have it and that there will be a deferred division. That will be an opportunity for the House to decide on the amendment. There are divisions yet to be taken.

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:32): I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012. In consideration of this measure, it is worth noting that five years ago the Labor government was elected; there were four people in immigration detention who had arrived illegally by boat, and that figure today is well over 12,000, whether they are on bridging visas, in community detention, in alternative places of detention or in the detention network itself. From just four people to over 12,000 in the last five years is a record of failure that has no peer. It is a record of failure that this government will never be able to erase, either by correcting it, because of their own incompetence and lack of resolve on this issue and the inadequacy of their policy responses, or by removing it from the memory of the Australian people, who will always mark this government as the worst performing government on our borders in our nation's history.

The objective of this bill is to expand the existing offshore processing regime to apply to all persons arriving on mainland Australia unlawfully by sea. It will replace the concept of 'offshore entry persons' with the concept of 'unauthorised maritime arrivals'—some semantics from the government; changing words does not change their failures. It will mean that even persons who arrive on Australian soil, on the mainland, by boat will be subject to removal to an offshore processing country and will be processed according to that regime. This bill will effectively excise the Australian mainland from the Migration Act, and the government say it is intended to act as a disincentive to people to make the journey to Australia. The government have been more in the business of providing incentives, not disincentives, for people to come by boat, and the record demonstrates that with arrivals now averaging over 2,000 per month, and that continues. Even this month, there have been well over 2,000 before the month has even concluded.

Following the government's decision to allow all offshore entry persons access to merits and judicial review through the Refugee Review Tribunal, which occurred in the courts in March this year, the purported impact of this measure has been substantively, if not completely, negated. The decision to treat those who come by boat in the same way as those who come by a legal method to Australia has effectively removed one of the key issues and key parts of the border protection regime that was put in place by the Howard government to ensure a distinction between the way these matters were handled and, in particular, their access to the courts. This government has hard wired the claims of people who have come illegally by boat to our court system. So it does not matter if you get a 'No'; you can just keep appealing this endlessly, you can keep appealing this through the courts, and you can be here for many years when you have no viable claim. You can just keep going through the courts on and on, and the government's decision to do that in March effectively removed the import of the measure which is before us today.

Consistency is very important in politics. It is important in policy. It is important in terms of the resolve you demonstrate when handling matters. On this side of the House there has been nothing but consistency on this issue. It is the stock-in-trade of the coalition when it comes to border protection that people know what we stand for, that they know what we believe in, that they know what we will do, that they have a measure of certainty about the actions that we will take. That measure of certainty is not held just by the Australian people but, even more significantly, it is held in the minds of the people smugglers themselves. They know where we stand on this issue and they know that if there is a change of government at the next election the game is up. There will be new management when it comes to these issues: a management that does not fold every time smugglers lean on them, a management that does not hand out protection visas to people who burn down detention centres or set boats alight. That is not the sort of management that they will see from a coalition if we are elected. They will see a coalition that will act consistent with our principles and consistent with the policies that we have advocated, implemented and defended for over a decade.

In this place we will support the government's bill in not opposing this measure. It is, by the minister's own admission, very much the bill that was introduced to this House by the Howard government in 2006, and which passed this place—in the House of Representatives. So we will once again not oppose a measure such as this. Indeed, we will support it. I suspect that, within this place, the members on our side of the House will vote as they did last time. They will vote consistent with how they voted last time, and I suspect even those members on our side who have had long reservations about this matter will act consistently with the way they have acted previously. That is something we respect in the Liberal Party. Where people particularly have longstanding positions on these matters then they are not bound by the factional ball and chain that you see on the other side of the House, where dissent is put down and where people's ability to express their deeply held convictions and views in this place is not suppressed as it is on the other side of a House. I suspect there are some on our side who will act consistent with the way they have always acted, and the interesting thing about that is that they did it when they were in government, in the face of a government that they were part of, and they will do it in the face of a government today that they are not a part of. I respect that decision on their part. It is not the view on this bill of coalition more broadly, or the position that the coalition more broadly will take, but it is consistent. Everyone on this side of the House will vote, I believe, consistently with the way they voted last time when these matters were considered by this House. The same bill as the one before us today, when it was introduced in 2006 by the Howard government, was met in this place by raging debate. It was said by Labor members then in opposition—and indeed by the now minister for immigration himself—that the bill was a 'stain on our national character' and that it that it offended 'decency'. A former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, said that it was 'shameful' and 'xenophobic'. Another current minister, Minister Ellis, said that it was 'lunacy', 'indecent', 'inhumane' and 'gutless'. Those same individuals—with the exception of the minister, who has already spoken when introducing this bill—are not on the speakers list for this bill; you will not find them there. But they will vote today to support the bill that they have brought to this place of their own volition. It is their policy. The government cannot hide behind panels or committees or anything of that nature. Once a minister of the government brings a bill into this place, puts it on this table and introduces it, they own it. It is their policy. It is meant to represent what they believe: their convictions. You on that side of the House cannot hide behind Angus Houston when you have to vote on this bill today. If you vote for this bill today, you are admitting that you were hypocrites and frauds in 2006, and the Australian people will see it just that way. On this side of the House we will act consistently with our beliefs, our long-held views, our convictions and our policy on unlawful arrivals. We will not oppose the bill before the House.

This bill, as I said, will expand offshore processing to apply to all people who arrive on the Australian mainland unlawfully by sea, effectively excising the Australian mainland from the Migration Act. I return to some of the things that were said in the debate in 2006, because what this bill is really all about—and the bill will pass this House—is this government's record of inconsistency and hypocrisy. The now Minister for Immigration and Citizenship said on 10 August 2006:

This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character.

He said:

Amending this bill is like putting lipstick on a pig. You can put all the lipstick you like on it but it will still be a pig. You can amend this bill all you like but it will still be a bad bill.

How shameless it is of this minister to now bring the same bill into this place. It seems that the minister is now using as an excision bill what he described as a pig of a bill in 2006 in order to try to save his own political bacon. That is what is happening in this place. The government have focused on the politics of illegal arrivals for five years—do not solve the problem; solve the politics—and that is exactly the same thing I witnessed in the New South Wales state Labor government for 16 years. Under the faceless men of the Labor Party in Sussex Street, the New South Wales state government ran the state into the ground, and the same method is at work and alive here in this place. It is at work in the pungent hypocrisy of the government's bringing this bill, which they say they now believe in, into this place. Mr Bowen said that the bill in 2006 had no redeeming features. But this government have no redeeming features.

The stench of hypocrisy will rise from those opposite—every single last one of them—as they walk into this House and vote for this bill. Mr Bowen said:

We will oppose this bill, and I call on members opposite to join us. If it is passed, it will be repealed by an incoming Labor government. Decency and self-respect as a nation would demand nothing less.

But they did not repeal it; they have introduced the same bill again. Is there anything higher in the flip-flop scale than that? Today, the minister stands to introduce the very same legislation he condemned in 2006 and promised to repeal. But he was not alone in his sanctimony. On 9 August 2006, the member for Watson, the current Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and a former shadow minister for immigration, said:

Australia is better than this bill. The legislation before us today undermines our sovereignty, is offensive to our decency and makes a mockery of this parliament.

Australia is better than this government. Australia is better than the hypocrisy of this government and its incompetent failures. Australians demand a better government. They demand a government which knows what it believes in and they want to know what their government believes in.

The member for Watson said that it was 'offensive to our decency and makes a mockery of the parliament.' No, it is this government which is an offence to decency. It is this government which makes a mockery of itself. He went on to say:

We do not know whether to laugh at just how ludicrous this legislation is or cry at the very real impact and real pain it seeks to cause some of the most desperate people in the world.

When you read these words from the then shadow minister, now the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, you learn that the expression 'crocodile tears' has a new meaning. He continued:

Labor is going to oppose this bill in every way, and we will oppose it at every stage … The bill before us is wrong—it is just plain wrong. Labor will not have anything to do with it.

But you own it.

Next we have the member for Hotham, a former Leader of the Opposition and now the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts. He spoke on 10 August 2006 during a debate which went for several days—a debate they were then all very keen to participate in, although they do not seem too keen today. The list of speakers from the government is pretty slim today. No-one on that side wants to stand up for this bill, although they will vote for it. During that debate, the member for Hotham said:

Labor opposes it outright. There is nothing you can do to this excision bill that will fix it. We do not seek to amend it; we will oppose it in its entirety. The bill is shameful and xenophobic.

This is an old tactic, an old accusation from Labor—when you cannot meet the argument, call the coalition racists. When your policies do not stack up and your failures are so profound that you cannot speak over the noise of your own failures, when you cannot make an argument and you cannot get anything right, just call coalition members racists—as Labor members have been doing for the past week.

But those members opposite, particularly those representing Western Sydney, know that every time a Labor member calls the coalition and coalition members who are standing up for stronger border protection and who believe in stronger border protection racists, they are calling those who share those views racists. They are calling their own constituents racists. As I move around Western Sydney, it is clear that this issue and the government's failures have brought the people of that area to a point of absolute frustration. They are not racists; they are just sick of government incompetence. They are sick of a government which cannot protect our borders and cannot do one of the most fundamental things a national government is elected to do. The government can call them racists if they like, but at the next election they will reap what they sow in making those claims.

The member for Hotham went on to say:

This is a foolish nonsense. It is worse than that though. It is a vindictive and vicious measure to take against unfortunate and desperate people. It does nothing to secure our borders and returns to the government’s old policy of deterrence and punishment based on fear. It is a bill that should be opposed.

I am always interested when the government talks about compassion in relation to this matter. There is not a decision you make in this area of asylum policy which does not have serious consequences for human beings. Every decision you make has that impact and everybody who participates in this debate should understand that. I certainly do. But you have to take ownership of your decisions and the consequences which flow from them.

Labor, when they were ranting and raving at this bill and subjecting the now Father of the House, the member for Berowra; the then Prime Minister, John Howard; and others to their abuse and vitriol, were saying, 'We have a better way of dealing with this.' At the 2007 election, five years ago, they got their way and all of those who supported them got their way. They got what they asked for. They got the Howard government measures abolished. All of those measures went. And what happened? Over 30,000 people turned up; over 1,000 people were dead in the water; over 8,000 people were denied protection visas in this country from some of the most desperate places in the world because they did not come on a boat; and there was a cost blow-out of $6.6 billion and counting this year alone—including capital it will cost $2.7 billion. These are the consequences. It does not sound to me like a particularly compassionate outcome. It sounds to me like an absolute disaster in humanitarian and financial terms.

It is one thing to sound compassionate; it is another thing to be compassionate and to have policies that deal with the problem. People ask on various programs, whether on the ABC or other places, 'Why are we even talking about this?' Because the government has failed, that is why. When you fix the problem you do not have to talk about the problem, but this government ignored the problem and just wanted to change the debate. As the previous Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Chris Evans said, his greatest failing was that he was not able to control the conversation enough. No! The problem was that he was not able to control the borders. The fact that the government does not get that this is the issue it has to solve, and that the consequences of not fixing it are disastrous for human beings and the taxpayers of Australia alike, is something I will never understand.

The vitriol continues. The member for Adelaide, now the Minister for Early Childhood and Child Care and for Employment Participation, said on 9 August 2006:

Now every member of this House has a stark choice: do they stand up and vote against a proposal which has the wrong motivations, which is indecent and inhumane by its very nature and which is clearly absurd …

Did the minister stand up in the ministry? Did she stand up in the party room, or the caucus, as it is called on that side of the House? Did she stand up on that day? Did she have a stark choice? In the course of her speech she described the measures as lunacy, ludicrous, harsh, indecent, inhumane, unfair and gutless. That is what we will see with every Labor member who walks in and votes for this bill today: gutlessness. To switch their position on such a matter, where they displayed such passion and directed such vitriol, and now they work out that it was a problem—the very first thing they should do as they walk in here is apologise to John Howard and to the member for Berowra for the abuse, the vitriol and the slurs that they put on those two great men's characters. They were compassionate men who wanted to do the right thing to ensure we had integrity of our borders and that people smugglers were not trading on people's lives. Labor should apologise to them today if they are going to vote for this bill, and if they do not they are gutless—gutless to their core.

The minister concluded by saying:

I am clear that I will continue to absolutely oppose this legislation and I encourage all members to do likewise.

That is the thing with the Labor Party: it always believes what it believes until the day it does not, and the Australian people know that. The government announces something and it never happens: 'But we announced it.' Then why did it not happen? 'We did not get around to it, we changed our minds, we did not go ahead with it.' Those opposite are big on the announcements. They are big on the big symbols. They are big on the big Herculean stands and the wars on goodness knows what. I remember in the first term of this government we had a war on everything, but when it comes to fighting those battles they disappear. The Australian people know they cannot trust Labor on this. You cannot trust someone who clearly does not know what they believe in in this space. This requires a resolve based on conviction, and this government simply does not have it.

I am no fan of the Greens' policies, no fan at all. I think they are a disaster for what they mean for these issues, but at least they believe the same thing for more than a day. I suspect that is why some people who used to vote for the Labor Party now vote for the Greens—they know that the Labor Party has lost its soul. It is run by spivs and union hacks who will do whatever it takes. We all know who said that: whatever it takes. That is the culture of what was once a great party. Now it has been reduced to this. How ashamed the great Labor men and women would be of this government and the way it has dealt with this matter. The member for Grayndler, now Leader of the House, said on 10 August:

I wish to speak in the strongest possible terms in opposition to the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. This government has a policy that is built on sand. It shifts with the wind, it shifts on the basis of what is in the political interest of the government in terms of its preparedness to promote fear, to promote hatred and to vilify some of the most vulnerable people in the global community. It is no way for this parliament to provide the leadership that we have been entrusted to provide by our respective communities.

In that statement he talked about a government that has a policy 'built on sand', that 'shifts with the wind', that 'shifts on the basis of what is in the political interest of the government'. He was being a prophet, but not about the Howard government; he was being a prophet about the government that he would be a part of. He was the Nostradamus speaking back in 2006 about the government he would be a part of, which is demonstrated in the hypocrisy of this bill which has been brought before this place today. He went on to say:

This bill is wrong in principle and it is wrong in motivation. It cannot be improved by any amendments, so we are not moving any.

He said:

I reject the bill as being fundamentally abhorrent to everything I believe in and all the reasons why I want to represent my electorate in this great parliament.

Well, he has some explaining to do to the electors of Grayndler. He goes on:

I will conclude my comments by saying that this is a test of this parliament and this government. It has been a test of the Australian Labor Party and we have risen to the occasion, and that is why we are rejecting this legislation.

This government, this Labor Party, has sunk in the way it has dealt with this matter.

Then there is the member for Kingsford-Smith, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, who said:

The crux of this debate is moral integrity and national purpose as weighed against political expediency.

And—and this is rich—he called it 'exquisite hypocrisy'. He said:

But I have some confidence that Australians will not tolerate for much longer a government for whom principles and compassion have no meaning.

I share his view about that. He goes on:

It is a government that lacks the confidence in its institutions, in its own laws and in its own officials to allow events to take their course … It is a government that lacks confidence in what its proper place in the region is. It is a government that has no idea of what Australia’s primary values are …

And he goes on—another prophet from that side of that chamber, talking not about the Howard government but about the government that he himself would be a part of. He said:

A government that so betrays its own values is a government that is no longer worthy of representing the people of Australia.

That was from the member for Kingsford-Smith. Well, he is damned, like this government, by his own words and his own actions. Out of respect for Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, I will not refer to the comments by the member for Calwell, but I am sure the Deputy Speaker knows them well.

What we see on that side of the House is gross hypocrisy and a recalcitrant failure to acknowledge that, when you get something wrong, you admit you got it wrong. But we have not heard that from this government. We have not heard from this government that it was wrong to abolish the Howard government policies—not once, not a peep about that. The hypocrisy and lack of grace in that is breathtaking.

The minister said when he was in opposition that it was a stain on our national character to support this bill. Well, there is a stain on the government, because of their actions on border protection, that will never wash off, no matter how hard they try. The hypocrisy and political expediency of the government in trying to save their own neck and save a failed Prime Minister is on display for the entire country to see and before this parliament. That stain will not wash off. That stain will be visible and will mark every single member of the government who comes in and votes on this bill—every single one. I hope it rests heavily on them as they come in here, and I hope it rests heavily on them when they go back to their branch members and try to explain to those who have supported them over years and years the absolute gutter hypocrisy that they have displayed in this place. This measure, as I said at the outset, is, frankly, a fairly marginal measure. I think it will have very little impact at all. In fact, I think the real reason that the government has brought this before this place is that the government knows that it cannot cope with the rate of arrivals, and this simply provides an expediency to bypass Christmas Island and bring people straight to the mainland. That is what it does. It just enables the water taxi to go to other ports in Australia—not just to go to Christmas Island, but to come directly here to the mainland. This is a government that last week admitted that it cannot stop the boats, with arrivals of over 2,000 a month. The government's answer: more places, more beds, more cost and no effective deterrence—just more excuses.

That is what this bill is about. It is a minor expediency, both logistically and politically, for a government that have so lost their way on this issue that they will never find it again. And the Australian people know that is why they cannot trust the government on this issue. They cannot trust the government because the government themselves do not believe—so why should the Australian people believe in them? Conviction matters when it comes to issues that involve such difficult decisions. It is conviction that those on this side of the House will be demonstrating when we vote on this bill today—the conviction that has been shown by individuals and right across our party. We will vote as we did last time. We will support measures, even if they are as marginal as this one is. If it improves things slightly and we think it is a good measure, we will support it.

But those on that side of the House have a level of explaining to do that time will not permit in this debate. When I look at the speaker's list on this matter, there are only three speakers. How ashamed they must be about this business that they bring before the House today. It is a very black day for the Labor Party. It has been a very black month. It has been a black year. It has been a black five years for the people of Australia under this government. Next year they will have the opportunity to change that and to send the one message that people smugglers will understand, and that is the election of a coalition government.

Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (13:02): In his speech on this bill, the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012, the member for Cook referred to the greatest region of the country, Western Sydney, and talked about the fact that he had been out there quite a bit. Out in my region, in RSLs and clubs, they often have hypnosis acts where the hypnotist will call people up from the crowd and hypnotise them. It is quite often the case that the hypnotist never actually applies their own arts to themselves. In the case of what the member for Cook just did, I cannot seriously think that he believes half the garbage that he passed through as some sort of parliamentary contribution today. He mentioned a couple of times that he and the coalition support the bill but then went on to provide us with a whole range of arguments that were breathtaking in their hypocrisy.

Consistency in public life is absolutely the goal. In terms of the setting of policy, it is absolutely important. But consistency that ignores reality and is divorced from reality and circumstance is not a substitute for good policy. We are not going to have a situation where those opposite, in terms of consistency, substitute policy and thinking differently about changed circumstances for just holding the line on something that they believe worked 10 years ago, when there is nothing to substantiate whether it will actually hold true today.

All those opposite have had on this issue in dealing with irregular maritime arrivals is to go back to what John Howard did. The member for Warringah has never had an idea that John Howard has not thought of first. Anything that is in his playbook right now is pretty much going back to what former Prime Minister John Howard advocated—and there is never anything really new. That is why they are stuck on this issue of consistency. It is because, when they open the policy cupboard, frankly, it is bare.

How is it they can lecture about consistency when, for example, they opposed our Malaysia agreement on the basis that Malaysia was not a country that was a signatory to the refugee convention and yet, on the other hand, they pursue a policy that advocates towing boats back to Indonesia, which, funnily enough, is not a signatory to the refugee convention?

And, in most recent times, they have announced a policy that would have Sri Lankan asylum seekers automatically sent back to Sri Lanka, with no processing of their claims in accordance with the refugee convention. This coalition policy announced in September has no regard for the convention. Are they sending them back to a country that is a signatory to the convention? No.

They lecture us on consistency and bring up comments in relation to consistency throughout this debate. For example, when they were seeking the support of the Greens in the House when we were dealing with the member for Lyne's resolution in relation to asylum seekers back in June, they said they would support an increase in the humanitarian intake, which is advocated in the Houston report. That report has a series of recommendations into which we have breathed life over the course of the last few months. On the one hand, the coalition say that they will support that; then last week the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, said they will not support that. And they come in here and talk about consistency, when we see a complete absence of consistency from their side.

They talk about suppressing dissent. During that debate on the member for Lyne's resolution, I clearly remember, as many in this House would remember, the member for Curtin, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Julie Bishop, and another coalition member bookending the member for Moore and preventing the member for Moore from exercising his view on what should be done in relation asylum seekers. How is it that they can overlook that suppression of a view on their side and put pressure on the member for Moore and the member for Pearce—

Mr Briggs: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is suggesting that members of the opposition breached privilege, in effect, and that is highly out of order. He should withdraw that accusation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): There is no point of order.

Mr HUSIC: There is no point of order: the tapes show exactly what occurred—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mayo has made his point of order; he will resume his seat.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mayo on a different point of order?

Mr Briggs: To that point of order. It is a highly offensive suggestion that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition breached the privilege of the parliament. He should withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mayo has other channels through which he can take up that issue.

Mr HUSIC: We have the situation, again, regarding the application of consistency, where they should be consistent in relation to the expression of alternative views on their side of the fence on this matter. What we are doing is exactly what was put forward in the Houston report.

To break the deadlock in this chamber on this issue, an expert panel of eminent Australians was brought together to consider this and to put forward a range of recommendations about what should be done. We are breathing life into one of those recommendations in the bill before the House. There are people who express surprise about this move, but it is clear that if you arrive in some part of what is considered Australia then you are transferred to Manus Island or Nauru, but if you proceed to the mainland then you would be treated differently. There is no consistency in that sort of approach, and that is what this bill seeks to deal with. I have had people raise that view; I even had it on Twitter today, where people were expressing their view in relation to this matter. This is about consistency. It is about dealing with the fact that since 2008 1,500 people have put their lives at risk travelling beyond Christmas Island or Cocos (Keeling) Islands to try to get to the mainland and they have been intercepted. We need to do something about this.

This bill seeks to ensure that we are consistent with the Houston report. That report is critical in charting a way forward as to how we proceed on this. There are things in that report that I do not agree with, frankly. I have expressed this to the minister and I have expressed it publicly, and I do not have any problem expressing it here. I do not think that Nauru and Manus Island will work in the longer term. Those opposite believe it will; I don't. The reason for that is that times have changed and policy should reflect the times in which we operate. With the greatest respect to the Houston panel and the government, in all honesty, I think the government are trying to reflect what we have said publicly—that is, that we will follow the Houston report and the recommendations. Those opposite have not necessarily committed to every single thing that we have put forward or have seen put forward through the Houston report, even though this report, comprehensive as it is, deals with difficult issues. I commend this report to anyone who has an interest in this matter and suggest they read it. They will see the consideration that has been given to dealing with those issues that are bedevilling us on this matter, such as ensuring that we do not give anyone advantage if they become an unauthorised maritime arrival—getting to this place and seeking asylum—and that people will not be placed at a disadvantage if they are trying to follow the proper process but then see someone as an unauthorised maritime arrival get here.

The Houston report deals with this issue in the breadth of its recommendations and the panel should be commended for that. I think we are reaching the point of wondering, as people have seen, as to whether or not Nauru and Manus Islands will be effective. As I said, I do not think this legislation will work in the way it was first intended, when it was introduced by the Howard government. If you are concerned about extended detention, work rights and ensuring that the children of people seeking asylum get education then, logically, you would support what we have advocated under the Malaysian agreement. That agreement reached with the Malaysian government provides for work rights, education and ensures that people are not detained.

Do not take my word alone. I think it is time to reconsider the Malaysian agreement. I would put to the House words not of anyone from this side of the chamber but of someone from that side of the chamber. I note that it is causing great entertainment for those opposite to go back to quotes from way back when. In terms of consistency I would be happy to change my mind on public policy where it saves people's lives. If you contrast what I have said in the past to my position now, I am happy to do so. Because, quite frankly, I have my own conscience to deal with in advocating for policy that will save people's lives, as opposed to just blandly or stolidly sticking to something that will not change the circumstances in which we are in. That is why I read to the chamber this statement by the member for Wentworth in his contribution to the House:

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 do that; 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.

Bearing in mind the bulk of the Howard government's policy, we have reinstituted Nauru and Manus and we have seen what is happening there. In the last few days the government have announced changes in terms of detention here in Australia. This is what the member for Wentworth said back in June. He then concluded by saying:

There is something that can be achieved today. Nauru should be achieved. If it does not succeed then she—

the Prime Minister—

has the opportunity to ask for stronger measures.

In my heart of hearts I believe that is where we are getting to because, if you are serious about trying to totally disrupt the valued proposition being put forward by people smugglers which is, effectively, transit to Australia, some period in detention and then release, and they are using this proposition to milk money off the desperate, to profit from their desperation, then you would look at another system that would completely smash that and that is exactly what was proposed in the Malaysian agreement. That is what should be encouraged to happen.

However, in the interim, we have had the parliament's singular inability to reach agreement on this matter. Why? Because, frankly, those opposite are more interested in political advantage than seeing a system brought into place in terms of Malaysia and offshore processing in a way which was even advocated by the Houston report. Those opposite will not do that. They will conveniently side with those who have a completely different view on the issue of asylum seekers and, notably, the Greens. They would seek to do that and defeat what is happening here, again, lectured on consistency by those opposite. Yet they are prepared to side with people who do not support their view of what should happen with asylum seekers in an effort to block Malaysia.

If they wanted to see the Malaysia agreement in place and they wanted to see us bringing down those numbers of unauthorised maritime arrivals, they would support it here and now, and they would—again, in the interests of consistency—do what we did in opposition, which is support the Prime Minister. That is what we did when Prime Minister Howard called on the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, to support him on a broad sweep of changes, to allow the government of the day to govern. That is what they will not do, because they put political interests above the interests that should be followed in this case in dealing with this problem.

That is why, despite the member for Cook arguing on a number of occasions that he was in support of what we are putting forward here and then trying to contrast positions from way back when with what is being said now, he was unable to actually outline a new idea—some new approach on this issue. That is why they are unable to do so. They will not be able to put forward a policy proposition, even though we are both being granted a blessing in the form of the Houston report, which tries to depoliticise this issue and tries to put forth very pragmatic ways forward for both sides of politics to be able to deal with this critical public policy area and ensure that ultimately we save people's lives. The Houston report is probably one of the best pieces of work in terms of trying to deal with a vexing policy issue. It is, as I said, to be commended for its breadth, and it should be seriously pursued by both sides. We are doing it. This legislation today is reflective of our position in relation to this, and it should certainly be embraced by those opposite.

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:16): I say at the outset that I support this bill, the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012. Illegal arrivals by boat have been completely out of control since this Labor government came to power. As this government slowly creeps back closer and closer towards the Howard government's policy positions, I will support these moves. However, I remind the government that it should embrace temporary protection visas and a few other aspects of our policies—and then they will be there again.

The objective of this bill is to expand the existing offshore processing regime to apply to all persons arriving unlawfully on mainland Australia by sea—and that does sound familiar. The bill will also replace a concept of 'offshore entry person' with the concept of 'unauthorised maritime arrival'. As a result, even persons who arrive on Australian soil by boat will be subject to removal to an offshore processing country and processed according to that system. The bill therefore excises the Australian mainland from the Migration Act and is intended to be a disincentive for people to make the journey to Australia. However, following on from the government's decision to allow all offshore entry persons access to merits and judicial reviews through the RRT and the courts in March 2012, the impact of this measure has weakened. This bill is almost a carbon copy of the bill passed by the House of Representatives under the Howard government in 2006, as it also expanded the offshore processing to apply to people arriving on mainland Australia.

When the coalition introduced an identical measure in 2006, its impact would have been much more significant, since it would also have denied all asylum seekers access to merits and judicial review. Whilst Labor has significantly watered down a number of previous coalition initiatives that reduce the intended impact of this bill, the principle is consistent with coalition policy and should be supported. There is, however, a special significance that this bill brings to the House, because this exact measure was one of those salient issues that so many on the other side railed against. The question is now: how did this come to pass? And oh how the mighty have fallen. The side of grand moralistic words, the side of sermon and sanctimony, have now dispensed with long-held moral positions and high principle in order to save themselves from their own failings—so clearly seen in the disaster that has weakened porous borders provided wholly by this Labor government.

It is little wonder that the government speakers list consists now of just three first-term MPs. Once, they lined up en masse to speak against pretty much the same bill—in 2006, when it was introduced by the Howard government. They lined up to take what they believed to be the high moral ground, ignorantly believing that strong borders could remain without the will to take the measures required. History has shown that the measures that worked to bring the boats to almost a full stop and restore the integrity of our immigration system were dismantled by those on the other side. They took a solution and created a problem. It remains their problem and their failure in every respect, and the people of Australia know it.

As I said before, this bill has only a few to speak on it on the government side. Today, in this debate, none of those who were so strident in their opposition in 2006 are coming out to recant and to say that they were wrong. Where is the courage? There is no courage on two levels. Those who spoke against the 2006 bill should come out and say that they were wrong, particularly those who spoke about this concept in such moralistic terms. Yet they are without courage. Those who spoke against this bill in the caucus will not vote against it because they are more interested in maintaining their preselection than they are in maintaining their moral position. This bill has everything to do with political survival, whether it is the survival of the government or maintaining Labor preselections. This bill is about the Labor Party's dedication to power above principle.

I have spoken many times on these specific matters, and in the five years I have been in this position, I have not changed my belief that what the Howard government did worked and should be restored. Later in our speakers list, we will also hear from the members for Pearce and McMillan. I disagree with them in much of this policy area. However, they also have been consistent and have also maintained their beliefs over the years, and despite our alternative views, I respect them completely.

What a contrast between those who have strong views and maintain them, and those who say they have strong views and dispense with them for political gain. Speaking of which, I know that there are some ministers that must be too conveniently busy to come and speak on this bill. I will help them out by reminding the House of their views as expressed on the Hansard in 2006. Firstly, the current minister has had a bit to say on the 2006 bill. Minister Bowen, back in 2006, said:

This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character.

…   …   …

If it is passed, it will be repealed by an incoming Labor government.

Minister Crean, of course, has delivered quite a few lectures in this place since the 2007 election. But, in 2006 he said:

The bill is shameful and xenophobic.

…    …    …

It is a bill that should be opposed.

The current Leader of the House spoke of the 2006 bill as being a test of the Labor Party. He must consider today a big F. He said:

This bill is wrong in principle and it is wrong motivation.

…    …    …

This bill is a disgraceful shirking of responsibility by Australia and must be rejected.

…    …    …

I reject the bill as being fundamentally abhorrent to everything I believe in.

…    …    …

It has been a test of the Australian Labor Party and we have risen to the occasion, and that is why we are rejecting this legislation.

And again, I say, he must consider today to be a big F for the Labor Party.

On more than one occasion Minister Burke has spoken about having respect for the members of the House who maintain long-held views on particular subjects. He only says that about Independents of course, and now he cannot even say it about himself, because in 2006 he said:

The legislation before us today undermines our sovereignty, is offensive to our decency and makes a mockery of this parliament.

…   …   …

Labor is going to oppose this bill in every way, and will oppose it at every stage.

…   …   …

The bill before us is wrong, just plain wrong and Labor will not have anything to do with it.

Everyone knows that Minister Garrett has a history of crusades, firstly via his music and then with the Nuclear Disarmament Party and, more recently, he had a clear view of 2006 bill. He said:

The crux of this debate is moral integrity and national purpose is weighed against political expediency.

…    …    …

In fact this bill is the latest instalment in a long-running saga of a government that drenches us in talks of values but has long given up holding any values of real worth itself.

…    …    …

This bill must be opposed.

In reading these words from the minister, I think that he has really nailed it. The trouble was that he was six years early, because these words really apply to this Labor government—a government whose core belief is power and there is no principle that can be held that will not be set aside in order to maintain its interest in power.

One of the key problems with this Labor government is that it does not have any credibility when it comes to this issue. It is that lack of credibility that means when it announces new policy measures, people smugglers do not take them seriously because it has announced things in the past which it has never followed through on. The reality is that the Labor Party has introduced and tried every policy under the sun since it came into office—every policy imaginable—apart from the ones that we all know would in fact really work.

We know this policy would work because the policy has worked in the past under the Howard government. The coalition has a history of implementing policies in this area that have actually done what we needed to do by stamping out people smuggling. What needs to happen is those on that side—the government side—need to acknowledge that they have bungled yet another policy, acknowledge that it is their credibility that is now the problem and implement the full suite of Howard government border protection policies that we know will do the job as they did in the past. When the then government was faced with this issue over a decade ago, it implemented this combination of policies and it had the desired outcome. It worked to stop people-smuggling and it is the only policy that has achieved the results that we needed to achieve.

As I said before, the government speakers list is lean because there are so many who have sold out their beliefs on this issue that they cannot bear to stand and speak on this bill. After the debate has concluded, I would imagine that the House will divide, and I will look forward to seeing those who have taken such a strong position against such matters in 2006 and since stand on the 'Yes' side. I know that the government will be working hard to ensure that there are not more than five on the 'No' side, because, if just six are counted on the 'No' side of this chamber in the division, the hypocrisy of every member of the government who sold out on principle will be enshrined in Hansard for evermore. The Labor Party have been wrong on this issue for over a decade, and this has been proven by the record of over 30,000 people arriving here illegally by boat. I call on them to admit that their policies have been unsuccessful and that their methods in trying to tackle people-smuggling have been wrong. I also call on them to embrace every component of the Howard government measures, the only combination of policies that has actually worked to stop people-smuggling.

This week, the government will have the opportunity to, at long last, restore temporary protection visas, which will take the appeal of permanent residencies used by people-smugglers off the table. For years, the Prime Minister and Labor have been handing a guaranteed permanent residency on a platter to those arriving on illegal boats. They have been offering a one-way visa path to permanent residency. I look forward to the coalition seeking to introduce a bill to restore TPVs and to deny people-smugglers the ability to sell permanent residency. As everyone on this side is well aware, since Labor abolished TPVs in 2008, people-smugglers have made millions of dollars using the guarantee of permanent residency under Labor's policies to sell their product to over 30,000 people who have arrived in Australia in more than 500 illegal boats. This move has contributed to a massive $6.6 billion budget blow-out in costs to Australian taxpayers, not to mention pushing immigration detention centres to full capacity.

On this side, we believe that 'temporary protection visa' should mean just that. People arriving on illegal boats will only be eligible to receive a temporary visa at best. The coalition TPVs will be for a period of up to three years, which will be determined at the time the visa is granted. Furthermore, all applicants will be subject to character and health requirements. Another aspect of our bill, an aspect that I have discussed numerous times in this place, is that, unlike Labor's policy, TPV holders will have no family reunion rights under any part of the immigration program and, if they decide to leave Australia at any time, they will have no right to re-enter the country. As was the case under the Howard government, TPV holders will be able to work. A coalition government will require that if they require benefits then such benefits—income support in particular—will be subject to mutual obligation requirements as a condition of the visa. A breach of their visa would be grounds for visa holders to be taken back into detention.

Over 30,000 people have arrived on illegal boats under the current government and more than 25 per cent of these have arrived since Labor announced offshore processing on Nauru. When it comes to restoring strong borders and immigration laws, Labor simply cannot be trusted to get the job done, which is why they have resorted to introducing the coalition's long-held policies. The government cannot stop the boats and they never will. While hypocrisy will be one of the unedifying epitaphs on the gravestone of the government, that does not actually help the Australian people. Every day in Cowan I am approached or contacted by constituents speaking of this issue. The themes that consistently arise are the waste of money that the Labor government have presided over, the billions of dollars in blow-outs to support those who arrive by boat and the billions spent on facilities that were not required when the boat arrivals dropped to as few as one a year. This is in contrast to yet another month in which over 2,000 have arrived illegally, and all this under the control of the Labor government.

Why do they come by boat? Why do so many pass through other countries in order to get a final destination of Australia? It is because the Labor government took away the temporary protection visa policy and dismantled the raft of measures that worked, thereby guaranteeing that, if the people-smugglers could get a boat to the Australian Navy, to Customs or to any point of land, it was mission accomplished—a guaranteed contract fulfilment; success. The terms of the agreement between those with money and the people-smugglers would be complete. Is it any wonder that the people-smugglers have a viable proposal to sell and that they have cashed in on the policy positions of this Labor government? As I have said before, none of this government's mismanagement is of any comfort or cause for gratitude to the people of this country or to us. The people want it fixed. And we know that every dollar wasted on this Labor government's continued failures is a dollar to be repaid after the next change of government.

Of course, after stuffing things up so badly, and spending and borrowing and taxing so much, the Labor Party will still have the option of whinging about the measures to be put in place to clean up the mess that they alone have created. That is the silver lining Labor always have after creating the dark clouds over so many policy areas in this country and throughout history.

As we know, this bill will pass because it is consistent with our long-term position and it is fundamentally the same legislation that was introduced and passed in the House of Representatives by the Howard-led government in 2006. However, more needs to be done, as we have always said. This is not enough: Nauru was not enough and offshore processing was not enough. We always said that, despite what the government might say. The Prime Minister has said in this place—in her usual mendacious manner—that we said Nauru was always going to be the solution. We never said Nauru alone was going to be the solution. What must be done now is to return to the policies that worked. I urge the government to back the coalition's bill, which is being introduced to put temporary protection visas back on the books where they belong—and then we will start to be almost back at the point where the government will have the most important tools needed to stop the boats.

So it is not a matter of having just one or two measures, like Nauru or the reintroduction of offshore processing that the federal government several years ago; it is a matter of bringing back the tried and true, the successful policies, and only one side has the will to do that—and, after the next election, I hope we will have the opportunity to complete the task that must be done.

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:31): The issue of migration and of refugees is one that is particularly close to my heart. I spoke in my first speech in this place about my mother's parents, a boilermaker and a teacher, who lived by the credo that if there was a spare room in the house it ought to be used by someone who needed the space. I remember as a little kid, eating at my grandparents' place and spending time speaking to migrants, some of them refugees—from Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Cambodia and Sri Lanka.

I also told a story that still brings a lump to my throat about an art competition run as part of Refugee Week, where the first prize went to a Karen Burmese woman who had woven a traditional crimson tunic. She was missing her homeland so much that she had made a loom by taking the mattress of the wooden bed base and using the slats as a loom to weave a traditional Karen tunic. That story for me sums up the extraordinary courage and ability of Australia's refugees. It is why you will never hear me referring to refugees as 'illegals'. It is why you will never hear me using phrases like 'boatpeople'.

It was of course Australia's own Doc Evatt who was a key drafter of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which says in Article 14(1): 'Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.' And that is why there is nothing illegal about seeking asylum from persecution.

But what we have to do in this place is to find a set of policies that will end the sheer horror of drownings at sea. There have been over 1,000 drownings of asylum-seekers at sea over recent years. What that has meant is that, on the best estimates I have seen, about four per cent of those who have tried to get to Australia by boat have drowned doing so. It is a death rate which must give pause to anyone who simply says, 'Let everyone come.' There is nothing humane about a policy that says if you can take a leaky boat and make it to the shores of Australia you get to stay here as a refugee. To me that is a fundamentally inhumane policy.

We have got into this situation, in part, because of changes in technology. If you go back 20 years, you needed a somewhat more experienced sailor in charge of a fishing vessel to have a chance of making it from Indonesia to Christmas Island. The GPS has changed that. With a GPS device you can actually put a 15-year-old kid in charge of a fishing boat and he has a reasonable chance of making it to Christmas Island. It has meant that more people have attempted the dangerous journey and it has meant that we have seen more drownings at sea. That in turn has meant, as the member for Chifley said, that we need to rethink our policies. Like him, I see no shame in that. The greatest shame is to pursue a set of policies that are ineffective; you need to adopt policies that will stop drownings at sea. It is the old Keynes line: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?'

It is those stories of drownings which have seared themselves into my consciousness. The late, great Senator Peter Cook chaired the SIEVX inquiry, an inquiry that was looking into an incident where at least 70 children drowned; at least 200 adults lost their lives. The member for Chifley, although he did not mention it in his speech, was one of those who were on the parliamentary inquiry that investigated the Christmas Island disaster, a disaster after which 30 bodies were recovered, including four juveniles and four infants. Another 20 were missing, presumed dead. There have been others. Some of the worst of those were where vessels were simply lost at sea, where everyone on those vessels perished.

Like the member for Chifley, I believe that the most effective way of reducing the flow of unseaworthy vessels, and the risk to those aboard them, was the Malaysia agreement. The Malaysia agreement was one which, as the Houston panel noted, was 'vitally important'. I still support that agreement. I still hope for the day that those in the opposition will support an arrangement that would provide the clearest possible message to those considering getting onto leaky boats: don't do it, because you will be returned to one of the largest asylum-seeker camps in our region.

The 'no-advantage principle', the rock on which the Houston report is grounded, is a clear principle but it is more difficult to implement through measures available to us through the use of Nauru and Manus islands and bridging visas in Australia. Far more effective would be an agreement with Malaysia.

One of the chief arguments raised against returning refugees to Malaysia is that Malaysia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. That is an issue raised by those opposite. It is also an issue that is frequently raised with me by local Labor Party branch members. I had to smile when the member for Cowan suggested that somehow my speaking in this debate was a way of securing my preselection, because I can promise you there is deep disquiet among many of my branch members on this issue. The argument I would make to them and that I would make today to the House is that we must see the refugee convention in its historical light. We must recognise the way in which that document was drafted and we have to recognise that some of the aspects of the refugee convention are difficult. Indeed, the member for Cook himself said that the refugee convention 'no longer reflects the practical reality'. It is a document which was drafted to deal with the flow of refugees in the aftermath of World War II.

The result is that we now have three groups of countries in the world when it comes to the refugee convention. We have developed countries with the ability to patrol their borders who are happy to sign the refugee convention. We have developing nations which receive few asylum seekers—for instance, Somalia or Iran—and are willing to sign. But there is a third set of countries—such as India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia—who are reluctant to sign. These are countries situated close to refugee sending nations who recognise that, were they to sign up to the refugee convention, they would be obligated to take, house and resettle all of the refugees with genuine claims who came over their borders. That is simply impractical for some of these countries to do. Pakistan, as of the end of last year, had 1.7 million refugees. For these developing countries the cost of processing asylum seeker claims, let alone the cost of meeting education, health and housing obligations, would be prohibitive. The cost is what prevents them from signing the refugee convention.

You do not have to take my word for it. In April 2007 the Malaysian foreign ministry's parliamentary secretary told the news outlet Malaysiakini that it would not officially recognise refugees since 'the government is of the opinion that if Malaysia becomes party to the convention, considering its strategic geographical location in the region, it would be a drawing factor for refugees to come to Malaysia'. It is for that set of reasons that the Malaysian government has not signed the refugee convention. Malaysia is a party to many international agreements. The reputation of the Malaysian government has been done a deep disservice by those on the other side of the House in the context of the asylum seeker debate.

It strikes me that there is little consistency in the coalition's opposition to the Malaysia agreement based on Malaysia not having signed the refugee convention. The Howard government used Nauru to process asylum seekers at a time when Nauru was not a signatory to the refugee convention. The opposition would have boats turned back to Indonesia, a country which has not signed the refugee convention. I think what is demanded of all of us in this debate is a practical approach which recognises the reality of asylum seeker flows. GPS technology means younger and younger skippers are crewing boats. We need to work with non-signatory countries. Rather than being bound to a policy which has more people drowning at sea, we need to recognise the geopolitical realities as to why the Malaysian government does not sign the refugee convention.

The government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Houston report. Those recommendations include working through a managed regional system. That approach is grounded in the Bali process, of which Australia is a core part and recognises that, around the world, there are around 40 million internally displaced people and asylum seekers—nearly twice the population of Australia. It is never going to be possible for Australia to resettle all of those who would like to seek asylum in Australia. Our best contribution will come from working regionally and finding approaches which have a reasonable sharing of the burden across countries which are willing to settle refugees. That is a classic role Australia has played—a middle-power diplomacy working cooperatively with countries in our region. I commend the Prime Minister and the foreign minister for their work in the East Asia Summit and their constant advocacy of good policy in the region and cooperative policy with those around us.

When I last spoke in this debate I said that I hoped the refugee intake would one day be increased to 20,000. I am now pleased to be able to welcome that increase to 20,000 places, which has occurred through the Houston report. I believe that Australia can, and should be able to, settle more refugees. I am very proud of the organisations in my own electorate of Fraser who do such good work with refugees. They are committed to rolling out the welcome mat to people who have been assessed as genuine refugees, and helping them become a strong part of the Canberra community.

In closing, I also acknowledge Sarah Staege, a temporary migrant to Australia, who is in the gallery today with three of her colleagues. This indicates the benefits of migration to Australia.

Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (13:47): It may help the member, who is just about to leave, to hear some of this. I have been the subject of a great deal of comment for having some very strong views about the integrity of our border arrangements and on the need for government to be assiduous in dealing with those issues. But often people do not understand the reasons I have that strength of view on those matters. They arise because for most of my time in public life—and, as many know, I have been in this chamber as a member of the House of Representatives for 39 years—I have taken a great deal of personal interest in the plight of refugees. I have visited camps right around the world where I suspect few of my colleagues have ever been. I went to Traiskirchen, where I saw Eastern Europeans. I went to Hong Kong when the Vietnamese were fleeing. I went to Thailand to see the Cambodians who fled over the border. I went to Pakistan to see the Afghans who had fled. I went to the Balkans, where I saw Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and so many others displaced. I went to Kosovo.

But perhaps the greatest impact on me was going to Africa and seeing some 90,000 people—and I think the numbers have risen beyond that since then—in a camp called Kakuma, in northern Kenya. There were Congolese, Sudanese, Somalis and Ethiopians. These were not people who would ever meet a people smuggler. These were not people who had money in their pockets to be able to pay to be trafficked to wherever they may have preferred to be! These were people who often were in immediate risk even though they had fled, thinking they might be safe.

It has always fascinated me to know there are 42 million people in the world who are displaced or refugees, with at least 10 million of them assessed to be refugees. In reality, most of those people are never going to be able to find a place for resettlement in the way in which those who make it to Australia and engage our protection obligations have been able to.

We ask ourselves, why is it those who have the money to pay to be trafficked should be given priority? What makes it so important that their needs, which are just the same as the other 10 million people's needs, assessed in exactly the same way, are greater? In my more cynical moments I suggest to the government that it could deal with its budget issues. It could go to Kakuma and say: 'Who's got $10,000? We'll give you a place.' When I suggest that to people they laugh. They say, 'The government couldn't go and ask for money to determine who should get a place.' Then why should the places be determined because we are party to a refugee convention, because people can engage a people smuggler who gets them to the front of the queue? I have said that for years, and it justified, in my view—morally and appropriately—every decision I ever took as minister.

We did not need to be in a position where we had some 30,000 people knocking at our door. There were some people on the other side of the chamber, and not many of them are here to hear it, who had a view that I was some dreadful ogre, that the Howard government was unconscionable in the way it dealt with these issues, that the measures we implemented were not needed. It was not a question of whether they would work or not work; they were not needed! They were morally reprehensible! We had a change of government and one by one all of the measures that were in place and working, saving people's lives, preventing people getting on vessels and enabling us to resettle those people who needed help most were stripped away. When the government finds that having stripped away all those measures it has a problem then it does not want to adopt the measures that worked; it thinks it has to find its own way forward. But, progressively, the government is picking up each of the measures.

I have a mischievous sense of humour in relation to these things. I do not think there is any one magic bullet in the measures that we used. I do not think it is a menu you can pick and choose from: 'If we adopt this entree that will stop the boats.' In my view you need the full menu. If I were cynical I would say, 'You have to make a meal of it.' But this government is not prepared to do that. It is not prepared to adopt temporary protection visas. They may get a chance to think about that. It is perfectly proper under the refugee convention—that convention makes it very clear that our obligation is not to return people to situations of persecution. That is the obligation. It is not to give them permanent residency—it does not say anything about that. So if you find that circumstances change and people can go home then why should that not happen? It has happened. We did it in relation to the Kosovans we brought to Australia and settled here temporarily. We supported them, and when circumstances were such that they could go home that was the case. There have been times when Afghans have been able to go home. I suspect there will be times when many others who seek to engage our protection obligations could, in fact, go home. I do not think that, in principle, there is anything wrong with it, but the Labor Party has not been prepared to pick it up.

Turning boats around: it is fascinating looking at the way in which the government is dealing at the moment with some of the Singhalese and Sri Lankans that are arriving in Australia. Upon initial inquiry it has them on the first plane back that it can find. Yet they are super-critical of those who say, 'Well, if somebody is coming in in a boat and you can safely turn it around, why shouldn't you?'

The bill we are debating is about a measure of which the Labor Party said, when we were in office, should not have been pursued. This is about using the colloquial jargon. This is about excision of the whole of Australia from the migration zone. Some people laugh when you say you are going to exclude Australia from the migration zone. But that is what this bill is about. This is the Labor Party, in office, introducing legislation to achieve this end, when they vigorously opposed it before.

I suspect it is not going to make very much difference. One of the reasons is that they have made some other decisions about the consequences of what happens if you have not arrived in the migration zone. They go to the way in which your claims are assessed and processed. Effectively, this government took decisions at an earlier point in time in which the consequences of having not arrived in the migration zone have been essentially diminished. Those who are going to be affected by this legislation can be transferred in and out of Australia, but it is not going to affect the way in which their claims are going to be processed and it is not going to affect the multi-tiered approach in relation to judicial review on top of initial decision making.

All of the matters that this government has been responsible for putting in place—those measures that have compounded the problem and made it more difficult for us to get those people who are not refugees out of the system and returned home as quickly as possible and that have ensured we have something like 99 per cent of those people who arrive by boat being found to be refugees, or at least contesting them—will in fact remain.

This legislation, which the government believes is going to assist, will not deal with those fundamental questions, and they still remain unaddressed. We are dealing with a situation where only several hundred of those 30,000 people who have arrived have been able to be removed—the 500 or so Sri Lankans who have been able to be removed. But the message is still out there for the people-smugglers: if we can get you to Australia you will have a place in which you will be able to stay. I do not believe it, even when the government says it, that they are only going to give people bridging visas, that they are not going to process them in any expeditious way but leave them in limbo for five years, and that that will stop people from working. I do not know what they will do if they find that somebody on a bridging visa has been out there engaging in employment unlawfully. Are they going to say, 'Oh, look, you've breached your visa condition. We are going to terminate it and return you home.' No. They might say, 'We will take you into detention.' But I suspect they will be saying, 'Gee, I hope we don't find anybody, because we have no detention accommodation left.'

This is a situation in which the Labor Party, who held out that they had consciences above everybody else, are now disclosing, absolutely, their hypocrisy in relation to these matters. That needs to be clearly understood by the Australian people. They are adopting measures they hope may enable this issue to be dealt with, but I suspect the half-hearted way in which they are proceeding with these matters will leave them with a continuing problem. I do not like it. I want to see Australia able to hold its head up high helping those refugees who need help most, those people who languish in places like Kakuma and are in immediate risk and danger. They are never going to be helped because the places are being lost to those people who have the money to pay, to those people whom we are seeing day after day continuing to turn up here because smugglers have led them to believe that they can get them to the front of the queue. And it is a queue. Part of the problem is that it is a very long queue. But it is a queue, and the government ought to be able to go out there and hold their heads up high and say, 'We are serious about dealing with these matters.'

Debate interrupted.

Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:36): by leave—I move:

That the following bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration:

Customs Amendment (Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation and Other Measures) 2012;

Customs Tariff Amendment (Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) 2012.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Rishworth ) (16:37): In accordance with the resolution agreed to, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for North Sydney on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the amendment moved by the member for North Sydney be agreed to.

Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:50): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (7).

Leave granted.

Mr RIPOLL: I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 25), after item 4, insert:

4A Subsection 69(3)

   After "sums of unclaimed moneys", insert "as at the end of the year".

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 26), before item 5, insert:

4B Subsection 69(3)

   Omit "higher", substitute "other".

(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (lines 10 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

8 Transitional—supplementary statement and payment obligations

(1) In addition to its effect apart from this subitem, section 69 of the Banking Act 1959 also has the effect it would have if:

   (a) in subsection 69(3) of that Act, the words "within 3 months after the 31 December in each year" were omitted and the words "before the end of 31 May 2013" were substituted; and

   (b) in subsection 69(3) of that Act, the words "as at the end of the applicable assessment day" were inserted after "sums of unclaimed moneys"; and

   (c) the amendments made by items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4B of this Schedule had commenced on 31 December 2012; and

   (d) any regulations made, in accordance with section 4 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, for the purposes of any of the following provisions of the Banking Act 1959 had taken effect from the day on which the regulations are registered under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003:

      (i) paragraph 69(1)(b);

      (ii) paragraph 69(1)(d);

      (iii) subparagraph 69(1A)(b)(ii);

      (iv) subparagraph 69(1A)(b)(iv);

      (v) subparagraph 69(1A)(c)(ii);

      (vi) subsection 69(1B);

      (vii) subsection 69(1C);

      (viii) subsection 69(1D);

      (ix) subsection 69(1E);

      (x) subsection 69(3).

No double counting

(2) For the purposes of the application to an ADI of section 69 of the Banking Act 1959 (as that section has effect under subitem (1)), unclaimed moneys does not include any 7 year unclaimed amounts for the ADI.

(3) For the purposes of this item, if:

   (a) an amount is required to be set out in an ADI's statement under subsection 69(3) of the Banking Act 1959 (as that subsection has effect otherwise than under subitem (1)); and

   (b) the ADI is required, by subsection 69(3) of the Banking Act 1959 (as that subsection has effect otherwise than under subitem (1)), to deliver the statement to the Treasurer within 3 months after 31 December 2012;

the amount is a 7 year unclaimed amount for the ADI.

Applicable assessment day

(4) For the purposes of this item, the applicable assessment day for an ADI is:

   (a) 30 May 2013; or

   (b) if the ADI, by written notice given to the Treasurer before 30 May 2013, nominates a day that is:

   (i) not earlier than 31 December 2012; and

   (ii) not later than 29 May 2013;

      the nominated day.

(5) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 Transitional—supplementary statement and payment obligations

(1) In addition to their effect apart from this subitem, sections 51A to 51E of the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 also have the effect they would have if:

   (a) in paragraph 51A(1)(a) of that Act, the words "a calendar year" were omitted and the words "the applicable assessment day" were substituted; and

   (b) in paragraph 51A(1)(b) of that Act, the words "within 3 months after the end of the year" were omitted and the words "before the end of 31 May 2013" were substituted; and

   (c) in subsection 51A(4) of that Act, the words "the calendar year" were omitted and the words "the applicable assessment day" were substituted; and

   (d) the amendments made by items 1, 2 and 3 of this Schedule had commenced on 31 December 2012; and

   (e) any regulations made, in accordance with section 4 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, for the purposes of any of the following provisions of the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 had taken effect from the day on which the regulations are registered under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003:

   (i) subparagraph 17A(1)(a)(ii);

   (ii) subsection 17A(3);

   (iii) subsection 17A(4).

No double counting

(2) For the purposes of the application to an FHSA provider of sections 51A to 51E of the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 (as those sections have effect under subitem (1)), unclaimed money does not include any 7 year unclaimed amounts for the FHSA provider.

(3) For the purposes of this item, if:

   (a) an amount is required to be set out in an FHSA provider's statement under section 51A of the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 (as that section has effect otherwise than under subitem (1)); and

   (b) the FHSA provider is required, by section 51A of the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 (as that section has effect otherwise than under subitem (1)), to give the statement to ASIC within 3 months after the end of 31 December 2012;

the amount is a 7 year unclaimed amount for the FHSA provider.

Applicable assessment day

(4) For the purposes of this item, the applicable assessment day for an FHSA provider is:

   (a) 30 May 2013; or

   (b) if the FHSA provider, by written notice given to ASIC before 30 May 2013, nominates a day that is:

      (i) not earlier than 31 December 2012; and

      (ii) not later than 29 May 2013;

      the nominated day.

(6) Schedule 3, page 8 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

4 Transitional—supplementary statement and payment obligations

(1) In addition to its effect apart from this subitem, section 216 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 also has the effect it would have if:

   (a) in subsection 216(1) of that Act, the words "Within 3 months after the end of each calendar year" were omitted and the words "Before the end of 31 May 2013" were substituted; and

   (b) in subsection 216(1) of that Act, the words "that year" were omitted and the words "the applicable assessment day" were substituted; and

   (c) in subsections 216(4) and (6) of that Act, the words "the calendar year" were omitted and the words "the applicable assessment day" were substituted; and

   (d) the amendment made by item 3 of this Schedule had commenced on 31 December 2012; and

   (e) any regulations made, in accordance with section 4 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, for the purposes of subparagraph (c)(ii) of the definition of unclaimed money in subsection 216(15) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 had taken effect from the day on which the regulations are registered under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

No double counting

(2) For the purposes of the application to a life company of section 216 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (as that section has effect under subitem (1)), unclaimed money does not include any 7 year unclaimed amounts for the life company.

(3) For the purposes of this item, if:

   (a) an amount is required to be set out in a life company's statement under subsection 216(1) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (as that subsection has effect otherwise than under subitem (1)); and

   (b) the life company is required, by subsection 216(1) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (as that subsection has effect otherwise than under subitem (1)), to give the statement to ASIC within 3 months after the end of 31 December 2012;

the amount is a 7 year unclaimed amount for the life company.

Applicable assessment day

(4) For the purposes of this item, the applicable assessment day for a life company is:

   (a) 30 May 2013; or

   (b) if the life company, by written notice given to ASIC before 30 May 2013, nominates a day that is:

      (i) not earlier than 31 December 2012; and

      (ii) not later than 29 May 2013;

      the nominated day.

(7) Schedule 4, page 11 (after line 11), at the end of the Schedule, add:

8 Transitional—scheduled statement day

Scope

(1) This item applies if an unclaimed money day is 31 December 2012.

Scheduled statement day

(2) Sections 24C and 24E of the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 have effect as if the scheduled statement day for the unclaimed money day was 31 May 2013 instead of the day specified in the instrument under section 15A of that Act.

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill is intended to reunite Australians with their lost moneys faster and to protect lost moneys from inflation and fees. That is exactly what it does. The Senate Economics Committee has now considered the bill and the majority report made just one recommendation—that the bill be passed. The report found that the reforms will be of significant benefit to consumers, as they help reunite people with their unclaimed moneys sooner and protect the real value of that money while it remains unclaimed. Let me take this opportunity to make the point that the principles on which this bill is based have not changed. They are the same core principles, and it is the same piece of legislation and the same activity in terms of unclaimed and lost moneys as has been the case under previous governments, both Labor and Liberal. What we are doing is making sure it happens in a more timely fashion, ensuring that the real value of people's money is maintained and they reconnect with their money faster.

It is more than curious that the opposition will come into this place, move amendments and support this bill—and, in the end, they have to support this, because it is a good bill. In the end, they support the legislation; they support the principle of what is being done to assist consumers to be reunited with their lost accounts, of whatever form, whether superannuation or a life policy, a bank account or other type of account. So to delay any further would be an absolute travesty.

As I said in my summing up speech, we have consulted widely. We have had consultations with industry. We have agreed that there are some areas where the intent of the amendments can be clarified to improve certainty, and these issues can and will be dealt with through regulations.

Let me turn to some of the detail of these amendments. The government amendments will provide authorised deposit-taking institutions, First Home Saver Account providers, life insurers and superannuation funds with more time for implementation. They will now have until 31 May 2013 to report on and transfer lost accounts and other lost moneys to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or the Australian tax office as appropriate.

In addition, to reflect the changing range of bank accounts available and their specific terms and conditions, the bill will also allow the government to specify additional requirements that must be met before a bank account will be treated as unclaimed moneys. This amendment will allow the government to improve certainty for industry by clarifying a number of technical issues through regulation.

As I announced yesterday, to avoid capturing accounts unintentionally the government will introduce regulations so that children's accounts will still need to be inactive for seven years before being treated as lost. In addition, regulations will specify that First Home Saver Accounts will be excluded until the requirement to make a deposit in four years has been met. The regulations will also clarify that term deposits remain excluded, and subaccounts will continue to be treated as part of a parent account when determining whether there has been activity on an account in the last three years. Linked accounts—that is, accounts that a customer must hold as a condition of holding other accounts with the same bank, building society or credit union—and mortgage offset accounts will be treated similarly. The regulations will also clarify that accounts that are frozen by a court order or other legal requirement will also be excluded while they remain frozen, and that the three-year inactivity period will restart when the freeze is lifted. The regulations will also clarify that superannuation accounts that have been active in the last 12 months but where the member is uncontactable will not be transferred to the ATO. The amendments include the ability to extend the protection from fees, charges and inflation that this bill will provide to a broader range of accounts with low balances, although, should future governments wish to do this, further disallowance regulations would need to be made.

This bill and these amendments relate specifically to doing a number of core things: reuniting Australians with their lost moneys faster, and protecting the value of those moneys from inflation and fees—and this is a good thing for consumers and should have been done much earlier. Simply to have sat on the core principle, which has not changed in terms of lost money, idly for so many years— (Time expired)

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (16:56): We are going to oppose these amendments, for the perfectly obvious reason that this is just part of a fix from the government to try and keep a surplus promise that is going to be broken at any rate. We know that the fix is on, because this bill was introduced in a slovenly manner in the last sitting week, and the government, after initially refusing to send it to a committee, then sent it to a committee when they were forced into it. After they sent it to the committee, the committee then recommended to support the bill. The government majority recommended to support the bill. The government majority recognised that this is going to cause untold procedural damage to the financial services community, but still the Labor Party majority on the committee recommended to proceed with the bill in its form. Then what did we get yesterday? We got a press release from the government saying, 'We don't really care what our own committee recommended; we're going to come up with a whole lot of new amendments that no-one has previously seen and that have never been to a committee—

Mr Tony Smith: What was the point of the committee?

Mr HOCKEY: What was the point of the committee? What is the point of a debate in this parliament? You look at the front bench of the Labor Party, and it is like Davy Jones's crew on the Black Pearl—it is exactly the same; it is a freak show. They do not know how to run the country, and they do not know how to run public policy. Whether it be on taxation, where they have no strategy, or on fiscal management, where they have no strategy, or on the basic, day-to-day duties of a legislator in this House, the Labor Party do not know how to govern.

These bills, these amendments in particular, are the perfect illustration of the incompetence of this government. Announce in MYEFO that you have a major funding problem; surprise absolutely everyone with a grab at people's superannuation; come into the parliament with legislation that is much broader than could possibly have been anticipated in the announcement in MYEFO; screw up the legislation; send it to a committee, after initially resisting it; and then, from the committee, get a recommendation to support the bill in full but ignore it and come into this place and move a whole lot of amendments to your own bill!

Even the government's own parliamentary secretary here at the table, the member for Oxley, was meant to move his amendments earlier today—and he forgot to stand up. So the coalition moved their amendments in his place. And then he forgot to speak against our amendments because he was not paying attention. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed, we know that, but he forgot to speak against our amendments, and then, after he failed to speak against the amendments, you know what? He forgot to say he opposed the amendments. He forgot to call it. Then we had an imbroglio in the House, and it was put, out of deference to the Deputy Speaker, back to the House for a second vote. What mayhem! What a joke! Member for Oxley, no wonder you are consigned to a parliamentary secretary—and after doing all that work. I thought the original Ripoll committee report was pretty good on financial advice. No wonder the government ignored it, because it was a pretty good report!

Then they went and completely changed it and delivered a whole lot of new amendments and FOFA legislation. Because the benchmark for this government is incompetence, the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation is higher than the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. That is the benchmark for good government—absolute abject incompetence! But guess what? This guy is going to get a promotion! Incompetence is the benchmark for performance in the Gillard government, so we now have a parliamentary secretary who does not know what he is doing.

We will not support legislation that is made on the run. We will not support amendments that have not been tested in the broader community. We will not support bad and incompetent legislation and, sure as hell, we will not try to shore up an incompetent government. This is not the way the country should be run. This is not the way public policy should be run. This is not the way the parliament should be run. We deserve competent government in Australia. Sadly, we have not got it. Gerry Harvey nailed it when he said in May this year that an incompetent government is what is holding Australia back. It is not the Australian people; it is an incompetent government that just is not up to the job.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments moved by the parliamentary secretary be agreed to.

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (17:11): We will not be supporting this bill because, even though the policy intent is right, this will be a red tape regulation shemozzle on a scale that will set a new benchmark for the incompetence of the Labor Party. I would say to you—

The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will refer to the bill.

Mr HOCKEY: The amendments to the bill will produce such a mess that the frontbench of the Labor Party will look like Davy Jones's crew on the Black Pearl—a freak show.

The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney got away with it before but he will not now. The question is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (17:15): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (17:16): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (17:17): I move:

That:

(1) a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples be appointed to inquire into and report on steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition, and in conducting the inquiry, the Committee will:

(a) consider the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 with a view to securing strong multi-partisan Parliamentary support for the passage of the Bill through Parliament, reporting by 30 January 2013;

(b) thereafter, work to build a secure strong multi-partisan Parliamentary consensus around the timing, specific content and wording of referendum proposals for Indigenous constitutional recognition;

(c) consider:

   (i) the creation of an advisory group who’s membership includes representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to guide the work of the Committee;

   (ii) the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians on the process for the referendum; and

   (iii) and develop mechanisms to build further engagement and support for the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across all sectors of the community, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and taking into account and complementing the existing work being undertaken by Reconciliation Australia; and;

(d) take the following matters into account:

   (i) the report and extensive work of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, including its recommendations and forms of recognition, namely that:

      - section 25 be repealed

      - section 51 (xxvi) be repealed

      - a new ‘section 51A’ be inserted, along the following lines:

    Section 51A Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters;

Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

The Panel further recommends that the repeal of section 51 (xxvi) and the insertion of the new ‘section 51 A’ be proposed together.

      - a new ‘section 116A’ be inserted, along the following lines:

Section 116A Prohibition of racial discrimination

(1) The Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic or national origin.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude the making of laws or measures for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group.

      -   a new ‘section 127A’ be inserted, along the following lines:

Section 127A Recognition of languages

(1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English.

(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages, a part of our national heritage.

   (ii) some of the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not included in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 because they can only be implemented through a change to the Australian Constitution;

   (iii) the fact that those recommendations are excluded from the Bill does not preclude those recommendations being considered by the Committee as referendum proposals for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

   (iv) research and findings from work currently being undertaken by Reconciliation Australia on raising awareness and support for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

   (v) advice from the legal workshops being led by Reconciliation Australia and the need to seek constitutional legal advice regarding the content of any referendum proposals;

   (vi) the preparedness of State and Territory governments to support a referendum on the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and

   (vii) other matters that the Committee considers may be relevant;

(2) the Committee consist of eight members, one Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, one Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one non-aligned Member and two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or Independent Senator;

(3) every nomination of a member of the Committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives respectively;

(4) the members of the Committee hold office as a joint select committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(5) the sunset date of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, once passed, will provide the impetus for a future Parliament to reconstitute a like Committee to continue the work towards a successful referendum;

(6) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 also includes a proposed legislative review, commencing one year after the commencement of the Act and concluding six months prior to the sunset date;

(7) the Committee elect a:

(a) Government member as its chair; and

(b) member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the Committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the Committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the Committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(9) three members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(10) the Committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the Committee is empowered to examine; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(11) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(12) members of the Committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(13) the Committee or any subcommittee:

(a) have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; and

(c) have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;

(14) the Committee will report:

(a) on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, no later than 30 January 2013; and

(b) as needed in order to progress constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

(15) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and

(16) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

This government supports constitutional change to recognise the unique and special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and we are committed to achieving this. We appointed an expert panel to develop options for constitutional change to help us work out how best to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. Now, for the first time, we have specific proposals on how to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, and I thank the expert panel members for their excellent work in developing these proposals. We are now working, through Reconciliation Australia and You Me Unity, to build a movement for change of our Constitution.

In extending the time frame for a referendum, we have also set out a clear way forward and momentum to build support. This week, we will be introducing a bill for an act of recognition, acknowledging the unique and special place of our first peoples. The act will demonstrate that parliament is united on progressing constitutional recognition to show the Australian community the leadership needed for change. I am pleased that the opposition, the Greens and a number of Independents have shown their support to pass the act of recognition. Strong parliamentary support for the bill will help build momentum for change. We have proposed a sunset date of two years, setting a clear time frame to work towards the ultimate goal of constitutional recognition.

To further show the parliament's desire to work together towards the goal of successful referendum, we agreed to work with the opposition to establish a joint select committee. The membership of the committee will be drawn from across the parliament. The committee will be asked to consider the bill for the act of recognition as its first task, reporting in late January next year. The committee will be then asked to continue to progress constitutional change. The recommendations of the expert panel will be the foundation of their considerations. I thank all the incoming members of the committee for their willingness to take on this very important task. We know that there is still a lot of work to be done to make sure that we are able to hold a successful referendum that unites our nation. The committee will play a significant role in ensuring that this occurs. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (17:20): Achieving constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is a very significant step towards genuine and lasting reconciliation. It is a cause the coalition has long been associated with and one that we have proudly long supported. The coalition's position for over a decade has been that there should be recognition of Australia's Indigenous people in the Constitution. That is why when we were in government, in 1999, we put a proposal to the people seeking to include recognition in the preamble of the Australian Constitution. As history records, our proposal unfortunately did not succeed.

We again strongly advocated for such recognition during the 2007 election campaign. It would come as no surprise, therefore, that it was our proactive approach to this issue that ensured it retained the attention it so deserves. It was the Leader of the Opposition who wrote to the Prime Minister proposing that such a committee, as proposed by the motion moved by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, be established. We must all remain mindful that the primary objective of a constitutional referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is to achieve a unifying moment for our nation, a moment similar to that of the 1967 referendum. The work done by the expert panel, including my friend and colleague the member for Hasluck, the first Indigenous person to be elected to this House, has continued the journey of reconciliation.

Reconciliation is something that we believe in. It is something which we are proud to support. And it is something which we will continue to advocate. We remain of the view that constitutional recognition is a continuation of that important journey.

Question agreed to.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (17:23): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

I thank all members and senators for their contribution during the debates on the Fair Work Amendment (Transfer of Business) Bill 2012. In particular, I want to acknowledge the important contributions of those who are supporting this important legislation. The bill delivers on the government's commitment to introduce legislation to extend the existing transfer-of-business protections in the Fair Work Act 2009 to certain former state public sector employees who transition into the national system as a result of transfer of business. We on this side of the House do not accept that these employees should be worse off or that they should have their entitlements put at risk simply because their employer changes or as a result of an outsourcing of work or an asset sale but where their work remains the same.

The Senate has passed minor amendments to the bill—which was originally considered by the House of Representatives—which were proposed by the government. Those amendments are designed to ensure that the bill clearly operates as intended and to better align the proposed provisions with the existing transfer-of-business provisions in the Fair Work Act. The amendments deal with more closely aligning Fair Work Australia's powers to make orders with those already in the Fair Work Act; further clarifying coverage of the bill to certain former state public sector employees to make clear that it does not include local government, which reflects the intended coverage and application of the bill as I announced in September; ensuring that the general protections provisions are reflected in respect of transfers under this bill; and consequential amendments which deal with cross-referencing and numbering. The amendments are designed to ensure that the legislation is as clear as possible in its scope and operation.

This government respects the work of the 1.7 million public sector workers around Australia. We cannot stand idly by and condone public servants in some states receiving fewer protections when they transition into the national system as a result of the transfer of business than those from other jurisdictions who already have the benefit of these protections. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (17:29): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, I present the committee's report, entitled Netting the benefits:inquiry into the role of science for the future of fisheries and aquaculture, together with minutes of the proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

Mr ADAMS: by leave—Today I am pleased to present the committee's report on the inquiry into the role of science for the future of fisheries and aquaculture. Australia is at the cutting edge of global initiatives to meet the needs of a growing international population. Our nation's efforts in developing innovative solutions, particularly in the sphere of sustainable fisheries management, is world renowned.

Australia's scientific capabilities in this area are led ably by a range of key organisations such as the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Each of these organisations use the skills and experience of highly qualified professionals, committed to ensuring long-term growth and sustainable development in an industry that, like many others, has been affected by climatic and economic factors.

The world's population is growing and new ways need to be found to supply more food to feed everybody. Seafood is an excellent source of protein, and therefore needs to be a core part of future food supply.

Our belief is that the diligent work of scientists, coupled with strong investment in science, will provide the solutions needed to deliver better quality food to more people than ever before.

Commencing in March this year, the committee's inquiry focused on the science of fisheries management; aquaculture research and development; biosecurity challenges; and related governance arrangements. A total of 50 submissions were received and extensive public hearings were held. These enabled the committee to discuss key issues with numerous researchers, field experts, industry representatives, environmental groups and state and federal fisheries managers.

The committee travelled to Perth, Hobart and Townsville to conduct site inspections to see firsthand the research projects currently underway. In particular, aquaculture is rapidly moving forward with the help of science, such as identifying new species well suited to aquaculture and finding new cost-effective varieties of fish feed.

The committee found that, although Australia's fisheries management is highly regarded globally, there are some gaps in our knowledge, leading to incorrect interpretations, which has been used against the commercial fishing industry.

Additionally, responsibilities in Australia for fisheries management and aquaculture are complex. This is because fish do not respect state and federal boundaries—they swim across these divides and sometimes over vast areas of ocean—creating the shared responsibility for both the fish and their habitats.

Alongside day-to-day management of fisheries, there is a sizeable research and development effort taking place—with its own complexities and administrative arrangements. This effort, however, needs to be complemented with improved and standardised national reporting of fishing and aquaculture statistics.

Resolving governance and policy issues was another key concern of stakeholders, in particular the duplication and tensions between fisheries legislation and environmental legislation.

Notably, high-profile issues including the establishment of new marine protected areas and the arrival of the supertrawler Abel Tasman arose during the inquiry.

Understandably, there was plenty of debate and discussion during the inquiry regarding the role science plays in fisheries and aquaculture and the level of precaution that the law requires to be followed when decisions are made.

The committee has made 22 recommendations overall. Firstly, the committee has recommended development of a national regional policy statement on fisheries, aquaculture and recreational fishing, which should include: (1) an overall statement of strategic intent (national fisheries policy statement) to drive future direction; (2) a new guideline on precaution; and (3) research, development and extension work program. The report also calls for day-to-day fisheries management to remain free from political direction. For too long, too many state ministers for fisheries have been making decisions about quotas within their domains.

Secondly, the committee has recommended that there be comprehensive national data collection and reporting in four key areas: (1) the level of investment in fisheries and aquaculture research, development and extension; (2) the status of wild fisheries stocks and ecosystems; (3) recreational fishing; and (4) fisheries and aquaculture industry activity statistics.

During the inquiry the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Research and Economics, ABARES, informed the committee of their intention to produce a report during 2012 similar to the annual State of the forests report. The committee supports this approach.

Thirdly, the committee made recommendations relating to specific issues or industry sectors, which briefly include:

Developing a 'one stop shop' model for project approvals, including environmental assessments;

Further study and analysis of climate change implications for fisheries and aquaculture;

•   Improving coordination of fisheries and aquaculture research;

Speeding up the implementation of monitoring and evaluation activities for the national marine reserves network;

A Productivity Commission inquiry into the efficiency of the Australian fishing industry and the effectiveness of governance arrangements;

An update to AQUAPLAN, which relates to arrangements for aquatic disease issues;

A comprehensive and detailed national aquaculture policy;

A national peak body for commercial fishing organisations; and

Providing aid, along with training, especially to our Pacific neighbours, to assist with their fisheries management and aquaculture industries.

I am hopeful that governments around Australia will give favourable consideration to the report's recommendations. The committee looks forward to following the outcomes that result from this inquiry.

I wish to thank my committee, particularly my Deputy Chair, Alby Schultz, for his dedication, time and effort in helping us get this report done, and my Tasmanian colleague Geoff Lyons, who assisted on many occasions. All those in the committee played their part, doing their utmost to ensure that the inquiry was able to take place in a timely manner. I thank also the committee secretariat—Thomas Gregory, David Brunoro and Nathan Fewkes—who have worked tirelessly to finalise this report in this final week of parliament.

I believe this is a landmark inquiry in light of the discussions on fishing this year and I look forward to an early response by government.

I commend the report to the House.

Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (17:38): by leave—I just want to make that point about the report that has just been bought into the House by member for Lyons—the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry—that this report is a very significant report in terms of the fishing industry in Australia. It identifies 22 recommendations. I can only hope, as deputy chair of this committee, that after the good work that has gone into this report it is not left lying on the shelf collecting dust like many reports have done in the past.

It is a classic example of a very definitive inquiry by a group of dedicated people about our fishing industry, and it illustrates the sustainable management practices of all fishers—if I can use the politically correct term rather than fishermen—around Australia, whether they be recreational fishermen or professional fishermen. Our practices are the envy of the rest of the world. There has been significant evidence taken that illustrates that we need to improve on our practices, and more importantly, we need to correlate what is happening on a state-by-state and territory-by-territory basis, so that we can continue to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are good at sustainable yield and we are good at fishing practices.

I commend the chairman for the wonderful work that he has done and I commend the committee members for the significant individual and collective contribution that they have made to the report. I commend the report to the House.

Mr ADAMS: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms O'Neill ): The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (17:40): by leave—I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for further debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:41): It is distressing to be here debating a bill that is similar for all intents and purposes to a step that was taken by the previous Howard government. Many of us had thought that we were no longer in an environment where we would start carving out bits of this country and saying that they did not count as properly being Australia for migration purposes. It is especially distressing because following the events that have happened this year—which everyone in this country would be aware of—where you could not fail to be moved by the tragedy of people drowning at sea as they were escaping to Australia to find a better life, we had in this parliament a unique opportunity to confront what is a difficult issue and what is a global issue; and that is the substantial movement of people around the world, and in this region, as they flee persecution, as they flee war, as flee torture and as they flee hunger. When we were presented with that opportunity, we could have had a rational debate about the kind of country that we want to be. Instead, in an environment that I have heard described as one of moral panic, where it was said that this parliament had to do something and it did not matter what it was as long as we did something, we found ourselves setting a course that would inevitably lead to bills like this.

I fear that we have gone where perhaps the right wing of the Labor Party has always wanted to take us, because Labor, instead of taking us back to Fraser, has taken us back to Howard. That is something that is a source of distress to many people in this country. We could have had inklings of that when we saw the first proposed Malaysia solution, which the High Court and the Angus Houston panel said did not contain sufficient protections for the most vulnerable people in the world as they fled, coming here and seeking our protection. Under the conventions that we had signed up to, it was not acceptable to take the people and then dump them in another country. We saw inklings of this desire of Labor to take us back to Howard from the recent announcement that people who have come here would not be allowed to work while they have their claims processed. We now see confirmation of it in a bill that, for all intents and purposes, excises the whole of Australia from the migration zone if you happen to arrive by boat. As we head into an election year we are seeing a distressing position increasingly being taken by the government. When there is a significant decision to be made on an important social issue, faced with the choice of whether to work with the coalition or to work with the Greens and other progressives in the parliament, the government is increasingly choosing to work with the coalition. We saw it recently on the Murray-Darling issue, and we are seeing it on the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

There has been much talk about what alternatives we might have been able to come up with as a parliament—and there are many. But to have an alternative you need to shift your position and be willing to compromise. There was one fundamental issue on which the government was unwilling to compromise, and that was offshore processing: if someone finds their way here by boat after having escaped war, perhaps—after having fled, perhaps, halfway across the globe—then we want to take them to another country or an island; we do not want to process them here; we want to remove them from Australia, whether they are man, woman or child, and potentially lock them up indefinitely. That fundamental point was why the government chose to go and work with the coalition—and of course found a willing partner there. There is a road map for all of this, and that road map was set out by the Howard government.

Let us just consider for a moment someone who finds themselves in such a desperate situation that they will pay someone they have never met some money to get into a boat. This person may have been waiting in the camp in Indonesia, on our doorstep, for a number of years. There are over 8,000 people waiting there, with over 1,000 of them having been found to be refugees, but with no clear pathway out, and with Australia having taken only 50 or 100-odd people from the camp in the last year or two. If I were sitting in that camp, especially if I had been found to be a refugee, and I had seen others sitting near me waiting for years and years, and I did not see a pathway out, and someone came along and said, 'Give us a bit of money and I'll pop you on a boat and you'll get to Australia', well, I would do it. And I reckon anyone here would do it.

What are we doing with those people who come here? We are now putting them in a legal limbo. We are now saying to those people, who had no other clear pathway out, 'You are being put in legal limbo, because when you land you do not actually land in Australia; we reserve the right to now send you off somewhere else for an indefinite period of time.' The worst thing about this is that if the intention is to stop the boats—and I will come back to that in a moment—it will not work. We saw, under the Howard government, one of the biggest single maritime disasters, with 353 people dying at sea, at a time when offshore processing and the Pacific solution was at its height and in full force. And why is that? It is because unless Australia becomes as bad as Afghanistan under the Taliban, or unless Australia starts torturing its citizens, we are always going to be a better bet for people. And we are never going to become that bad, so people around the world, as they look for a safe haven, are always going to look to places like Australia.

We have signed up to the UN refugee convention and said that if people come here then we will look after and process them. If they are not found to be genuine refugees, we send them back; if they are, we find a way of helping them. We are not doing that for these people for whom we say we are going to insist on offshore processing. We will fail morally if we pass this bill, because we have not provided them with a safer alternative pathway. It is all well and good to talk about the no-advantage test. But really—morally—the only way you can say that that is a defensible proposal is if there is safe and quick pathway to come here other than by boat. If you are waiting in Indonesia or Malaysia the average processing time for you can be anything from four years upwards. If you want to take a mathematical average of the time in Malaysia, depending on the category you are in, it could be six or seven years.

We have an obligation—and this is what we could have done—to say, 'We will stop people drowning at sea by removing the risk and the incentive for them to get on a boat by providing safer pathways for coming to Australia.' We could have said—and this is what the Greens have been consistently proposing, even though others have sought to diminish our position as being simply about onshore processing—that if you start to take 1,000 people from the camps in Indonesia and beef up the processing we have there, whether through UNHCR or through Australia operating its own processing centre in Indonesia, and you do the same in Malaysia and increase our humanitarian intake, then all of a sudden the message that starts to go through those camps will be that Australia is taking people again. The message is that, if you are a genuine refugee and you wait your turn for long enough, you will find yourself either in Australia or being resettled somewhere else, so there is no point in getting on a boat. That is what almost all the experts who fronted up to the Houston inquiry, and who have spoken out since, have said is the answer. The people who are working on the ground in the camps in Indonesia and in Malaysia have said that the best thing you can do is give people in the camps hope that if they wait long enough they will find their way out to Australia. At the moment, there is no hope there.

There is lots of talk about the people smugglers' business model. The people smugglers' business model is based on the desperation and the lack of hope that people who are languishing in these camps feel. They feel that there is no other alternative. If we were serious—if this debate was really about saving the lives of refugees—we would have provided them with safer pathways. We have not done that at all. That is because this debate is about two old parties trying to out-tough each other. It is about the right wing of the Labor Party saying, 'When faced with a choice, we would rather go and work with the coalition than work with the Greens or the crossbenchers to find a solution.' Now we find ourselves in a situation in which history is repeating. Instead of going back to Malcolm Fraser, we have gone back to John Howard. The most disappointing thing about it is that there is a better side to Australians. In the years after the Vietnam War, we took in between 90,000 and 100,000 people from Vietnam. We saw them coming in boats. We saw the tragedy that that involved and we said that we needed a regional solution that involved looking after these people and taking our fair share. It was by no means pretty or necessarily the most humane thing. It was a very distressing time for very many people. And it involved people being held in processing centres for a while.

But what we did not do when they arrived here on boats was turn them around. What we did not do was say, 'You've made your way here by boat, so we're going to take you to another country and let them look after you.' Instead, we said to the whole country and to the refugees: 'This is a problem. We've played a role in it. There are people coming here after fleeing a war'—and we should recognise that echo with the people who are coming here after Afghanistan—'and we will come up with a solution that is not only going to stop you getting so desperate that you'll jump on a boat but that will be humane. We will not need to suspend our obligations under the refugee convention and we will certainly not need to say that the whole of Australia does not count as Australia if you arrive here by boat.'

If you ask people in this country whether or not it was a good thing that we did that, most will tell you that it was. Everyone can tell you the story of someone they know in their family, in their workplace or in their street who came here as a refugee and who has now made this country a better place by virtue of being here. There is a better side to each and all of us as citizens of this country. The choice for the leadership of the government is this: which side are they going to pander to? Are they going to pander to the worst in us, the most fearful in us, and embark on a battle that they can never win, which is to try and out-tough Tony Abbott on this question? Or are they going to say, 'No matter what kinds of walls we put up around this country, because we are a democracy people are always going to come here, so the question is how to manage it, not how to try and win votes out of it in outer suburban marginal electorates in New South Wales or Queensland'? The question should be: how do we make Australia better? I reckon if you asked people most would tell you that they would be up for that challenge. But it requires leadership.

We have not seen that leadership and as a result we find ourselves here yet again deciding that we are going to provide differential treatment and have different classes of people. If you had happened to have found your way here by boat 30 years ago, you would have been welcomed and made a part of Australia and would now be one of those people running a business, in a leadership position, in a parliament somewhere in this country or an archbishop. But now we are saying: 'Potentially you will find yourself on a prison island or somewhere else if the government approves that. You will be held for an indefinite period of time. We don't care what mental health consequences that is going to have for you. You are there as an example to be a deterrent for others.' That is not the kind of country that I want and it is not the kind of country that many other people here want either.

Mr RANDALL (Canning) (17:56): I am pleased to speak on the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012. We would not be here tonight debating this at all if this Rudd-Gillard government had not have changed the policies in 2007. We had policies that worked. People have said this many times, but it has to be said again: when the Rudd government took over in 2007, there were four people who had arrived by boat in detention. The policies worked. No matter how you spin it and no matter how you play with it, at the end of the day the changing of the policies that the member for Berowra put in, which included temporary protection visas, the offshore Pacific solution and the turning back of boats where it was safe to do so, worked. The number of people coming by boat dried up to a trickle.

Let us look at the history of this. I was in the parliament at the time when John Howard brought in these measures—the Tampa solution. I was elected in that year, 2001, so I remember it well. People wanted us to do something about this, and we did. It sent a very strong signal to people smugglers that we were not open for business. Unbelievably, the Rudd Labor government made a great fanfare of dismantling that policy. Western Australian Senator Chris Evans was the immigration minister at the time. I felt pretty cheated by the way he gloated at what he did to a successful policy. I will be reminding my electorate in Western Australia of the role of Senate Evans in this come the next election, because they need to know who was responsible for the dismantling of a successful government policy that saved this country a lot of money and saved a lot of lives.

Senator Evans gloated about dismantling not only the solution but the camps at Manus Island and Nauru. When this new solution was taken on by the Gillard government, they complained that the camp on Nauru had fallen into disrepair and was derelict. They talked in the same manner about Manus Island. The minister at the time, Senator Evans, should be castigated for having bragged about destroying government property or being a barracker for those who destroyed government property.

Eventually the message filtered through to the people smugglers that Australia was open for business again. This government saw a sudden and exponential increase in the numbers of people deciding to take the risky journey to Australia. I speak about this with a little bit of authority, because I have been to Afghanistan and seen the people there who want to come to Australia by any means. I have been to Sri Lanka recently and I met with those detained by the Sri Lankan navy and talked with them about their reasons for coming. And I can tell you, in Sri Lanka, not one person that I spoke to said they were coming here for humanitarian reasons—not one person. They said they were coming here because they knew they could get a good job and there was a lot of money in Australia. When I told them they would not get a visa they said to me, 'It doesn't matter; we'll try, and we'll try again.' Interestingly, the minister, who is at the table, probably does not want to be aware of this, but the money that they get to go home is worth about three years' salary to many Sri Lankans, particularly in the north. It is not much of a deterrent: $16 a week is what the guy serving me in Jaffna told me he earns. So it is not a bad lure to come here and be sent home with your three years' salary.

But let's get back onto this disgraceful backflip, as it has been described by everybody who has been speaking on this bill—even the Greens member, Adam Bandt, from Melbourne. This hypocrisy knows no bounds. At least the member for Melbourne is consistent. I do not agree with the Greens' policies—I think they are pretty whacky and out of touch with the reality of the Australian electorate, who want to see an orderly migration system, not the one that the Greens want where they say, 'We need to better facilitate their entry into Australia.' Unless you vote Greens, you just do not ascribe to that strange logic about getting people here.

I was in the parliament in 2006 when we were vilified, up hill and down dale, by everyone possible in this place, when John Howard wanted to do what this bill wants to do—that is, essentially excise Australia from being a migration zone. We first talked about the islands around Australia. Oh, shock horror! People said it was unconstitutional, it was un-Australian; and now the current government, as we did in 2006, suddenly, because it was recommended by the three members of their advisory panel, have decided to have a go at this. But let us just remember: they vilified us as well about the Pacific solution. They had to contract out their advice, and they got the Houston committee to then tell them, 'Yes, you should try Manus Island and Nauru'—too late; they are coming in their droves. You cannot build a camp big enough to accommodate the thousands of people who are coming per month.

So what has happened? Australia is full. Inverbrackie is full. Curtin is full. Northam is full. Leonora is full. They are opening up the centre at Tasmania. What is the next solution? 'Well, we tried to get people to take them as billets, and we wanted to pay them so much a week'—so all these poor ladies around Australia were happy to try and earn a quid by billeting a few refugees while they waited. That has not worked; it has not really cut through or taken off. So what are we going to do? We are going to let them come here, but, because there are so many of them, they can now get a bridging visa to stay in Australia but they cannot work. As I said, I remember the hypocrisy of what they were saying when we did what we did—and it worked.

It has been said, but I have to remind you: it was not only people like Senator Evans, and, of course, the minister at the table, Minister Bowen, who said that this was a 'dark stain on the character of Australia'—these people are not consistent. As I said, at least the Greens are consistent. We are consistent. The only inconsistent ones in this debate are the Labor Party, because they have had so many incarnations and conversions on the way to the Pacific solution—not on the road to Damascus, I can tell you; it is on the road to Nauru and Manus Island—that no-one believes them anymore. People came up to me when I hosted Tony Abbott in my electorate last week and they were saying to us, 'Are you certain you can stop this situation?' And we said, 'Yes, because we've done it before, and it works.'

I heard the member for Berowra in this place say that, when he brought in these measures, he did not know which would work the best of the suite of three measures, but he said that, when you put them all together, they worked. Unfortunately, this government has only got one real part of that suite, one leg of the three-legged stool—and that is the Pacific solution.

Temporary protection visas, which Tony Abbott wants to move a private members' bill on, will test the government to see if they are real in wanting to give a further deterrent. Because, as we know, and you have to explain to people in the electorate—which I do—temporary protection visas allow people to come here and, while their status is being determined as to whether they are genuine refugees or their countries are safe enough to return to, they can have some work rights.

And I tell you what is cutting through to the electorate also—Tony Abbott's enunciation of the fact that we should be allowing these people to be receiving Work for the Dole type payments, because people do not want those arriving here without a legal reason to do so getting on our welfare system. We know that this measure allows them to earn 89 per cent of Newstart. So there you are: you have people in my electorate who are doing it really hard, and I tell you what makes them really angry—and I would be pleased if the minister at the table would listen to some of these. I have people ringing up my electorate office, or emailing me on a daily basis, who are trying to get here legitimately. A gentleman from the Boddington Gold Mine emailed me today. He has a good job, he pays a lot of tax—about $40,000 a year—he has married an overseas lady, who is pregnant, and he is having real problems getting her to Australia before the birth of the child. And then they see the fact that, if you turn up by boat, you can come straight in and live in the burbs and probably get a house out of it as well. That is what makes them really cross. The number of migration issues that come through my office from people legitimately trying to come here and bring their families, or to reunite or to bring their skills here—it is disgraceful. And yet they see thousands of people coming—30,000 since the government have been in office; 8,000 since they introduced their version of the Pacific solution. And they try to get one member of their family in. No wonder they are so cross and upset with the way the government are treating our immigration policies.

But going back to all of those who wanted to vilify us on this issue—the minister at the table has probably had his ears belted all day—there were right-wingers like the member for Watson, Tony Burke, saying, 'Australia is better than this bill,' 'The legislation before us today undermines our sovereignty,' 'It is offensive to our decency,' and, 'It makes a mockery of this parliament,' The member for Hotham said, 'Labor opposes it outright,' 'There is nothing you can do to this excision bill that will fix it,' 'We will not seek to amend it; we will oppose it in its entirety,' and, 'This bill is shameful and xenophobic.' What happened six years later? 'We are remade, morphed, reborn; we have a different view—we turned 180 degrees. We don't believe in anything we believed in before.' It is just woeful. Of course, we are not going to oppose the bill, because it is the bill we brought to this parliament six years ago.

I will be interested to see what some of the members of the Labor Party do if this comes to a vote—though it will probably be a mickey because we are supporting it. The member for Fremantle has been very outspoken on what a disgraceful set of measures these are, yet I imagine that, if it does come to a vote, she will vote for these measures. She tried to say before that she did not vote for them because there was a mickey, but she did not cross the floor and join those on the mickey vote. She told the Fremantle Herald, when I wrote to her newspaper, that she supported these measures, after saying she could not, would not and did not vote for them. The only reason she did not vote was that it was a mickey vote. I will be pointing this out in the Fremantle Herald when this vote comes up.

The electorates of other left-wing members of this parliament should know their duplicity on this issue as well. In 2006, the Leader of the House, when the parliament was debating the legislation last time, said:

Today this parliament is debating a bill that reduces us as a parliament and as a nation.

…   …   …

This bill is wrong in principle and it is wrong in motivation.

…   …   …

This bill is a disgraceful shirking of responsibility by Australia and it must be rejected. The Australian Labor Party rejects it.

That is what the member for Grayndler said. What do the people in the electorate think? As I said, there have been quite a few backflips. On Monday, 26 November, under the headline 'Charities will struggle to help refugees', the West Australian reported:

WA charity groups have condemned the Federal Government’s policy to dump thousands of refugees in the suburbs, saying they cannot deal with any extra demand on their already overstretched resources.

We know that the shortage of public housing in Western Australia is 20,000, so how will the demand be met? In that report, Anglicare Western Australia executive Ian Carter said the policy 'lacked foresight'. St Vincent de Paul said it was 'inhumane'. I could go on.

But suddenly there is another little crack in the wall. Today, Michael Gordon in the Sydney Morning Herald reported, under the headline 'Work rules for asylum seekers to be relaxed':

NEW rules denying asylum seekers the right to work for up to five years will be relaxed …

It quotes the minister, Chris Bowen, who, the article said:

… wanted over time to work out how people arriving by boat had 'appropriate support and care, and where appropriate they have some mechanism in place to be able to support themselves'.

That is code for, 'How are they going to get a job?' You are either going to give them a temporary protection visa—a decent, honest visa—or you are going to give them this mickey mouse visa that essentially allows them to cheat. I spoke on the Migration Amendment (Reform of Employer Sanctions) Bill yesterday, where the provisions against anyone who allows someone to work illegally are being toughened up. So the poor old employer cops all the hammering and fines and everything if he allows someone to work in this country who is not legally entitled to do so. This is only going to encourage people on the breadline to try to get work in the black economy.

This is a disgraceful exhibition of hypocrisy by the Labor Party. They are not doing it properly. They are not going to solve this problem unless they take a deep breath, realise they made a total mistake in 2007 and adopt the full suite of measures of the Howard government, which worked and stopped this evil trade.

Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (18:10): This is not an easy issue for governments to deal with. It is not an easy issue for the community to deal with. It is a difficult question where time changes the way in which solutions should be looked at. There was a time when people would come to a parliament like this and argue that the White Australia policy was right. People changed their minds about that. Old policies were changed and new policies were adopted. So I understand that views that people may have had in the past have changed as circumstances have changed, but I do not agree with these changes. Obviously, while my politics are left of centre, they are not 'in the Left', and the characterisation by the previous speaker of people's views as fitting a particular grouping is simply not true.

My approach to policy has always been that we allow the markets to dictate what happens unless there is market failure. Can there have been a greater market failure than what has occurred with close to 40 million people seeking asylum around the world and not having a permanent place to live? There simply cannot be a greater issue that requires governments to act against the way in which society has broken down in some countries and left such large numbers, almost twice the population of Australia, looking for a permanent home because either their existing home is no longer safe or they have been kicked out and are no longer able to stay there. So I do not approach this necessarily with just a bleeding heart; I approach this matter in the same way that I approach every matter, and that is from the point of view of an absolute market failure and the question of how we deal with it. In that context, it is completely understandable that governments may change their minds on issues, but in this case they have done so wrongly.

There were two main reasons that I chose to enter parliament. One was to make sure we got rid of Work Choices and the terrible effects that was having on families, particularly families that commute a lot, as they do on the Central Coast. The second reason was the way in which we treat those people who are less fortunate than us but may not have been born in this country. I was concerned with how we deal with them in a humane way that does not affect the integrity of Australia's borders or make Australia a less secure place. So I am particularly disappointed. I understand the government is searching in a very difficult situation for a solution, but I am very disappointed that they have taken the step of supporting something that they quite rightly rejected in 2006.

Let's be very honest about this. It is just a tricky technical nonsense to actually say that Australia is not part of Australia for the purpose of people seeking asylum. But it is even more tricky than that because it is only not Australia if you have come by boat. And it is even more tricky than that, because if you get on a P&O cruise liner in Fiji and then come to Sydney Harbour and seek asylum, again, you are not affected by this legislation. So the government has picked a particularly inhumane and tricky way of trying to deal with what is a major global problem that requires not short-term political point scoring but long-term solutions that are going to make sure that the people who are in most need are looked after.

I can understand the pressure on the government when you have an opposition that has its head in the sand about these issues and will continually look at pointscoring rather than at positive solutions to this. I listened to the member for Melbourne's contribution and I think the Greens have also failed in this area. They had the opportunity to support the government in talking about regional processing and looking at solutions that go beyond one country. They failed in relation to that and they cannot come in here and say that what they are doing is right. They played the politics of this as well. So we have all parties playing politics with people's lives and ignoring the facts that are there.

Australia is not one of the most generous refugee intake countries in the world—we hear the opposite all the time, but it is simply not true. We are the 14th largest economy yet we accept 0.03 per cent of the world's refugees. I have heard other contributors, including the member for Melbourne, talk about what Australia did in the aftermath of Vietnam. We were accepting about six per cent of world refugees at that time. We are now taking in 0.03 per cent.

One of the other points that has been made—and both parties have made a lot of it—is that stopping the boats will save lives. Well, cutting off someone's last line of escape is no great favour. If you are killed by the Taliban you are just as dead as if you drown. People who are making this very difficult decision about getting on a boat are not doing it for any other reason than that this is their last hope. The argument is often put—and the member for Canning was trying to make this point—that the boat arrivals are not genuine refugees, they are here for economic reasons. That is simply just not true, and it does not hold out in terms of the acceptance of asylum seekers, ultimately, when their claims are processed. If you are looking at where the non-genuine overstayers are then it is clearly plane arrivals. Only between 20 to 40 per cent of plane arrivals who seek asylum in this country are successful. Compare that with the 85 to 90 per cent of people who arrive by boats; clearly, the argument that people are getting on boats to seek some economic advantage just cannot be made out. They are coming because they are desperate, and 85 to 90 per cent of them are successful in having their claims met. They are indeed genuine asylum seekers.

The argument is also put that these people are queue jumpers. Can I say that with close to 40 million seeking asylum in the world it is a terribly long queue. If there were a queue to join, it would take you 135 years to work your way through that queue before you were processed here. So that whole argument is absolute nonsense. It is a cover for people who are racist. That is simply what it is and it has to be said that that is what it is. People who say that there is a queue are actually saying, 'We do not want these people coming here. We do not care about what their circumstances are. We simply do not want them in this country. That is it.' That is a much more honest position to put. We hear, particularly from the coalition, people talking about hypocrisy and so forth. Well, put your argument that you do not want foreigners per se coming to this country, because there is no queue, and if there were one it would take 135 years.

Look at how someone from, say, Afghanistan would seek asylum in Australia. The argument would probably be that they would go to the Australian embassy to seek asylum. But the address of the Australian embassy is, for security reasons, quite clearly and obviously kept secret. So there is nowhere to go in Afghanistan if you want to seek asylum in Australia. It is an absolute nonsense that there is some queue that people can go to and line up in.

These are some of the issues that have been raised as to why we should not be taking people. I actually think that the minister in 2006 made a very good speech, and I know it has been quoted a lot. What he said in 2006 holds just as much now as it did then. He started by saying that in 1951 the United Nations Convention for the Protection of Refugees came into force. The world realised the mistakes of the 1930s, when many western nations turned their backs on Jews fleeing persecution in Germany. Collectively, we said, 'Never again.' I am sure that all of us involved in public life would like to think that we would have done the right thing in those circumstances and stood up for those facing the worst of circumstances, regardless of whether it was popular or unpopular. He went on to talk about the then Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill, saying that if it passes parliament 'it will be the day that Australia turned its back on the refugee convention and on refugees escaping circumstances that most of us can only imagine'. He said:

This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia.

That was true six years ago and it is equally true now. The government find themselves reacting to the politics and they need to be above that.

I represent the electorate of Dobell. The only time a Labor member lost the seat was in 2001, at the Tampa election. At that particular election there were big posters right around the electorate saying, 'We choose who comes to this country.' We were all saying what a terrible thing that was, yet here we are trying to reproduce almost exactly the same type of legislation—reacting to the same things that happened then. The government are doing it for political reasons. They think that if they are tough in relation to this area they will be rewarded at an election. They are simply ignoring history if they believe that. In 2001 we lost Dobell. We lost some seats even though the approach of the Labor Party at that time was to say: 'We will do everything that Prime Minister John Howard is saying. We support it all. We are not disagreeing with it.' We were trying to make sure there was no difference between us. The Labor Party have clearly not learnt their lesson. They have not learnt their political lesson and they need to get their moral compass back on track in relation to these issues. They did after a period of time in opposition. By 2006, they were fine, looking at these issues in a rational way. They are reacting to very difficult circumstances. They are reacting to a public policy issue that is not easy and does not have a magic bullet solution, but most of all they are reacting to the political bait that is being put by the opposition. It is wrong morally and it is wrong electorally for the Labor Party to go down this path.

I have thought a lot about what I am going to do in this. I will be opposing this legislation. I have thought a lot about it because of the way in which people in my electorate voted in 2001. Do you know what? Sometimes you have to do what is right. Chris Bowen, the minister, as the member for Prospect back in 2006, said, 'You've got to take a decision, even if it will be unpopular, as long as you're sure that it's right.' It is right that this bill is defeated. Australia is Australia. We cannot play tricky word games and try to pretend it is something it is not. We hold ourselves out to be part of the world community. We need to show that we are mature enough to take responsibility on a range of these issues and we should reject this bill wholeheartedly.

Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (18:26): As a dear friend of mine often says, prefacing remarks in a political conversation: 'To know where we are today, we have to go back to where we began.' We began with the Australian community's outrage over women and children, and thousands of others, detained behind razor wire, languishing on temporary protection visas in a land where the liberty, freedom and the rule of law are a given, and taken for granted. This bill is yet another step to take us back full circle to a place of national shame. It directly offends the tenet, values and arrangements negotiated by me and others which were passed into law by the Howard government in 2004, then tested and reaffirmed under a set of different circumstances in 2006. That agreement went to the heart of protecting the most vulnerable individuals from life behind a razor-wire fence. It went to the heart of how we treat genuine refugees seeking solace within our shores. The wrongs that were righted removed a disgrace. This proposal is a disgrace and it bring disgrace upon us all.

I stand today more in sorrow than in anger. With injustice and indifference at its core, this proposal to excise the Australian mainland from the migration zone resurrects the legislation proposed in 2006 by the then Howard government. I opposed it then; I oppose it now. If this were not of such a serious nature I would have thought it were a joke. This legislation joins Tasmania with Christmas Island, 5,399 kilometres apart! Though we differ, my party has been entirely consistent in support of this policy position under the leadership of John Howard, Brendon Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott. In stark contrast, other members of this House called the 2006 genesis of this bill as being immoral and xenophobic. They were right then. This policy reversal is wrong now. Today, these same representatives sit as members of executive government, parroting their predecessor's policy disgrace. That our leadership—and I am talking about both parties—has come to an enabling consensus on this matter is not a display of unity and bipartisanship; rather, it is a retreat from leading the national debate to a higher place for a greater purpose. I said in 2006 that my decision then to oppose similar legislation was made because it was in the national interest of this Great South Land that it continue to be a passionate protector of the rights of genuine refugees. My position is unchanged today for the sake of our national interests both at home and abroad. I oppose this legislation now as I did its predecessor because it is offends the stand—and it seems today that these words were spoken so long ago—I made in 2006, when I said that Australia should remain:

… a place where dreams come true, where the impossible becomes the possible and the probable becomes the inevitable … where people find a sense of belonging … a place of hope for generations of new immigrants.

I stand tonight in a place of discomfort and controversy in a debate that is complicated, divisive and polarising. In this moment I can choose to be either at peace with my party, unified in opposition to this poor excuse for a Labor government or at peace with my heart for this nation. I choose to be at peace with my heart for this nation. I oppose these Labor Party bills and all who join with them in their intent to enact unjust laws which while they are on our statutes will remain a blight on our national integrity.

Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (18:31): Today is a rare day for the government. Today this government is doing something which makes sense, which has a chance of working, which might restore some integrity to Australia's borders and which might act as a deterrent to the repugnant trade of people smugglers who traffic in human misery.

The objective of the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 is to expand the existing offshore processing regime to apply to all persons who arrive unlawfully by sea to mainland Australia. You could be forgiven for thinking that the objective of this bill sounds familiar. That would be because it is familiar. This bill is almost a carbon copy of the bill passed by the House of Representatives under the Howard government in 2006 when it expanded offshore processing to apply to people arriving on mainland Australia. How embarrassing it must be for the government to introduce this bill into the House. Maybe the answer to the question of why the government is doing so lies in the difference between what the now Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen, is saying now and what he had to say back in 2006 when he, along with his Labor colleagues, opposed the Howard government's introduction of the almost-identical bill. The now minister described that bill then as a 'stain on our national character'. But what is he saying today? Ms Ellis, who is now also a minister, said that the bill was 'ludicrous', 'harsh', 'inhumane' and 'gutless'—and it went on and on. The hypocrisy of the government's U-turn is absolutely breathtaking.

Tragic and unacceptable loss of life and unprecedented budgetary disaster have flowed from Labor's staggeringly incompetent border protection policies. Labor's border protection policies should be likened to an employment program for people smugglers. The Howard government put the people smugglers out of business; Labor resurrected their business. Since November 2007, when Labor announced that it was dismantling the coalition's border protection polices, there have been 30,000 unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is more people than live in cities such as Alice Springs, Warrnambool, Nowra, Albany, Maryborough and Devonport. It is about 1½ times the number of people who live in cities such as Goulburn, Armidale, Whyalla and Mount Isa.

Since November 2007, Labor's failures on our borders have got worse. The government's policies have been half-hearted, and it has made policy switches from one month to the next. The government is not up to the job, and it is not up to the commitments that it has made. More than half the number—that is, 15,403—of the 30,057 unauthorised maritime arrivals under this government have turned up this year, and more than a third—that is, 10,146—have turned up since 1 July. More people have turned up on more boats in 2012 alone than in the entire 11½ years of the Howard government yet Labor still refuses to acknowledge that it got it horribly wrong when it abolished the Howard government's policies, and it continues to get it wrong by refusing to restore them. This is what happens when intractable political incompetence blinds sensible decision making. Sadly, this dynamic occurs all too often in this government.

At the average rate of arrivals over the full term of the Howard Government, it would have taken John Howard more than 25 years as Prime Minister to reach the number of unauthorised maritime arrivals that have occurred under Labor in less than five years. Under the Howard government's policies, it would have taken more than 500 years to reach 30,000 unauthorised maritime arrivals. Labor's record on border protection shows breathtaking incompetence. It reads as follows. Since the last election, Labor's failures on our borders have increased threefold: in Labor's first term there were 7,349 illegal boat arrivals; so far in Labor's second term there have been more than 22,000. The average monthly rate of arrivals over Labor's second term is almost four times higher—and at current levels it is 10 times higher—than it was in Labor's first term. Absolutely tragically, under Labor's policies more than 1,000 people have perished at sea. At least 8,100 people who have been waiting offshore in desperate circumstances have been denied Australia's protection because they did not come on a boat.

I heard the member for Dobell expressing an interesting slant on border protection policy. He said that there is no such thing as people waiting in queues and no such thing as a United Nations humanitarian refugee waiting list. But I have been to refugee camps. I have spoken to people who have been interviewed. I have been to the Thai-Burmese border and seen the 140,000 people there who are waiting offshore and who are applying under the correct processes to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Also, the budget has blown out. It has blown out to $6.6 billion and counting, including $1.7 billion this year.

This Labor government's policy has done incredible damage to Australia's humanitarian and immigration programs. It has been a public policy disaster in humanitarian terms and also in budgetary terms. There is no other way to describe it. This will put an incredible pressure on public housing. There are agencies like the Red Cross and others who are doing an incredible job, but these numbers keep rising. There will be incredible pressures put on state governments in terms of health and education.

This bill will replace the concept of 'offshore entry person' with the concept of 'unauthorised maritime arrival'. It will mean that more persons who arrive on Australian soil by boat will be subject to removal to an offshore processing country and they will be processed according to that country's regime. What this means is that the bill will effectively excise the Australian mainland from the Migration Act, which is intended to be a disincentive for people to make the journey to Australia.

Labor continues to fail to implement the full suite of measures the coalition had in place. Every day, when they say they will bring out a policy, they keep retreating. Today we saw a retreat, again, on work rights. They were not going to introduce work rights; now they are softening on work rights with the temporary protection visa update and changes that they announced a few days ago. This policy keeps evolving and changing; no wonder people smugglers continue to send people here; they have absolutely no surety about what the government is going to say from one policy decision to the next, or what they are going to stick to.

This government has continued to change its policy from day to day. We introduced these measures in 2006. The impact of these measures would have been much more significant if this government had introduced the full suite of measures. This bill is a step in the right direction and the coalition will support it. The challenge for the Labor Party now is to embrace the complete policy and political honesty, adopt the remainder of the coalition's border protection policies and put people smugglers out of business.

But do not hold your breath for that one, Deputy Speaker. That is too much policy logic from Labor, and after five years of policy failure it is probably expecting a bit too much.

Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (18:40): Before I speak to the bill I would like to acknowledge in this chamber the very courageous and wise words of the member for McMillan. I feel privileged indeed to count him as a friend and to have him as a colleague in this place.

The Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 gives effect to recommendation 14 of the Houston expert panel, which proposed excising the Australian mainland so that a person arriving by sea, without a visa, cannot apply for a protection or other visa unless the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship determines that it is in the public interest to lift that restriction.

The practice of excising parts of Australian territory started in 2001, and a bill to expand the excision of the Australian mainland was introduced and passed in the House of Representatives in 2006. As my colleague said, he and I and other colleagues, the former member for Cook, who is somewhere in the gallery, and the former member for Kooyong, opposed that bill at that time. But so concerning were the measures outlined in that bill that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, chaired by then government Senator Marise Payne, recommended that 'the bill not proceed'. It was withdrawn when it was clear it would not pass the Senate—not because of the terrible ramifications of that piece of legislation, but because it simply was not going to pass in the Senate, and that would have been an embarrassment to the government.

The report included a number of recommendations to limit the effects of the bill should the government still elect to introduce it. These were fairly extensive but went to transparency, procedural fairness, special consideration for women and children, parliamentary and/or ombudsman scrutiny of operations on Nauru and Manus Island and a sunset period of 18 months for the operation of the legislation.

This bill before the House has the same intent. It effectively warehouses people in a foreign country and continues a pattern of punitive, arbitrary, indefinite, mandatory detention. These are people: men, women and children who have not been convicted of any crime. May I say, that in looking at these issues over a lengthy time line—I think it has been a 10-year period—there has been more than one inquiry a year into the effects of mandatory detention, and all of them have warned government of the dire consequences of this policy. Yet governments of both persuasions have ignored all of those reports—some of them from their own parliamentary committees.

What really concerns me is that this legislation places these people out of reach of the Australian legal system and casts doubts as to whether any review process will ever be available to them. Our democracy is underpinned by the rule of law, which requires, as a minimum, access to judicial review of administrative action, the right to a fair trial, the right to private communication with a lawyer and access to the courts. This bill is a crack in each of those foundation stones of our democracy. That is why people out there ought to be concerned about the passage of such legislation in unseemly haste in this place. We should ask the question: who or what will protect these people from processing errors? Who or what?

In justifying these extreme measures, the expert panel report provided just two paragraphs of reasoning for such a draconian piece of legislation. On the statistics alone, it is difficult to justify the excision of the whole mainland. In the decade since 2001, a total of five boats have managed to get as far as the Australian mainland—and those five boats carried only 86 people. This is not an avalanche, a tsunami or an invasion. It is hardly a number to give rise to the implementation of such an extreme piece of legislation—a piece of legislation which discriminates against an asylum seeker simply on the basis of the mode of travel they used to come to this country.

Yet we continue along this path, with this bill being the final legal brick in the creation of fortress Australia. Let us be clear: Australia has signed the refugee convention, but it seems the government has no intention of meeting its obligations under that agreement. This bill, combined with the recently passed Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill, the existing legal framework, the memorandum of understanding between Australia and Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and the new no-advantage test, completes a cunning suite of legislation and international agreements devised by government to effectively avoid Australia's obligations under the refugee convention.

I read a wonderful article in the Canberra Times this morning. It was by Professor William Maley from ANU and Penelope Mathew and was entitled 'Bowen's asylum line is illegal.' They note:

First, international law is underpinned by the simple but powerful principle of 'pacta sunt servanda', namely that every treaty in force is binding on the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. In the exercise of its sovereign capacity, Australia, when it acceded to the Refugee Convention, made a solemn set of commitments to other states. If it were to dishonour those commitments, it could hardly expect to be taken seriously if it then complained when other states chose to dishonour their commitments under a whole range of treaties and conventions from which Australians stand to benefit.

The article was worth reading in its entirety and I had a conversation just this afternoon with William Maley on these issues.

Under this new regime, asylum seekers will, at the very least, spend years languishing in detention in foreign countries even if they have been assessed as a refugee, and they may never be able to successfully apply for asylum in Australia. A dissection of the suite of measures uncovers the devil in the detail. Take, for instance, Nauru. The MOU states that refugees will be processed under Nauruan law. This is confirmed by Australia's Department of Immigration and Citizenship in material given to asylum seekers. But, to apply for an Australian refugee visa under regulation 866.21 of the Australian Migration Act regulations, the applicant must be a person to whom 'Australia has protection obligations under the Refugee Convention.'

This is an incredible sleight of hand. It is difficult to see how any asylum seeker can argue Australia's protection obligations are applicable when they are determined to be a refugee in Nauru, under Nauruan law, which is now a signatory to the refugee convention. When I speak to lawyers, it is clear that they can barely understand the complexities in this suite of legislation. Consider the consequences for just one moment. We have shovelled off these desperate people to a country which simply cannot absorb or resettle them, in the process potentially extinguishing any legal claim they have to resettle in Australia. They will, as a result of the government's deliberate policy choice, languish in detention centres offshore for years at Australian taxpayer expense.

I hear speeches in this place about the huge cost of our asylum program. We could avoid that by treating these people decently, resettling them quickly and processing their claims quickly and efficiently. I will not go into that right now, but there is no justification for the huge expense to Australian taxpayers of this flawed policy. We need to ask ourselves what value we place on the rule of law if we are prepared to extinguish it for a political purpose. There can be no other reason for the sweeping changes in this bill.

Consider, for instance, the fact that, from 1 July 1998 to 27 July 2012, there were 79,498 protection visa applications from people who arrived in Australia by air. This is more than double the total number of people arriving by boat over the same period and it is 924 times more people than have arrived on the Australian mainland. Yet this bill will not affect air arrivals. These people, some of whom arrive in Australia with no intention of returning to their country of origin, will not be removed to an overseas detention facility. They will have access to merits review and will live and work in the community despite the fact that, statistically, only about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of them qualify for refugee status. That compares to 90 per cent of the people who arrive by boat qualify. How can this glaring difference in the way people are treated be justified? Why do we continue to demonise and penalise people who arrive by boat? It is difficult to accept the argument that Australia's approach of stripping away the protections contained in an international convention designed to protect human dignity and respect for human life should have any legal or moral force.

Addressing this issue requires more than tag lines. We must engage in a constructive regional dialogue and must first work to find durable policies in the source countries. We must use diplomacy and work with our neighbours in the region to address the common concerns about refugee flows, not just to resolve the political problems in Australia but to seek cohesive, humane policy for the region. This should include consultation with countries in the region to seek agreement to set up UNHCR approved regional processing centres and it should include a commitment by Australia to lift its refugee intake to a more realistic level. Under this process, people could not pick and choose a country to resettle in but would be allocated, as has been done successfully in the past, during the Indochinese conflict for example. I know that was slightly different, but there is no reason why this cannot be achieved. It is harder, it is slower but it is more sure.

Perhaps also it is time to discuss with the UNHCR the renegotiation of our humanitarian intake so we can relieve some of the pressures in the region, be good neighbours and take the bulk of our humanitarian intake from the immediate region, where the problem currently exists. These are matters worthy of discussion if we really want to stop people losing their lives crossing the ocean between Indonesia and Australia.

It will not be a quick political fix that resolves these matters. Rather, it will be the intelligent, diligent application of diplomatic skills and goodwill, and sensible policy making and sensible legislation. It may take longer but it will be surer and will produce a much improved humanitarian response.

I would like to finish with another quote from the article by Bill Maley and Penelope Mathew. The article begins:

Australia's refugee policy is now in a total mess. Rather than being guided by principles or even a measured pragmatism, it reflects the knee-jerk response of politicians who are desperate to win votes from the least informed parts of the electorate.

Like my colleague the member for McMillan, my heart is heavy when I have to come into this place and once again speak in this way about legislation being considered by this House.

In all conscience I cannot support this piece of legislation.

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (18:54): I acknowledge the contribution of my colleague the member for Pearce. She has been consistent in her views and certainly has cared sufficiently to express them.

Unfortunately the stark reality behind the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill is that the government has lost control of Australia's borders. It is a simple but inescapable conclusion demonstrating a serious policy failure, and after listening to the member for Pearce we can understand just how serious. This action represents the inability of the government to perform even the most fundamental function. A sovereign nation's borders are a part of its very definition. The first way we define a country of the world is to define its borders. This has been the way of human history. Nations have waxed and waned, and that has usually been measured by the expansion and contraction of their borders. Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome are historically defined by the borders they established and defended, and the same applies to civilisations around the world. Wars over borders have been fought throughout history—border issues are probably the cause of more wars than all the other causes combined. Throughout history leaders have been defined by their ability to manage and defend their nation's borders. So, when history reflects on the current government and its ability to manage Australia's borders, it will, unfortunately, only see dreadful, dismal failure.

Worse still, in my view, this has become not only a border protection failure but also a humanitarian, social and economic failure. When Labor came to power in 2008, purely driven by cheap politics it simply dumped a successful border protection policy. We did know that policy was a success—only four people were in the detention system at that time. But rather than build on that success the Labor government abandoned it—for all of the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, this has been done at a cost to the community. As I said, there is a social cost, there is an economic cost and there is a humanitarian cost. There is a border protection cost. It is interesting that the Labor government has come to this, given that it was a Democrat in the United States, John F Kennedy, who said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country'. That sentiment is important in this debate.

Most Australians are proud of their country and fiercely defensive of our borders. Most Australians do not agree with Labor's approach of abandoning our border protection. They are angry and frustrated. They are angry and frustrated not only because the government has jeopardised Australia's strong border reputation but also because of the financial blow outs that have been revealed. This does cause the social challenges in our community that I have referred to. It does impact on social cohesion, and people do become very concerned about what this approach is costing and who is paying for it. I am frequently asked, as I suspect many members of this House are, particularly in relation to aged care, about what has come out of the ACFI funding model for some of the smaller service providers as opposed to what this policy failure is costing. That is what this type of failure unfortunately causes in the community.

As I said earlier, this was a program that did cost, as we heard earlier, less than $100 million five years ago under the coalition government but it is now costing more than $1 billion under this government. The government said it would spend just $100 million in each of the years of 2010-11 and 2011-12, but they have spent $879 million and $1.2 billion respectively. The government went back to the parliament last year asking for another $295 million to cover the budget blow out, and the year before it needed an extra $120 million.

My constituents have got to the point where they do not believe that the Labor government can stop the boats or fix this mess. They know this is a dreadful policy failure, and I am concerned about its divisive nature in the community. The people do know that the coalition government had to deal with this in the 1990s. There was a dramatic increase in the number of boat people arrivals, from hundreds in 1998 to 1,000 in 1999—a tenfold increase since the early nineties. By 2001, the then coalition government made it clear that Australia needed to protect its borders and that it would take strong action to do so. In 2001, people smugglers made it to Australia 43 times. Thanks to the tough coalition policies of 2002, in 2002 they only made it once. Over the remaining years of the coalition government, 25 boats entered Australia illegally. That is an average of 3½ boats a year from 2002 to 2008.

As I said, there were only four people in the immigration detention system when Labor achieved government in 2007. But, in 2008, the Labor government cast aside that policy and basically threw open Australia's borders. In 2009, people smugglers reached Australia 61 times. In 2010, they earned their illegal income through 134 successful incursions. This basically put the vile people smugglers back in business, and I just cannot accept that. The floodgates reopened. Unfortunately, since Labor abolished the coalition government's Pacific solution, over 30,000 people have arrived on over 500 boats. When I look at that figure of 30,000-plus people, I see a city the size of Busselton, in my electorate. We also know of the tragedies that came with those boats—dreadful tragedies. At least 1,000 asylum seekers and crew have lost their lives at sea, and not one person to date has been processed offshore. Illegal boat arrivals are now occurring at the highest rate on record. We have gone from an average of three boat arrivals a year in 2002 to the arrival of, on average, 2,000 asylum seekers per month in recent times. It is just appalling, in my view, that people smugglers believe they are in control and in charge—and they are clearly making a fortune.

We need a solution to this problem, because the current approach is haphazard and just a mess, and we as a coalition have solutions to offer. The shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, has provided a bill this week that provides such a solution. The process that we are seeing from this government is in constant confusion. The re-establishment of temporary protection visas is an essential plank of a real response to people smuggling, and the member for Cook's bill will provide real action. Temporary protection visas were a vital and effective tool in ending the trade in human misery that is people smuggling.

The government of course has used a spurious argument in defence of its refusal of this effective tool. According to the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers released in August this year:

TPV grants from inception to abolition (1999-2007) was 11,206.86. Of the 11,206 people granted a TPV, 9,043 were irregular maritime arrivals. Of this number 8,600 (95 per cent) were eventually granted a permanent visa in Australia.

The Labor argument is that this somehow demonstrates that TPVs were ineffective. The reality is vastly different. TPVs did not prevent genuine asylum seekers coming to Australia, most of whom gained residency; but they did provide a real disincentive for those who were not genuine refugees.

The member for Berowra eloquently talked about the refugees waiting in camps who cannot afford to pay people smugglers exorbitant amounts of money, such as $10,000 or more. It is appalling that these TPV holders were able to gain priority over those who are in camps around the world and who have been denied access to Australia because we have people smugglers plying their vile trade and people who can afford to pay them. I do not support that at all. We need policies that address this but, with this government, that is exactly what we do not have. The Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers does not identify temporary protection visas as a failure, and the government should stop misleading the community in this way.

Of course, I understand why the government remain opposed to real solutions: they would have to acknowledge the successful policies of the coalition government. Most Australians understand that strong leadership involves acknowledging your mistakes and correcting them, but this government is not capable of that. Instead, the Labor government have brought another bandaid bill into this House to try and patch up what is a dreadfully failed policy—there is no doubt; we cannot cope with the 2,000 arrivals per month—and people simply do not trust them to get it right. How can you trust a government that cannot protect its borders, that cannot get border protection right? It is a fundamental responsibility of government.

To go back to where I started, there is no doubt that this is not only a border protection failure; it is also a humanitarian failure, a social failure and an economic failure of core government responsibility and core government policy.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (19:06): I rise to foreshadow an amendment I will be moving to the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 which would put into law the Bali process. I know I have been banging on about this all year, but I know it has the support of both major political parties in this chamber and, I would hope, the support of the vast majority of all members here.

The amendment will require an annual report from the minister, whoever that may be, on the Bali process and the work of government in the implementation of the Bali process, to be made to this House. It is good work that is being done, across party lines, offshore, that was started in 2002 by Alexander Downer and is continued under the current government, and, I understand, represented in the process by the minister at the table tonight, Minister Bowen.

The Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime is co-chaired by the governments of Indonesia and Australia. It brings together participants to work on very practical measures to help combat people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crimes throughout our Asia-Pacific region. It is the best we have in regard to the issues associated with slowing the movement of people within our region and trying to deal with issues of criminality associated with people-smuggling and trafficking. It is the mid- to long-term solution that so many people are looking for as the circuit-breaker to much of the short-term language that we hear dominating this debate in Australia today.

Even Paris Aristotle today in the Sydney Morning Herald again made the compelling case that only a mid-term, comprehensive, regional response will address the issues before the House. Speaking with reference to The Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, of which he was a member, Mr Aristotle said:

The panel presented an integrated package of 22 recommendations knowing it would take time to implement them … The report’s most important components were measures to establish an effective regional processing and protection framework that would build a safer system.

…      …   …

None of the measures are quick fixes, nor can they work on their own. The howls for immediate success and claims that it must have failed even though it has not been fully implemented are examples of the shrillness characterising this debate.

So that is one of the expert panel members in today's media in an opinion piece reflecting not so much on this legislation but on the ongoing debate that has gone off the rails in Australia today, and on the false expectations that are put to the Australian people from short-termism.

None of the issues in question and at stake that challenge public policy in this area will be nor can be fixed by short-term solutions. They need mid- to long-term solutions and they do require Australia to work with our near neighbours. If we try to go it alone in any particular policy way we will fail, and that is regardless of who is the minister of the day, and regardless of the government of the day, and regardless of which political parties are involved. Unless we work with our near neighbours in a coordinated way, as part of a regional process, we will fail. The recommendations that were made by the expert panel highlight that, and, again, people like Paris Aristotle have been highlighting that today. It is the reference point, the safe port, in all of this for public policy in regard to the Bali process, which is the bipartisan piece of work in all of this, and is something that I hope we can get codified into Australian law today.

So, like the expert panel, I am certain that regional cooperation and bilateral agreements will be central to the successful implementation of the recommendations of what is now known as the Houston report, and it is essential for the successful establishment of things such as offshore assessment and to protect against loss of life at sea. The movement of refugees in the Asia-Pacific region is not an issue that Australia can deal with in isolation in the absence of cooperation with other countries in our region. While Australia can establish regional processing arrangements in the short term, Australia's domestic policies alone will not easily deter those refugees who are desperately seeking protection from persecution.

The irregular movement of people affects many countries in our region, as much as if not more than it affects Australia. By and large, those who seek refuge in Australia have transited through the territory of one of Australia's neighbours before they arrive here. Movements into other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, on raw figures alone, are higher than movements into Australia. It is a myth that has made its way into the Australian community that it is any other way. Without a doubt, many of our Asia-Pacific neighbours are more challenged by more movements of asylum seekers than we in Australia are, largely because we are surrounded by water. That alone significantly slows the movement of people to Australia.

Therefore, we need to work with our near neighbours, not only on issues of people seeking asylum but also on issues that are equally challenging, if not more challenging, and which should challenge us as they should and do challenge our neighbours: issues of criminality associated with smuggling, and—for me, the most insidious of all crimes—the crime of trafficking in persons, a crime to which, in my view, Australia does not give the priority attention that it deserves as an issue of great prevalence throughout the Asia-Pacific region. As I say, in my view, if we are going to have a hierarchy of crimes then that is the worst one of all.

The countries of the Asia-Pacific region therefore share a substantial common interest in forming long-term strategies to regulate the movement of people. Indeed, this shared concern has already given rise to multilateral cooperation. As stated before, the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime provides the best regional mechanism through which Australia can encourage and cooperate with other countries in our region on matters relating to irregular migration and related issues.

The Bali process is particularly relevant in the context of this bill. It is committed to assisting other countries adopt best practices in asylum management in line with the principles of the refugee convention. Whilst there are countries involved in the Bali process that are not signatories to the refugee convention, this is our best chance as a region to put together a framework. Certainly Australia's obligations as a signatory would not allow us to act in a way that is in breach of our obligations under the refugee convention. Therefore, that is the standard that is set for the Bali process and the principles behind it.

Australia's ultimate long-term goal relating to refugees is to see the countries of the Asia-Pacific region treat all refugees in a way that is consistent with the principles of the refugee convention through this Bali process. Only through encouraging our neighbours to protect people from persecution can Australia truly discourage people from making dangerous boat journeys to Australia. That is done in a spirit of cooperation, not in a spirit of paternalism. This is an exercise in trying to work together on the full range of issues that challenge us all.

Mindful of this long-term imperative of the refugee issue, this House must acknowledge the central role of regional cooperation and the Bali process in informing sustainable and effective policies in this area. It is, therefore, my view—and, I hope, the House's view—that it is appropriate that we insert into this legislation the idea of having 12-monthly reports on the Bali process to the House. Certainly I hope it is an amendment that is considered in its spirit by all.

Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (19:16): I thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This bill amends the Migration Act 1958 in accordance with recommendation 14 of the report of the expert panel on asylum seekers which stated that arrival anywhere in Australia by irregular maritime means should provide individuals with the same status. That is, irregular arrival by sea anywhere in Australia should make a person liable to regional processing arrangements. At the forefront of the panel's reasoning in making this recommendation was the need to reduce any incentive for people to take even greater risks with their lives—such as staying longer on a boat to avoid Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef or some other excised place—in seeking to reach the Australian mainland and avoid being subject to regional processing arrangements.

As the panel emphasised, and as the government has acknowledged, the recommendations in this report are an integrated package. We have not accepted or rejected each recommendation; we accepted them all as a whole. Therefore, we are moving to implement every single recommendation. This is something that I have freely acknowledged many times publicly and it is indicative of the fact that we are the only party—not those opposite and not the Greens party—implementing all the recommendations of the expert panel's report.

Yes, this bill is directed squarely at boat arrivals, but so is the expert panel's report. As members would recall from the emotional but ultimately fruitless parliamentary debate of some months ago, the expert panel was prompted by people getting on boats and dying at sea. Hence the government implemented this as a circuit-breaker to get a breakthrough. We got the recommendations and we have been implementing them. Those arriving by plane are not the ones dying en route to Australia and are not the focus of this bill. Those arriving by plane are not risking their lives to get here. The very clear and universally agreed aim of the policy changes underlined by the expert panel's recommendations is the need to remove the incentive for people to take the dangerous journey by boat.

Clearly the expert panel makes a very strong recommendation for this bill, as I say, in order to remove what could be a perverse incentive to stay longer on boats. This bill is not about excising the Australian mainland from the migration zone. The definition of the migration zone is not being amended in this bill. Rather, a person will be subject to regional processing based on their status as an unauthorised maritime arrival—that is, by arriving in Australia, in the migration zone, by sea without a valid visa. This is in contrast to the current situation where an individual is only subject to regional processing if they enter Australia at an excised offshore place such as Christmas Island.

I have freely admitted and acknowledged that people will very obviously take a range of views on this issue—about this issue in particular and about the general issue more broadly. As I have said in other places, if after deeply considering all the issues people reach a different position and their moral compass points a different way, I will acknowledge and respect it. But people who argue entirely for onshore processing must acknowledge that that will continue to provide an incentive to come to Australia by boat. Without taking difficult decisions such as this, it would mean, inevitably, more deaths at sea. That is the simple fact.

I want to deal with the contribution of the member for Melbourne. In his speech he said that this government has not implemented extra pathways to Australia. He said, 'If only this government would implement some way for people to get to Australia more safely, if only this government would provide more places for those people in Indonesia, that would be the right thing to do.' The member for Melbourne seems unaware that we are doing exactly that. The member for Melbourne seems unaware or chooses to ignore the fact that this government has increased the humanitarian program to 20,000 places—the biggest increase in the humanitarian program in 30 years. As has been noted publicly this week, that is not a universal position across this chamber anymore. It was for a little while. It is not anymore. This government is committed to increasing the humanitarian program. In fact, we have done so. More visas have been issued offshore as a result of the increase to the humanitarian program.

What we will not do is focus that increase in the program entirely and exclusively on Indonesia. That would be to say that Australia's entire humanitarian program should be focused on those who can at least get to Indonesia, if not to Australia, because they can afford a people smuggler to get them to Indonesia or can get to Indonesia under their own steam. Our humanitarian program is about much more than that. It is about providing those alternative pathways, but it is also about providing hope to people who could not possibly afford a people smuggler—people in camps in Africa, people in camps in the Middle East, people in camps in Thailand and elsewhere in Asia—and other people who cannot make it to Indonesia. The Greens take a short-sighted approach that says, 'We're focused on Indonesia.' That is ignoring our moral responsibility to those in different parts of the world who deserve at least the chance of resettlement in Australia. So I completely reject the assertions of the honourable member for Melbourne, who just wilfully ignores the fact that this government has increased the humanitarian program to 20,000 places—yes, at some substantial cost to the budget because of the substantial resettlement support that we provide. The member for Melbourne seems to have not noticed this in the public debate in recent weeks, as the Greens regularly ignore things which are inconvenient to their argument. I suggest perhaps they are not alone there in this House occasionally.

The government continues to implement the panel recommendations and more. Today we saw another transfer of people back to Sri Lanka, people who are not exercising Australia's international obligations. We are swiftly returning them to Sri Lanka. So people who are coming to Australia for economic reasons are clearly being dealt with by our law and being returned to Sri Lanka—something that the Howard government was never able to achieve. Swift returns to Sri Lanka, in some cases within days of arrival, are being done by this government, because we have seen an increase in people arriving in Australia from Sri Lanka and a lot of this is clearly for economic purposes. But what we will not do is ignore our obligations under the refugee convention. We will at least hear the reasons for people's travel to Australia.

I know the opposition would turn boats around on the high seas—in my view, a breach of the refugee convention. We will not do that. But what we are doing is safely returning people to Sri Lanka. We are not conducting difficult and unsafe operations on the high seas but safely returning people by aeroplane to Sri Lanka. We have returned a very considerable number of people in recent weeks and we will continue to do so. We have also seen some voluntary returns, to Sri Lanka in particular but other nations as well—Iran in particular. But Sri Lanka is the nation which has received the most voluntary returns. Since 30 August more than 600 Sri Lankans have returned home, which I think underlines the point that people smugglers are selling false promises about what awaits people in Australia. They are selling the false promise of a fast track to a visa and what we are very clearly doing is giving the lie to that promise, taking action which is swift and which clearly shows the message.

The Australian government's policy is clear. We want to resettle more refugees in Australia. We want to give more people the chance of life in Australia. We want to see 20,000 refugees resettled in Australia every year, which would make us the largest resettlement country in the world per capita and the second largest in absolute terms for UNHCR referred refugees. Certainly on some of the measures we are very close to Canada in terms of resettlement. It is this side of the House which is doing that. It is this side of the House which is committed to doing that. It is only this side of the House which is committed to giving more people the chance of life in Australia while also taking the difficult decisions to dissuade people from risking their lives to get to Australia by sea. It is very easy to say that that is not necessary. It is the government which has a responsibility to do so and we will continue to do so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! The question is that the bill be read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm.

Debate adjourned.

Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (19:26): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (19:27): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (19:28): I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The bill makes minor amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 to correct referencing inconsistencies and improve the readability of the act. The bill also amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 in relation to specialist trainees. It is the government's policy to increase access to high-quality clinical training capacity for all medical professionals by working closely with states and territories, funding additional training capacity and facilitating innovative and flexible training models. The proposed legislation takes an innovative training arrangement that has been available to trainee specialists from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and expands it so that trainee specialists from all recognised medical colleges have access. The legislation permits a trainee specialist from any recognised medical college to conduct a procedure under the direct supervision of a specialist in a private setting and have that service attract a Medicare rebate for the supervising surgeon. The procedure will be considered to have been performed by the supervising surgeon, who will retain the right to any bulk-billed Medicare benefits in relation to the procedure. This further expands the country's training capacity for specialists, at a time when clinical training capacity for all health professionals in our health system is under significant stress, and it does so with no additional cost to the government.

The bill will make changes to section 41C of the Human Services (Medicare) Act 1973, the Medicare act, and these are being progressed to ensure that Medicare Locals and other bodies seeking to use the term 'Medicare' are able to apply for an authorisation to use the term without breaching the Medicare act. Medicare Locals will help to drive improvements in Australia's primary healthcare system. Medicare Locals have been established through a staged implementation process, with all Medicare Locals now having commenced operations, the final ones by 1 July 2012. The government is aware that there are a range of views about the use of the name 'Medicare Local', and I want to thank the member for Lyne for his thoughtful contribution in that regard. I am pleased to advise the House that a national evaluation of Medicare Locals, already planned to start early next year, will consider the degree to which the name 'Medicare Local' is suitable for its purpose. Provisions will be made for the evaluator to specifically look at community acceptance of the name.

Finally, the bill will make changes to the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989. The objective of the minor technical amendments to the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act is to correct an inaccurate description of how chemicals are kept under control of Customs during transshipment. The proposed amendment allows industry to utilise more short-term storage options, while maintaining health and safety. It does not place any restriction on competition and does not place any additional requirements on business. I would like to acknowledge the support of stakeholders for the proposed amendment.

I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (19:33): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3), as circulated, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit “items 20 to 23”, substitute “item 23”.

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (line 14), omit the heading.

(3) Schedule 1, items 20 to 22, page 5 (line 15) to page 6 (line 26), omit the items.

These amendments will ensure the name 'Medicare' is protected into the future. This bill seeks to correct another botched implementation by Labor. They created primary healthcare organisations operating under the name 'Medicare Locals', a name which is technically unlawful under Commonwealth legislation. Nothing could better highlight this government's incompetence. Nothing could better highlight the fact that this government was merely after a headline as opposed to a health outcome. Nothing could better highlight the fact that this government has stumbled from one disaster to the next when it comes to the health portfolio. What competent government could enlist the assistance of primary healthcare organisations and insist on them being called Medicare Locals, bearing in mind that the government, in their Medicare Locals, do not provide any Medicare assistance? You cannot go into a Medicare Local office to have your Medicare claim processed. You cannot go into a Medicare Local office to see a doctor or a nurse or to seek medical advice or attention. You cannot go into a Medicare Local office and ask for advice in relation to Medicare matters. Medicare Locals have nothing to do with Medicare whatsoever. Why did this government decide to call them Medicare Locals? Because it thought it could fool the Australian people into believing that somehow this was a network of retail services, which of course it is not. That this government, in the height of its incompetence, would allow the use of the word 'Medicare' in the title of these primary healthcare organisations, knowing that it contravenes federal legislation, just speaks to the absolute continuing incompetence of the Gillard government.

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (19:35): I want to speak in support of the amendments that have been moved by the member for Dickson, the shadow minister for health. Going back to the summing-up that the Minister for Health just made: I was a bit disturbed to learn that the government are already thinking about changing the name of Medicare Locals.