Friends, 14 years ago, as a lawyer, I was just a little bit up the road: in 2001, in the federal court acting on behalf of the 433 asylum seekers on the MV Tampa.
I wasn’t on the winning side then, and it seems – often – that little has changed.
Since 2001 this area of policy making has been a huge challenge for our Party, and a huge challenge for our community.
(Interruption)
Well it’s going to be a different start because I want to say two things.
One, how proud I am to be a member of Bill Shorten’s team.
How proud I am, win, lose, or draw, in this debate.
And to emphasise that only the Labor Party, in these difficult 14 years, has grappled with the complex moral and the complex practical challenges this area of global public policy making brings.
Only Labor.
And I’ve got a message for those protesters.
The only way we are going to deliver more humane policies is by treating every voice with respect.
We are going to win this argument through persuasion, not through protest. I am hopeful, I am hopeful, that we will win this argument on the floor of this conference.
But not expectant.
I know we will not win it by shouting down good people with whom we disagree.
So take that message from this conference, friends. Take that message.
I also want to say…I also want to say… and this I think is the crux of this debate.
That no one brings to it a monopoly of compassion.
No one should profess to have the answer to this problem.
Australia can’t solve it.
The context is vast.
What Australia can do is put our responsibilities in their proper context.
We can put those seeking asylum, those displaced people, at the centre of our concerns and think of what we can do, morally and practically, to play our part and to do our fair share.
I reckon the architecture of the platform that is before us today does a very, very good job of that.
We stand here today actually pretty close.
We have a framework that Bill Shorten and Richard Marles have put to the conference that sets out a clear objective.
That sets out an objective that I am very, very comfortable with, and look forward to prosecuting in the community.
We disagree about precisely how we are going to get there.
We disagree.
And these are matters that good people, well intentioned people, thoughtful people, can disagree on.
No one here is naïve.
I think everyone here understands - it’s been a long journey of understanding for me personally - that well intentioned policies can produce unforeseen and very unfortunate and sometimes tragic results.
That said; I do disagree with Richard on this issue, the subject of resolution 232A.
I have enormous respect for Richard and the job that he has done, but also for the way that he has done it.
Unlike those who sought to interrupt this debate, he has enabled a wonderful conversation within the parliamentary party and within the community.
He has taken his views out there and he has listened.
We’ve had good conversations.
The platform that’s before us today is a result of those conversations, and the quality of them has been driven by one thing: Richard’s ability to engage, to hear opposing voices, and often, to come to an agreement.
And I think of the doubling of our humanitarian intake.
I think of the thought that’s gone into our international frame work.
I think of the commitment to get rid of the cruel uncertainty of TPVs.
And I think what a great job you’ve done in reconciling different views.
And I know, in a Bill Shorten Labor Government, you will be an outstanding Minister for Immigration, and a great advocate for the most vulnerable peoples of the world.
But I do disagree with you when it comes to turnbacks.
And I’ll say very briefly why, comrades.
I am unconvinced by their effectiveness.
I regard them as inherently unsafe.
In my view, they are clearly contrary to our international obligations.
And I don’t say this as a legal nicety, because it goes really to the heart of our protection obligations this question of turning back people who are seeking our help.
And also, practically, I see them, as an impediment to developing the safe regional pathways we are all in this room committed too.
So there is a gap here.
It’s not a huge gap, but it raises big questions of principle.
The sorts of questions of principle that should be played out respectfully on the floor of this conference.
As so many other great debates have played out in the past.
It’s a gap, again, not about our objective, but precisely how we get there my friends.
And what I’m asking you today…what I’m asking you today…is to make what I think is a great series of platform commitments, better.
I think we can get to the vision that Bill and Richard have carved out without turnbacks, and I’m asking you, in supporting this amendment, to realise that vision of Labor’s policy.
Thank you delegates.