Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity. It was a very interesting contribution by the shadow minister today because it seems so surreal that the realities of the past two terms of government have been glossed over so completely. Every budget that has been delivered by the previous two Labor governments, the Gillard government and the Rudd government, has been shown to be inaccurate with regard to its figures. The assumptions must have been wrong on so many occasions, because in every case none of what the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, said has been proved to be even moderately accurate. There was no surplus in that first budget. The money was left over from the Costello-Howard years but it was gone very quickly after that. Then the much-vaunted return to surplus that was promised on hundreds of occasions and that the last member for Lindsay ultimately proclaimed was already reality just before he lost his seat, on all those occasions it was clearly shown that what Labor did with the budget could never be relied upon and was never accurate.

Now, when we are faced with the reality of what the figures were and the reality of what must occur in the future, we see across the forward estimates $123 billion of accumulated deficit and—if we do nothing, if we just let it carry on according to the Labor Party's plan—$660 billion of debt over the next 10 years. When I look around this country and I meet the people of my electorate, I think to myself, 'If we are doing the right thing, if we accept responsibility, we have to do something now about the budget situation that was left to us, the $660 billion.' I see young children in the gallery today. It is not right that today's generation leave that debt on them. If we are talking about $667 billion, that is something we need to do something about, because it might not be them; it could be their children as well. So it is time for responsibility and it is time for someone to act. Fortunately, under the leadership of the Hon. Tony Abbott and under Treasurer Joe Hockey, we are back on the road.

We hear from the other side talk about Holden that is fanciful as well. It is so effective to gloss over the demise of Mitsubishi and Ford, and so convenient for the Labor Party to just disregard what General Motors said from Detroit. General Motors said that nothing could have been done. Nothing was going to change their minds about stopping production of Holdens in Australia. In the end, they could not export enough, and not enough Australians bought their cars. This is where we have come to. These are the sorts of problems that have faced manufacturing in Australia. And we are, sadly, at this point.

The main reason I wanted to speak today was to talk about the boats, the illegal arrivals. I talk about that because it was the main issue in my electorate, and it was for a long time. It was not just something that happened in the move up to the last election or the election before that; it is something that has been on people's minds for a long while in my electorate. It is not out of a sense of fear, as the Left so often say. 'Fear', 'demonisation'—they throw these words out. They even throw out the word 'racism' to try and make the people of this country feel that they are doing the wrong thing by questioning what was going on over the past six years.

It is so unfair to do that, because I do not see a whole lot of racism in this country at all. I see people who want a fair go for the refugees who are out there in this world behind the barbed wire. That is what Australians want. That is what people in my electorate want. They do not say: 'Let's have no refugees. Stuff them all.' They do not say that. They say: 'Who is most deserving? Who is going to work well and get the most out of living in this country if we give them the opportunity?' That should always be our focus. It should always be about that fair go for people who are out there in the world, stuck behind barbed wire without two dollars to rub together.

Then you contrast that with those who come by boat—yes, they want a better life; there is no doubt about it. Although they do not come at all anymore. We are getting up towards 70 days since a boat has arrived, so obviously the minister, the system and the policies of the government are working well. I completely endorse the minister in everything he is doing. But the reality is that there were a lot of people coming in the past. As we know, 50,000 arrived on over 800 boats under the failed border policies of the previous government.

I compare those in refugee camps like those along the Burma-Thailand border, such as the Mae La camp. I have been there. I have seen the little kids, not quite in rags but not flashily dressed or anything like that. I compare them and their need to those who come by boat.

When we think about people coming by boat, let us keep in mind that it is not just by boat. No-one hops on a boat out of Kabul harbour, because there is no harbour in Kabul. There is no water. There is no way you could get on a boat, so they have to cross a border. And people do not actually come by boat from Iran or from Lebanon. People do not come by boat all the way from Lebanon. We have heard those stories—stories of tragedy, yes—where family members have unfortunately lost their lives at sea. It is a great tragedy. But I remember seeing—I think it was on an ABC program—the lone survivor of a family who all lost their lives at sea trying to get to Australia. He described how they were all on an Emirates flight out of Lebanon or Dubai, and they had the whole row. I have trouble reconciling that with the desperate need that we so often hear about from the Greens, those pretenders like Senator Hanson-Young—disgrace that she is to this country. I find it hard to think about people getting off a plane in Dubai and passing the duty-free stores—their apparently desperate need to go through a terminal—compared to those who are stuck in a refugee camp.

It is about priorities, and it is about time that we got back to the position we are in now, whereby we can clear the backlog of those who were left behind to us and then work on making sure that those who are in the greatest need and who are going to thrive in this country are the ones we work to get into this country. That is the compassionate approach, and it is not the encouragement of the recklessness of risking lives at sea that so many on the Left, particularly the Greens and some on the other side of this parliament, pursue. I think that Australians really need to realise—and I think that just about everybody does, and that is great—that there is a difference between those in true need and those whose circumstances are such that, while it might be desirable to come here, they are nowhere near as desperate or in need as those behind the refugee camp wire.

I want to take exception to the ABC program Behind the News. In 2012 they aired a program where they talked about the success of a young refugee who had come from Afghanistan. Obviously, he had been successful in going to high school. In one of the graphics that they were showing to primary school students they demonstrated the way he came to Australia. I do not expect anyone here in the chamber to be able to see this document, but it describes a hatched route that goes from Afghanistan, down through Pakistan, probably through Karachi, and then it has got the route, with a boat on it, going down the west side of India. Clearly, that is a fabrication because we know that people come from there through Malaysia or Indonesia by aircraft. No boats go down that way. So it is sad when the ABC attempts to mislead primary school students with fabrications.

Again, because encouragement of this sort of inaccurate information can eventually flow through to public opinion, it comes back to those who are most in need being put aside in favour of those who can afford to pay to bypass existing systems. It leaves people in refugee camps for longer and that is a disgrace and a tragedy.

Again, I am not saying that those who want to come to Australia and who try to come by boat are not in difficult circumstances. I am sure that none of us would choose to live in some of those places. However, the reality is that our duty should be, first and foremost, to those in most need and those who I have mentioned.

It is a good thing that the government and the minister have been so effective in curtailing the arrival of people by boat. Again, it comes back to the priorities of those who are most in need and also the protection of people's lives, to ensure that no more people drown at sea, as happened under the last government—1,100 people.

We certainly want to stop the waste of taxpayers' money, the $6.6 billion, that was spent on the failed border protection policies of the former government. We certainly want to stop that. There is also a great benefit for our neighbour Indonesia, so they do not have as many people coming into their country, trying to stage there before they get on a boat. Obviously, the success of this policy is good for Australia and good for our neighbours. It is also good for those people who try to come here, whether through the right way or by boat. Again, I applaud the minister.

Of course, I can understand why the Greens and the opposition are so unhappy about this situation. Firstly, the Greens are a disgrace and counterproductive to the best interests of this country and even those people who they seek to speak on behalf of. They truly are a disgrace and it is such a shame that they get any votes. I also think that they are hypocritical. They had nothing to say when people were drowning at sea under the policies that they were supporting of the last government. They had nothing to say at all about that but are more than happy to arc up and talk about the tragic death of the asylum seeker on Manus Island.

I really question the motivation of opposition senator Senator Lines, who described the immigration minister as 'a person with blood on his hands'. I am sure that Senator Lines in previous capacities never spoke at all on the previous deaths at sea. In fact, if she is so thrilled and so indignant about these matters, then I suggest to her that she resign from the Senate and run against me in the electorate of Cowan at the next federal election. I would welcome her pursuing these matters in an election for the lower house. I invite her and encourage her to do that. However, she has probably spent a lot of time working through the factions to try to parachute into the Senate position that she got. I am sure she will not take up that offer. In any case, in the 15 seconds I have remaining, can I say that I fully and utterly endorse the policies of our government and the success of the minister. It is a compassionate response, the correct response and the best thing for refugees in our region. (Time expired)

See this speech in context