Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to protect the integrity of our borders and our immigration program.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last time the Australian people had confidence in a government running the immigration program of this country was when John Howard was the Prime Minister. That is the last time that people felt that way and there is a very good reason they felt that way. Under the Howard government the level of permanent migration to Australia doubled, but at the same time the percentage of Australians who had concerns about immigration levels being too high had halved over the term of that government. There were important policies that were responsible for what was an impressive quinella in terms of those results—rising immigration but rising confidence in immigration.

Those policies not only had to do with the Prime Minister of the day and the cabinet that supported him—in particular, the Father of the House, the member for Berowra. He and his successors pursued two important policies that ensured confidence in the integrity of our immigration program. The first one was: they stopped the boats. It is not a slogan; it is a fact; it is a result. It is something that actually happened as a result of policies of the Howard government. The second thing that was done under that government, and initiated by the member for Berowra, was that the government focused on skilled migration. They believed, and they were right, that focusing on skilled migration within the immigration program was the most important way (1) to get an economic dividend out of your immigration program and (2) to ensure the social cohesion that is necessary for a society which is going to be an immigrant society. The focus of the Howard government was on those individuals who come to Australia with skills, with something to offer—people who get a job and who pay taxes. The percentage of the permanent migration program devoted to skilled migration increased from less than 30 per cent under Prime Minister Keating to almost 70 per cent by the time the Howard government left office.

Because of those twin achievements of increasing the level and focus on skilled migration—457 visas were a component part of that strategy—and of stopping the boats and sending a very clear message that a coalition government would ensure that our migration program was focused not only on economic outcomes but on the integrity of our borders, it is not surprising the Australian people had confidence in the government's ability to run our immigration program. That confidence is no longer there. That confidence has been shattered by the performance of successive ministers for immigration—the third is at the table now—over the course of this government.

The performance of the government on border protection is historic. More people have arrived illegally on boats this financial year—and we still have several months to go—than occurred over the entire period of the Howard government. So far this financial year 13,745 people have turned up illegally on boats. Over the entire period of the Howard government—over 11 years—there were 13,584. That is a staggering milestone achieved by this government this financial year.

It is therefore no surprise that, in this financial year, the cost of this government's border failures is going to be $2.5 billion—that is just in the immigration portfolio this year. The cost when we left office was $85 million a year. It is now $2.5 billion. The cumulative blow-outs in the asylum seeker program in the immigration portfolio—just since the last election—are $5 billion and counting. When we reflect on the scale of that failure, it is truly staggering.

What is even more staggering is the front of this government in coming into this place—the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Prime Minister on this just today—and saying that next year the cost will go from $2.5 billion down to $1.3 billion and that in the year after that it will go down to $450 million. At Senate estimates recently, when Senator Cash was pursuing the department over these extraordinary figures, she held up the chart showing the huge drop-off in planned expenditure over the next few years and she asked a simple question: 'Is that what the budget looks like when you stop the boats?' The answer was yes.

So the government has put into their budget—and they have told the Australian people—not that they are going to stop the boats but that they have actually already stopped them! It has already happened, according to this government, and that is what they put in their budget. They will have to come clean when the budget rolls around this year. If they want to pursue these ridiculous estimates—which they have signed off on and put to the Australian people—I am sure, when it comes around to PEFO, they will have egg all over their faces.

On this issue of border protection and immigration—people arriving illegally by boat—this government has shown that they have no answers and that they have absolutely no resolve. At first they denied there was a problem. That was the position taken by Senator Evans. Then they sought to ignore the problem, saying that nothing needed to be done. The latest response is to blame someone else for the problem. Apparently what has been happening over the last five years is the coalition's fault.

The Australian people are not mugs and they understand that the government had an answer in place and that, when they removed it, the number of people in detention—people who had arrived by boat—went from four at that time to what we have now. The current estimate of those in detention, on community release and in community detention is over 15,000 and that may well rise to 20,000 by the time we get to the election. The Australian people are able to draw their own conclusions. Since the community release model was announced over a year ago, over 20,000 people have turned up.

As we know, the government is now running a water taxi service to our north—48 out of the 50 interceptions and rescues involving AMSA have taken people in the Indonesian search and rescue zone to Australia. But the department and the government have themselves confirmed that the Australian government has no responsibility whatsoever to take them to Australia. So we are running a water taxi and we are running a community program where people are basically getting what they got on a boat to get.

The vast majority—over 90 per cent—of the people arriving by boat have no documentation whatsoever. Yet we know that the Malaysian government takes biometrics and passports on entry and we know the Indonesian government takes a scan of the passport of every single person who comes through that airport, takes biometrics on people who are intercepted in Indonesia—many of whom, we know, later try to enter Australia—and takes biometrics from many countries in the region. Given that, you would have thought that this government would have gone to both of those countries and asked, 'Can we share some information so we can find out who is coming on these boats?' This government was very keen to do a people swap but they cannot even get a data swap on these issues. It is their lack of resolve and lack of thinking these issues through which has got them into problems on every single occasion.

They were dragged kicking and screaming to reopen Nauru and Manus. The situation on Manus, which I have visited, is very challenging—and I suspect the minister may agree that it is a challenging situation. It is more challenging because of the way the government conceived this and how they are seeking to execute it on the ground. I will give them some credit, though—and it is a shame the former minister just left the chamber—because on one issue they actually got something right. When they decided to send people who were coming on boats back to Sri Lanka, guess what happened? The boats stopped coming from Sri Lanka. They seem surprised at this result. If it had been a coalition government, (a) we would have done it earlier and (b) we would have ensured that people were intercepted outside our sea border. But at least the government finally got some wisdom and decided to send people back. What this proves is that if you send people back, the boats stop coming—and, broadly, the government continually refuses to send back arrivals.

The former minister, Minister Bowen, has left the chamber, but I have to say he is demonstrating his political genius. Whether in respect of illegal boat arrivals or cost blow-outs, the previous minister was certainly the worst performing minister for immigration we had seen. But he is looking like an absolute genius against his successor. So the previous minister has trumped everyone—if you want to make yourself look better, appoint the current minister to follow you.

This bloke is the one who has taken things to a whole new level. Within days of getting into the job, he mounted an unprecedented attack on skilled migrants who have come to this country. I look forward to this minister going out into the electorate of Minister Burke, who is also at the table, and explaining to them what this government thinks of skilled migrants; what this government thinks of the people who came and built the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme and built Warragamba Dam. What will they think when this minister comes and says, 'Look, we are happy to see people coming in their thousands and going onto welfare, but if they want to come and get a job and pay taxes and contribute to the economy, it is a different story.' Access Economics attributes $2.2 billion over three years to 457 visa holders who arrived in the year 2010-11. This minister is saying this is not something we want—we do not want the benefits of skilled migration to be applied to this country.

Something has happened that I have missed. In 2011 the Prime Minister said 'We’ve got the settings right with 457 visas' and she then proceeded to hand out over 200,000 of them in subsequent months. Then the previous minister said we had the balance right, just before the current minister came into the chair. I ask the question: what has changed between Minister Bowen and Minister O'Connor? One thing has certainly changed, and that is that the union movement has taken control of the immigration portfolio with the appointment of the latest minister. This is a minister who was there to ensure that the unions continued to cover the Prime Minister's back. That is what Paul Howes said, 'We've got your back, Prime Minister'—and this is the minister who has been installed to make sure he keeps the unions happy. This is his job—it is his responsibility to protect the Prime Minister's back, as he has been doing for years.

I ask the minister whether, when he speaks, he can table the report of the inquiry conducted by his department into the widespread abuses that he alleges. That is all I have been asking him to produce, and so far he has been unable to do so. Yesterday when I asked the minister a question he seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that the budget for detection onshore—that is, for the people who police our immigration program right across the board—has fallen from $74.2 million, when this government came to office, to now, this year, $52.1 million. They are cutting the budget for police. My colleague who follows me will make reference to cuts in the customs area, which this minister knows about all too well.

As someone who has had firsthand experience of what such cuts mean in our community, I can only say when 220 Glock pistols turn up at the Sylvania Waters post office in my electorate that I wish this government were as concerned about its focus on the borders that have allowed people to arrive illegally on boats and allowed guns to come into my community as it seems to be about peptides in sport. If it were as interested in guns coming into our country and border protection failures, maybe our community would be a much safer place. All we have seen is a government that likes to beat its chest over a big announcement, trashing the reputation of Australian sport. Thousands of sports fans all around the country want to support their clubs, but this government is pitting club against club, pitting coach against management, pitting fans against the boards of clubs—that is what we have seen as a result of this government's hairy-chested approach to border protection.

My point is that the government are always big on the announcements but they never stump up on the delivery—whether it is on our borders, or whether it is the immigration program, they are always big on the talk but their record speaks for itself. Let us reflect on the record again—33,656 people have illegally entered on 577 boats under this government. That is a shameful record. The chaos and the cost and the tragedy that has followed from those decisions, and this government's refusal even to admit that they have got it wrong, let alone fix it, will hang around this government's neck from here to election day, and they will be held to account for their appalling failures.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's immigration program is a very important matter for public debate—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not important enough for him to stay in the chamber.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is disappointing that the member for Cook has left, because I think he could have learned something from my contribution. That is up to him. It is an important matter because we need to put things in the context of what is going on globally. We have to accept that there are millions of people displaced around the world—over 40 million, of which approximately 15 million may well be recognised as refugees. There have been conflicts in Sri Lanka, there is war in Afghanistan and just recently we have seen tragic conflicts in Syria. History shows that these things will continue to happen, and from time to time there will be pressures on First World nations and refugee convention signatories to take in their fair share. This country is a generous country but of course we want to ensure the efficacy of our immigration system and the efficacy of our border protection.

But there have been challenges, and indeed we are among many First World countries that have seen those challenges in recent times. Those things will increase and decrease over time, but let us remember that the reason why this occurs, in the main, the reason why there are such challenges for First World nations, is that there are people fleeing persecution and we have obligations under international law to assist them where we can and take our fair share—no more, no less.

The member for Cook raised a number of issues that I would like to respond to. Firstly, he indicated that he has the answers to our border protection challenges, and I would have to refute that. He has, of course, and has had for some time, along with the Leader of the Opposition, a three-word slogan, 'Stop the boats'. Let us contemplate exactly what is meant by that particular phrase. The suggestion by the member for Cook is that we can, for example, turn back the boats to Indonesia. Now, what expert, whether it is a maritime expert, a foreign policy expert or a border protection expert, agrees with that contention? I cannot find one. Indeed, the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers that co-authored the Houston report made clear in that report that the notion that you can turn back vessels on the high seas without the cooperation of another sovereign state was impossible—impossible and inoperable; dangerous to the people on those vessels and to our Customs and naval personnel; and undiplomatic. It would enrage and in fact endanger our relationship with Indonesia—so much so that, when the Leader of the Opposition met with the President of Indonesia, he chose not to raise it.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He didn't have the ticker.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Such an important plank of their policy, to turn back the boats, and he did not raise it. He did not have the courage or the confidence that he could reach agreement with the President of Indonesia, so he chose not to raise it at all. The reason for that is not that he just did not have the ticker; it is that deep down he knows that what he is suggesting is not true. The opposition are really working on the big con. They are like snake oil salesmen. They can cure baldness—maybe not the member for Cook! They can cure all sorts of ills. The bigger the con, they hope, the more people will believe it: 'Why would they say it if it's not true?'

The fact is that no experts in this country at all have agreed with the approach of the opposition to turning back the vessels. And I would go further than that. I think that, of the many transit countries, there are two particular transit countries that we really must engage with closely—and this government and my predecessor in particular put enormous effort into doing just that, as does our foreign minister—and they are of course Malaysia and Indonesia. These are the two countries that most people travel through, and Indonesia is quite often the last point of departure for people who come into our waters. It is therefore absolutely vital that we work closely with our neighbours and friends in the region, Indonesia and Malaysia. I can tell you now that, given the efforts by the opposition to traduce the reputation of Malaysia, it would be very difficult for them, in the event they were elected, to properly engage with the government of Malaysia. The fact that they have put up time and again the notion that they are going to turn the vessels back towards Indonesia, as if it is entirely Indonesia's problem, is quite possibly going to enrage the Indonesians, in my view, and ruin our diplomatic relations with that country. Let me just explain to the opposition, particularly to the member for Cook, who obviously has not had experience in these matters, that that approach is going to make it much more difficult for us to have a regional response to a regional challenge.

What we need to do is to continue to put in place the recommendations of the Houston panel. Let us think about those three people. We have Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Defence Force, appointed by the Howard government and this government to the highest office in our Defence Force, and we have two other eminent Australians: Paris Aristotle, who has dealt with refugee settlement and this area of public policy for well over 20 years; and Michael L'Estrange, who has been the Australian High Commissioner to London and the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and has also held other very significant positions. These three people have 75 years of experience between them on geopolitical matters, matters to do with refugee settlement and matters to do with border protection. But I am supposed to ignore them and listen to the member for Cook? Okay, he was Director of Tourism Australia, but I do not think that actually puts him in a position to advise the government on the best approach to deal with national security. I think if I am going to listen to someone about national security, I should listen to the former Chief of the Defence Force. If I want to talk about refugee settlement and the complications of doing that with countries of origin, transit and destination, I should talk to Paris Aristotle, and to others who understand the difficulties in this complex area of public policy. It is easy to throw around slogans, but Australians understand that this area is complicated.

I have heard a lot of things about how many people have come to this country by boat—and, of course, for anyone to come to this country on a dangerous vessel is not a good thing. I do not want to see anybody endangering their lives. We have seen too many people die at sea, and it did not happen under just this government. There was the SIEVX, where over 400 people died in October 2001—a tragic set of circumstances where so many men, women and children perished. We have seen tragedy too often recently. I saw the aftermath of the tragedy that occurred on 15 December 2010, where the vessel foundered on the rocks on Christmas Island. I arrived on the day of the tragedy. I was there to comfort and assist those who were there on the island, including the islanders themselves, and the AFP and Customs officials. Later I managed to meet and commend formally those naval and Customs personnel who went out in tenders and RIBs and recovered 40 of the 41 people who survived and the dead bodies of those poor souls who lost their lives.

So I do not need to be reminded of how difficult this area is, but I do not think it is helped by suggesting simple solutions that will not work. It is also not helped by sensationalising matters or seeking to cause hysteria. The facts are that since we were elected two in every 100 people have come by an irregular pathway. Two in every 100 people have arrived that way since we were elected in 2007. That is two too many because it is too dangerous to come that way, but that means 98 per cent of people who have come to this country have come through the regular path of migration, and that should not be forgotten because on occasion, when you listen to the commentariat or certainly when you listen to the member for Cook, you could be given the impression that it was the other way round. Two out of every 100 have come here in this manner, and I think that is important to note.

The second thing is that the only way we are going deal quite properly with this matter is by working with our friends in the region. The Bali process is meeting in early April. I will be meeting with my counterparts from countries of origin, transit and destination, and we need to continue to work together to do that. Domestically, we need to implement the recommendations of those three eminent people. I am not going to pretend that this matter can be solved overnight. I have never suggested that. The government has never suggested that. We believe that it is complicated and that it will cause problems for governments from time to time. It caused problems for the Howard government; it has caused problems for this government. There is no point in saying that it has not. But I think to pretend that the solutions are simple is a terribly contemptuous way to treat the Australian people. It is to treat them as fools to suggest that this thing can be solved so simply—so I say that. It is unfortunate that the incendiary language of the member for Cook, in particular, is deployed too often to create anxiety and fear and, dare I say it, bigotry, and that is not helpful at all.

I did not want to raise the issue with respect to 457s because I have never conflated the two matters. I have not conflated the two matters on any occasion that I have spoken publicly. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen to do that and now the member for Cook today has chosen to do that. They should not do that, because they are not matters that should be discussed in the same breath. But the matter has been raised in the MPI by the member for Cook, so I just want to say this: with respect to the 457s I will make it very clear that as a migrant I support immigration. It should not be that surprising. As a migrant, I think immigration helped build this country and I think immigration will continue to build this country, and that is a good thing. I support the fact—and this is where I do applaud the efforts of the Howard government, not so much this opposition—that two-thirds or thereabouts of the permanent stream of migration is made up of skilled workers. That is a fantastic thing.

I also support as a good thing genuine 457 applicants who seek to become permanent residents while they are onshore—and, in fact, my predecessor made that easier to happen. I support that too. I also support legitimate 457 applicants because they are attending to temporary skill shortages in this country. What this government will never support is the pretence that we respond to shortages that do not exist and thereby displace Australian citizens and permanent residents from getting the jobs first. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that. We should always put Australian workers first when it comes to training and jobs. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is entirely proper. This is not an inclination by this government; it is an obligation of any federal government to make sure that Australian citizens and permanent residents are given the first opportunities of employment.

In relation to the development of this policy, it is, I know, convenient for the member for Cook and the opposition to think that I came into this portfolio and announced something in a knee-jerk manner. That is the way in which they like to suggest it has happened. Let me make it very clear: the department identified 12 months before that there were issues with the 457 visa. They actually wrote an internal document and provided it to the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, of which employers and unions are a part. They also recommended a series of recommendations that my predecessor referred to the council for consideration. They affirmed all of the recommendations. This was all done last year and early this year by my predecessor. On 23 February, I thanked and congratulated Minister Bowen for his good work in this area. I know it is an inconvenient truth that I did not just drum this up, but that is the reality—good work by the department, affirmed by the advisory council, affirmed by my predecessor, and then I announced it because of the portfolio change.

These reforms are needed to make sure that Australian workers do not lose the opportunities of employment. These reforms are needed so that young people in this country get training rather than people saying that we just have to get the skills from overseas. We will never support the abuse of 457s. We will always accept the legitimate use of temporary skilled labour in this country, and we make no apology for it.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to touch on another aspect today of Labor's border protection failures. We often—and rightly—spend a lot of time talking about their inability to control illegal boat arrivals. Why wouldn't we? Under this government we have had over 33,500 people arrive illegally on 577 boats. We have wasted $6½ billion because of the Labor Party's failed border protection policies. But I would like to spend a little bit of time talking about not just their failure to control people who come to this country but their sustained and savage cuts to our law enforcement capabilities at the Commonwealth level and the way in which this has contributed to the failure at our borders to stop contraband from hitting our streets.

The cuts made to Australia's law enforcement capabilities by the Labor Party since they came to office have been sustained and very real. Every Labor budget has seen cuts to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—the agency that has been most savagely affected by Labor's neglect of their law and order responsibilities. This is an agency with just over 5,000 staff. It has been the subject of cuts of 750 staff since the Labor Party came to office, which is over 15 per cent of its workforce. Over 15 per cent of the workforce of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service has been removed by the Labor Party.

What this means is that, when cargo comes into this country, through our airports or through our seaports, the chances of it being inspected are incredibly slim indeed. Under the Howard government, up to 60 per cent of cargo was inspected when it crossed our threshold. Under this government, less than 10 per cent is inspected when it crosses our threshold. That means criminals have a much better chance of bringing in guns, drugs and contraband. These are the sorts of things that we see on our streets because Labor has failed in its fundamental responsibility to resource Customs and Border Protection properly and to make sure that they stop this sort of contraband from hitting our streets.

The results are plain to see all around the country. The member for Cook made a reference in his contribution to the 220 Glock pistols that were smuggled in through the Sylvania Waters Post Office—220 Glock pistols that have been turning up at crime scenes all over Sydney because of Labor's failures to resource Customs properly. Indeed the Premier of New South Wales put it very succinctly in February this year when he said:

Last year the New South Wales Police certainly embarrassed the federal police with its discovery of the importation through the mail, through a sub-branch of Australia Post, authorised by the federal government, of 220 Glock pistols

…   …   …

And they're only able to come here because we have a federal government that seems to look the other way with the illegal importation of guns into this country.

That is what the Premier of New South Wales said last year. The reason he said that is because Customs have been the subject of sustained and systematic cuts since the Labor Party came to office, both to their personnel and to their budget, in a way that is clearly affecting their ability to do their job, which is to stop these guns and other contraband from hitting our streets.

It was exactly one year ago that this was discovered—and this was uncovered by the New South Wales police and, unfortunately, not by the federal authorities who are tasked with doing this job. The New South Wales Premier commented further on this yesterday. He is commenting on this because he knows that the federal government has made the job of the New South Wales police a lot more difficult because they are not doing the job that they are tasked with. Indeed, what we have had instead is this sort of destruction that we get from the government where we see the Prime Minister, with her very successful swing through Western Sydney, coming up with a plan for an antigang task force. For the past five years, the Labor Party has systematically degraded the federal government's law enforcement capabilities but, suddenly, at five minutes to midnight, they have discovered that the Commonwealth actually have a role to play in keeping our streets safer in Australia.

Unfortunately, the most important thing that the Commonwealth government could do is to actually do the job it has already been allocated properly. You cannot do that job properly when you have cut 20 per cent of the workforce of the Australian Crime Commission, when you have cut 15 per cent of the workforce of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, when you have failed to keep your promise to increase the sworn officers of the Australian Federal Police by 500 and when you have systematically attacked the ability of the Commonwealth to properly fulfil its law enforcement responsibilities.

The Premier of New South Wales again put this very succinctly yesterday when he made a contribution in relation to the Glock pistols that have been found in various crime scenes around Sydney. He said yesterday that the federal government should be tackling the importation of illegal weapons before it tinkers with antigang laws.

… the first priority of the federal government ought to be to stop the importation of illegal drugs and weapons across our borders.

The fact that police have seized a handgun and machine gun in today's raids, as well as a Glock pistol yesterday which was linked to an illegal importation from Germany last year, could provide no better evidence of Australia's porous borders.

This is so typical of the way this government go about business. They neglect their responsibilities for five years—they not only neglect them but wilfully attack the capability that the Commonwealth has to police our borders and to enforce law and order—then, at five minutes to midnight when they realise they have a serious political problem on their hands, they decide that they must be seen to be doing something. So on the Prime Minister's swing through Western Sydney last week she came up with the idea of $64 million for an antigang task force—an idea that actually mirrors something that we promised at the last election. But this time it of course comes with no real resources and it comes through at a time when the Labor government have already attacked the agencies that they have tasked with taking part in this antigang task force so significantly since they have come to office.

I want to just go through the cuts that have been made by the Labor Party since they have come to office. We know that, in 2007 when the government changed, the Labor Party came with an agenda to reduce the funding that law enforcement gets on a national basis. They had the view, and their shadow minister at the time was telling stakeholders, that the Howard government had overfunded Commonwealth law enforcement agencies and that when the government changed they were going to rectify this. This is one promise they have actually kept, because they have systematically attacked and degraded all of the Commonwealth's law enforcement capability. In Customs they have cut $58 million from the budget that Customs has to inspect cargo when it crosses our borders.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to reverse it?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the minister just asked, rather foolishly, whether we are going to reverse it. The answer is yes. That is our policy. We will reverse that $58 million cut that was made by the Labor Party that means that so little cargo is inspected when it comes through our airports and our ports. So, yes, we will reverse that cut—thank you, Minister, for asking.

But of course that is only one of the very savage cuts that have been made by the Labor Party. An agency that had almost 5,800 officers now has just over 5,000. You cannot seriously tell the Australian people that reducing the workforce by 15 per cent is somehow going to enhance the ability of that agency to do its job.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's your policy for the Public Service!

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have just said, we will reverse that cut. In every budget the Labor Party has reduced the resources that are available to Customs and Border Protection. The former CEO of Customs was forced to reduce the levels of the SES in Australian Customs and Border Protection by 20 per cent. Astonishingly, they have actually cut almost $21 million out of the capability of Border Protection Command to conduct aerial surveillance: the planes that pick up the illegal boat arrivals that have been a direct result of this government's failed border protection policies and which do other things to police our borders. They have also cut over $34 million out of the budget for passenger facilitation at Australia's eight major international airports. This is on top of cuts of $17.3 million over five years for the management of vessels of illegal foreign fishers and, in the latest MYEFO, it was estimated that $35 million has been cut from Customs in the forward estimates. And that is not the extent of the cuts—I could go on. The cuts to other agencies have mirrored these savage cuts to Customs and Border Protection. The truth is that the Commonwealth has failed the Australian people dismally. It has failed to fulfil its responsibilities to enforce law and order in this country. It has completely failed to meet its responsibility to protect Australia's borders. It cannot control our immigration system, and it cannot control our ports and seaports and stop contraband like drugs and guns from coming onto our streets. We will make sure that these front line agencies are properly resourced and make sure that border protection again has the priority it deserves— (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on this today. I have to say it is probably slightly misnamed as a matter of public importance; I think it would probably be more accurately described as a matter of public fearmongering. It regularly appears whenever the opposition are obviously struggling and casting around for something to talk on in this place—'We will just get the old fearmongering-on-border-protection out, pop it on the stove, give it another boil-up and see how well we can do.' But we have discovered an addition to the black hole of the financials on that side of the House with the acknowledgement of the shadow minister that this will be another amount that they are adding to the cost. I am just wondering if the shadow Treasurer is waiting outside that door to have a little chat with him about making that commitment. It was an interesting disclosure, that that is another cost to be added to that black hole.

This is a serious matter. I spoke most recently on this at the time of the very extended sitting we had in this House, and there was a great deal of distress then—which I thought was felt quite honestly across the chamber—about the terrible situation we were facing of boats attempting to make that very dangerous journey across the seas to Australia and having difficulties, and indeed on too many occasions actually sinking and taking enormous numbers of lives. That was the last time I spoke on this matter in this chamber. I spoke then to support the decisions that were taken arising out of the excellent work that was done by the Houston committee. It was a task that the government put to that committee because of the difficulties that we had faced with this very real problem of very desperate people taking what was clearly a very unsafe, unwise decision to get on boats and try to come across the sea. At that time, in August last year, we had the expert panel come together, and the panel made 22 key recommendations to government. And rather than take an approach that said, 'Look, we are going to ignore evidence; we are going to be pedantic in terms of having a political position,' we said, 'No, they are three experts with'—as the minister said in his contribution—'75 years of combined effort and expertise in this very troubled and difficult area.' We decided to take their advice and implement the full range of recommendations—because it was a package: each of the individual recommendations was built on the basis that it complemented and worked with each of the others. It was a comprehensive package that required all of those recommendations to be put in place, and we took a decision to go down that path.

Those recommendations, as people will well remember, included a return to offshore processing in Nauru and Manus Island, and increasing the Humanitarian Program to 20,000 places. So the message was not only 'Don't get on the boat because you will get no advantage from doing so,' but also, as encouragement not to do so, that we would increase the number of people that Australia would take under our Humanitarian Program. I think that the no-disadvantage policy was specifically aimed at stopping that tragic loss of life at sea, and that is why so many people who may have in the past held the position that they would not support things like offshore processing on Nauru and Manus took a decision in that context to support it and to say, 'This needs to be given complete support and an opportunity to work'—to see if we could address in particular this difficult issue of people taking dangerous boats and losing their lives at sea. The message was sent twice. The message was: this is not the way to go. And many of us struggled quite intensely—and I know that was not just on this side; I know that was on both sides of the House—with that full suite of recommendations coming out of the Houston report, but we understood that action had to be taken. And so we have put in place that particular range of initiatives.

We are committed to implementing the expert panel's recommendations. But unfortunately—and contrary to all the claims that were made up to that point—the opposition leader continued to be negative about those recommendations and about implementing those initiatives. It was that negativity and that opposition to those initiatives which stopped that vote going through and which stopped the opposition from supporting the policy as it was developed by the expert panel. It is a sad reality of this debate that we continue to have it treated as a political football rather than, as it should be, a humanitarian challenge to this nation. And that is not a tradition that has a long history in this place; in fact, quite the contrary. It is a policy area in which the best achievements, the most humanitarian achievements, have been those that happened when this place worked in a bipartisan manner in the interests of individuals in desperate circumstances, in the interests of our international obligations and in the interests of finding solutions that would stop people risking their lives. It is not a long-established tradition of this place to see the divisive sorts of debates that we have seen in recent years in this policy area.

In talking about this debate, I just want to address an important part of that range of initiatives. I notice the framing of the matter of public importance is once again around losing control, the negative side of the debate, the attempt to create fear and uncertainty, and the attempt to create contention and disagreement. Underlying that raft of recommendations there was a very important initiative, and I very much welcomed it. That was the part that increased our humanitarian intake to 20,000 people. I would remind the House that in June last year the Leader of the Opposition said:

… what we have offered to crossbench members is an increase in Australia's refugee and humanitarian intake from the current level to 20,000 a year within three years…

The next day the member for Cook stood beside the Leader of the Opposition at a media conference. He said:

All I can say is the Greens are on record for supporting an increase of the refugee and humanitarian intake to 20,000. The Coalition offered to support that today and a range of other measures as we did yesterday and when that was put to the party room I understand in the Greens, the answer that came back from the Greens to us was no.

He was disappointed and frustrated by that, clearly—no less than we were by his reaction to our implementation of this recommendation. After we accepted the recommendations of the expert panel and lifted the humanitarian intake to 20,000, the member for Cook changed his mind—and the coalition's policy—and decided to oppose the increase.

In November last year the member for Cook told Sky News: 'No, we have made no comment on increasing the intake.' It was clearly a matter of frustration for the member for Cook that the Greens would shift their position on this issue. I would say to him: have a close look at your own shifting-in-the-wind position on this issue and understand this is a policy area that we should be treating with far more respect than that sort of political positioning. It is no different from the MPI on immigration before us today.

The member for Cook went to the issue of the 457 visas. I want to make clear that I stand here as a member of a government very proudly supportive of the skilled migration program and very determined to see its integrity maintained. That is what the issue is about—addressing the use and misuse of 457 visas. It is a clear case that goodwill of the community, broadly, in supporting all streams of migration, revolves around the integrity of the system. There is no difference when it comes to 457 skilled visas. They are there to address genuine short-term skill shortages. No-one would object to that. It is beyond me how anybody who is putting a motion such as the MPI before us today could have any issue with a system, and an increase in the integrity of a system, as that proposed by the government for 457 visas.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this very important matter of public importance: the government's failure to protect the integrity of our borders and our immigration program. It disappoints me to once again have to speak about the Gillard Labor government's absolute failure to protect our nation by efficiently protecting our borders and our immigration program. It is very clear—the Gillard Labor government has lost control of our borders and the people smugglers have welcomed this development with open arms.

The Gillard Labor government has declared open season on our borders, and people smugglers are jumping for joy. They are delighted because they still have a product to sell. Australians know it was the Gillard Labor government that so viciously destroyed the border protection procedures introduced by the Howard government. It is for this reason that the people smugglers' favourite party to lead Australia is—you guessed it—the Labor Party.

Unfortunately it did not surprise me, but it was very concerning to hear reports come out just a couple of hours after Prime Minister Gillard announced the federal election date that people smugglers were racing to fill their boats before 14 September. Why would that be? The people smugglers know now that the welcome mat will be laid out until then.

News of the election date and possible change of government spread quickly. We have all heard reports of people smugglers scrambling to fill their boats as fast as they can before the election—because after the election there may not be the certainty that this current government provides of arriving in Australia. The people smugglers know that the coalition will stop the boats. They know that the coalition will not have the same $5 billion in failed border policies that this current Gillard Labor government has. People smugglers are shaking in their boots at the idea of a coalition government, whilst the people of Australia cannot wait for a government that will take the vulnerability of Australia's borders seriously and stop the boats. We are seeing evidence that Labor's border protection policy failures continue, day after day. Their $5 billion blow-out on border protection continues every day.

Their $5 billion failure means lost opportunities for infrastructure funding in my electorate. The people of Solomon are aware of this government's border protection failures and, quite frankly, they are sick of Labor's waste and mismanagement, and ridiculous policies that do not work. They are tired of this Gillard Labor government wasting money, when Darwin and Palmerston—like so many other jurisdictions across the country—are in desperate need of funding for improvements in health, education, community safety and housing.

After almost six years at their disposal, the Gillard Labor government has not and will not stop the boats. Let us look at its record on border protection. We on this side of the House know—and the Australian people know—that this Gillard Labor government still has no answers on how to stop the boats. It is no surprise that six boats have arrived over the past eight days, carrying over 800 people. We now have more than 11,000 people who have arrived illegally by boat since the Gillard Labor government agreed to reopen offshore processing on Nauru. Since the last federal election over 400 boats and 25,000 people have arrived illegally on our shores. Thanks to the Gillard Labor government, people smugglers now have a product to sell.

Labor has created a job for people smugglers and the people smugglers thank their lucky stars. Labor has pointed out this gap in the market for people smugglers to prey on the vulnerability of our island neighbours who are not as fortunate as us to have been born in this fabulous nation. I can only imagine what I could do in Solomon with $5 billion. It would fund a desperately needed hospital for the people of Palmerston. It would provide more police to improve community safety. It would provide a new school for our ever-increasing population. It could contribute significantly to affordable housing for Territorians who are being forced into homelessness every day due to the rising cost of housing. No wonder the people in my electorate are fed up with the Gillard Labor government and its failed border protection policies—policies which give the people smugglers a product to sell.

People in my electorate know very well that every dollar spent on combating people smuggling is a dollar not spent in our community. In my electorate people often tell me that their No. 1 issue with the Labor government is their massive failure in border protection. Recently, in a questionnaire in my community, I asked people what they thought was the biggest challenge facing Australia. Some of the responses included 'the steady stream of illegal immigrants', 'illegal immigration', 'boat people', 'people smugglers', 'illegal immigrants', 'the influx of illegal immigrants and the drain of Australia's resources to provide for these immigrants', 'the cost of illegal immigration' and 'the free health and dental services provided to illegal immigrants when I can't afford to take my family to the dentist'. Those were just a few of the comments given to me.

Labor's track record speaks for itself. We have had more people arrive illegally by boat this financial year than turned up during the entire period of the Howard government. As many of my colleagues have stated, this government is more interested in distracting attention from these issues than in dealing with them, raising all sorts of matters without addressing the core problem—that is, their failed border protection.

The lack of common sense and practical approach this government has in releasing hundreds of asylum seekers into our communities is quite alarming. A common-sense approach must be taken when considering the safety of our community and of course the safety of asylum seekers themselves. Releasing people into the community without the proper support required, such as secure accommodation and a sturdy support network, is absolutely ridiculous and outrageous. We have seen the results of this policy in the past few weeks, with asylum seekers sleeping on couches in university dormitories, in garages and in overcrowded boarding houses. Is this the best we can do? Absolutely not.

The coalition has a plan, an alternative to mitigate the disastrous impact the Gillard Labor government has had on border protection. We have stopped the boats before and we will do it again. The coalition will restore what the Labor Party abandoned—a strong border protection regime developed by the coalition as a priority to protect our nation's borders. The coalition will reintroduce offshore processing of illegal boat arrivals as part of a series of measures to stop the boats and to protect our borders. We will prevent this problem by minimising the numbers coming from both initial countries of origin and first asylum countries.

The coalition will disrupt the business of people smuggling and intercept boats where it is safe to do so. We will make it a priority to identify and assist those in genuine need of refugee protection. We have done it before and we will do it again. After 2001, the Howard government successfully reduced the flood of illegal boats to a mere trickle. Between 2002 and 2007 just 10 illegal entry boats arrived with fewer than 250 passengers. Compare this with over 400 boats and 25,000 people arriving illegally since the last federal election.

It is fair to say that Labor's management of this issue has been a disaster. The boats must be stopped. There is no argument that people smuggling is a good result for anyone. It is unsafe for asylum seekers and every year people die from taking this risk. Stopping the boats is a priority in my electorate. Given the opportunity, the coalition will make it a priority to fix the disastrous legacy of the Gillard-led Labor government. We will stop the boats. If we are fortunate enough to be elected to government come 14 September, we will stop the boats.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister for immigration made great moment of the fact that the Howard government introduced record numbers of migrants to this country, yet at the same time polls showed that people supported that. Clearly that research from the Scanlon Foundation is interconnected with people's degree of confidence in the economy and other factors. However, one factor the Howard government did not have to deal with was an opposition spokesperson who has attempted to demonise, to marginalise and to put to the Australian people, 'Perhaps you should be worried and terrified about the people coming in the boats.' There was not an opposition pushing that line at any stage. That might be why there was significant support for migration, even at a time when boat arrivals went up for a period after the election of the Howard government. They did not have to deal with an opposition spokesperson, a man who usually ignores and derides the refugee convention, who, when an eight-year-old child was being offered transport to his parents' funeral, said:

Well there's nothing in the refugee convention which covers this situation and places an obligation on us and I think people would be rightly, from what they've heard, angry about this.

He thought it was a waste of government money for Australia to finance transport for an eight-year-old child to attend his parents' funeral when those parents had perished on a boat coming to this country. The same opposition spokesperson in the last week, because of one rape case by an asylum claimant, said that there should be protocols on their release. We all know that anyone released is supposed to subscribe to certain standards, but he said that residents should be advised if a refugee asylum claimant was put in their suburb, implying again that perhaps all of these people are rapists and murderers. It ignores the statistical reality, the criminology facts of this country, that the level of convictions of released asylum seekers is far lower than that of the general Australian population. What this opposition is essentially pushing is an implication that these people are in some ways people you should be terrified of and that their claims are illegitimate.

The other part of the opposition's position is that, in some manner, these people are economic migrants and they are not suffering any fear of persecution. If that was the case, we would see these boats filled with Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Nepalese and Yemenis. They are all countries where people live in very poor circumstances. In many of these countries, people could just as easily get on the boats. In fact, that applies to Indonesians far more than the others. But the people on the boats are not coming from these countries, and the opposition knows that. They are coming from Afghanistan. As we know, in recent weeks there has been a series of bombings in Qatar and Pakistan of the Hazara minority and other Shiites. There have been constant bombings in Pakistan of the Hazaras and murders in the streets of the cities.

We know that some of the other claimants are coming from the Middle East. Clearly, many Iraqis—Mandeans, Christians and, on various occasions, Shia and Sunni—came because of the struggles in that country as the power balance shifted regionally and nationally. We know that some of the people on the boats are coming from Sri Lanka. There has been an upsurge in the numbers from Sri Lanka. This has nothing to do with who is in government. It has nothing to do with politics in this country. It has got everything to do with the Sri Lankan civil war. The established world believes that a significant number of Tamil Tigers were murdered in the aftermath of that war.

There is a clear correlation between who is coming on the boats, where they have arrived from and the situation in their homeland. The opposition's attempt to say, basically, that this is interconnected with government policy in Australia, that it is somehow all about queue jumping and that it is all about people who are coming here for financial reasons is ridiculous. We know that there are reasons that people would seek to come to this country. In the period of this government, the economy has increased by 13 per cent. Our GDP, of 3.1 per cent, is four times better than the average GDP of the rest of the developed world. We know that our key interest rate is three per cent and that our unemployment is only 5.4 per cent. There are reasons that people would seek to come to this country—for advancement, for financial reasons. No doubt the way the economy is being managed is a strong incentive for people to try and come here by boat, for financial reasons. But, as I say, there is a clear correlation between where they are coming from and what is happening in those countries.

We have from the opposition platitudes and slogans—they are basically going to tow the boats back. When their leader went to Indonesia and had meetings with the Indonesian president, he talked about how good the lumpia was, he liked the nasi goreng that they had for dinner and he liked the ayam chicken. He discussed all of those things with the Indonesian president—how good the banquets were and how nice the rooms were in Indonesia. But he never once talked about this policy of towing the boats back. He did not have the guts to put it to the Indonesians. What is going to be the reaction of the Indonesians—a country we have to deal with, a country we depend on in regards to illegal boats and a country whose cooperation we need—if they basically have to receive all of these boats back? I think we all know what their reaction is going to be.

There is going to be another gathering in relation to the Bali Process in April. That is where these things are solved by cooperation in our region. The other party that is crucial to our country and how we deal with immigration is Malaysia. What happened in regards to Malaysia? The opposition says, 'Let's send some people back to Iran because it's not a bad country.' In Iran they execute 13-year-old kids and they suppress any people who do not share their religious beliefs—that is not a bad country for the shadow minister to support people being sent back to! But Malaysia is so dreadful! This Labor government—they are so sadistic!—are going to send to people to Malaysia, a country which is currently having democratic elections and a country which has many institutions similar to our own.

The opposition got together with the Greens for 12 months, after the High Court rejected the government's position. When we saw a solution through the Malaysian concept, they lined up with the Greens to block it. This government has come down with a series of recommendations that do not come from the Prime Minister and do not come from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; they come from a panel including Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Defence Force, who is a person of some credibility, and Paris Aristotle, who is well known in this policy area. They came up with the recommendation that we return offshore process to Nauru and Manus Island and that we have a no-advantage policy—that people who come here by boat do not get any advantage over the people in refugee camps overseas. Basically, that is what this government is pursuing.

I now want to turn to 457 visas. This government is not going to apologise for trying to do something about the huge numbers of contrived entrances to this country and the employers trying to undermine Australian conditions. We had a defence from them other there: one of their speakers said that the government does not want the benefits of skilled migrants. They referred to the Snowy River scheme. Let's get real: the conditions under which people entered this country as skilled migrants for the Snowy River scheme and similar proposals were a lot different to what is being suggested here today. People had to work for a significant number of years under clear controls. We had a situation in this country where the unions were more powerful. There was more labour regulation and more industrial relations regulation. It was extremely difficult to undermine Australian workers' conditions through skilled migrants.

What we have now is a sham system. The opposition are basically, on behalf of the big end of the town and the large corporations, opposed to any restrictions whatsoever in regards to the entry of temporary migration in this country. The shadow minister, who is so hard on everything else about immigration and so down on any other migration stream, ran out there in August and said: 'With our current levels of temporary labour migration under the 457 program, there is room for expansion.' There were record numbers last year, and he said we should be bringing more temporary skilled migrants into this country.

I want to make one final point. The opposition are trying to say that this government is racist because it is clamping down on employer abuse of our industrial relations system and 457 visas. The jobs being protected are actually the jobs of many migrants in this country.

Many of the people who are being undermined, are people who, themselves, migrated. I had a Bangladeshi Muslim resident in my electorate ring me up last week and say, 'Laurie, what's wrong with the government of this country saying that it wants to protect Australian jobs first? Why doesn't the government get more hardline about this?' That is the sentiment of the Australian people. They have had a gutful of the way the system has been abused. There has been an investigation over the last year. This announcement is overdue, and the opposition should get out of the way and stop defending the big end of town and the large corporations, who are undermining Australian conditions through temporary skilled migration.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this matter of public importance and to denigrate the government for its failure to protect the integrity of our borders and immigration programs. At the core of this debate is the reality that the Rudd government changed a good, workable, functional and effective border protection policy purely for political reasons. There was no reason for Mr Rudd to change a system that had worked very well over a number of years. I will prove that with the figures I will talk about later on.

Since Mr Rudd made those changes, the Labor government has leapt from policy failure to policy failure, and has still failed to secure Australian borders. These failures have cost, and are continuing to cost, the country billions of dollars, to the detriment of other, good programs that could have been introduced or not cut back. How can this government claim any credibility on immigration and border protection after so many broken promises?

The stream of incoming boats is not getting any better. In fact, compared to the same time last year, we have had 1,700 more arrivals. Last year we had 17,000 people come to our shores illegally. Who knows what this figure will be, come the end of June? The total number of arrivals since November 2007 is a staggering 33,656. The total number of boats since November 2007 is 577.

The mind boggles in relation to what happens to these boats that come to our shores and to Christmas Island. They were, at one stage, being burnt off Darwin and Christmas Island. Now we believe they are being sunk. It would be pretty rocky shores of Christmas Island, if you go water-skiing around that area, with all these sunken boats! So I beg to ask that question, and if I am wrong about the boats being sunk I would like to know what is happening to those boats. And I would like to know what is happening to the crews, and what penalties they have faced.

The total number of arrivals since polling day, 21 August 2010, amounts to 424 boats and 26,307 people. The total number of arrivals since the Gillard government—24 June 2010—is 438 boats and 27,104 people. The total number of arrivals since the Malaysia announcement, on 7 May 2011, is 354 boats and 21,876 people, excluding crews. The total number of arrivals since the signing of the Malaysia deal on 25 July 2011 is 343 boats and 21,564 people. The total number of arrivals since 31 August 2011, the date of the Malaysia High Court decision, is 338 boats and 21,468 people.

Those figures prove that nothing the Labor government has introduced is working. The total number of arrivals since 13 October 2011 is 333 boats and 21,064 people. The list goes on. The total number of arrivals since 25 November 2011, when the announcement was made about the bridging visas, was 319 boats and 20,107 people. That is a lot of people.

These numbers prove that none of the government's attempted measures to bring Australia's borders under control have worked. More people have arrived on illegal boats this financial year than arrived over the entire 11 years of the Howard government.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a shame. That means 13,745 people arrived this financial year versus 13,584 under the 11½ years of the Howard government. This Labor government's border protection failure has now cost Australians over $5 billion—and $2½ billion in the last 12 months.

There are currently around 14 million refugees waiting in camps all over the world. We know we have an obligation to the world or to the United Nations to take our fair share of these refugees. However, we also have an immigration policy where you come through the front door. People in my electorate are asking me, 'Why can't they come through the front door? Why can't they be like anyone else and when they come to Australia get a job and work—not be banned from working—and become part of Australian life? Why should they receive more benefits than our pensioners, who have worked all their lives and are now on a very meagre pension? Why are the boat people better off than our pensioners?'

In 2010 the number of legal offshore places was reduced by 2,000 people. What we did to make up for those extra 2,000 people who wanted to come but were not allowed to come because there were too many boat people was to have those 2,000 places taken up by families of the people who illegally came here. So that is not a very fair system, either.

We have spent this money, and what have we gained as a nation? We have helped some people but we could have helped them if they had come through the front door. I cannot emphasise that enough. We have clearly lost control of our borders.

Labor has walked away from a budget surplus. As we all know, they promised 650 times that there was going to be a surplus budget. But the day they walked away from their budget they walked away from border control also, because it was costing the budget well over what was estimated, and it helped throw the figures out. As we go on, future budgets have a decrease in what illegal immigration is going to cost us. It comes down from $2½ billion a year to $400 million in two years time. What whiz kid came up with those figures? How did he get to those figures?

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Made a wish!

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It probably was a wish. Has anyone ever thought of our Australian Defence Force, our Australian Navy, in Darwin, who have to sail to these places when they get the SOS: 'Please come and accept another boat. We want a welcoming party here at Christmas Island because we've got five boats coming in tomorrow'?

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Sorry; we're out of money'!

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Sorry; we've just cut the ADF budget by $5.5 billion.' And yet they are expected to do all this extra work, steaming out from Darwin to Christmas Island. I have spoken to some of the Navy guys in Darwin, and, when they get to the boats, these people are very demanding and actually have been known to spit on Australian Naval personnel.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Disgraceful!

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a disgrace and those people should not be allowed in Australia under any circumstances. To spit on Australian Navy personnel is a disgrace.

This has created a new business. It is called people smuggling. The people smugglers are laughing all the way to the bank. They get a slap over the wrist when they get here and are sent home not too long afterwards. If you want to encourage that, keep going the way you are going, because the people smugglers are smiling and laughing.

The refugees have money in their pockets before they meet the smugglers. They have passports and documents before they meet the smugglers. But, strangely enough, after the smugglers take them under their wings, they have no money and no passports. Isn't that amazing?

I am all for stopping the boats. I am all for turning them around where it is possible to do so safely. I think that we, in government, could do a much, much better job and stop the boats.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.