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

We have seen this afternoon an attempt by the government and the crossbenchers to delay getting to this matter of public importance because they would rather talk about anything than their own failures in national security. National security is the poor policy cousin within this government. That has been on display today as we have just seen. It has been on display by this Prime Minister when she was Deputy Prime Minister and did not go to National Security Committee meetings, instead sending her bodyguard. Perhaps, when we have been seeking to ask questions of the Prime Minister on these national security matters, given she is unable to understand the questions let alone answer them, we should submit those questions in writing to her bodyguard.

Also, we have seen the Prime Minister today deride the opposition for putting national security on the agenda in this place and holding her government to account for their failures on serious national security matters. This Prime Minister, talking about national security, said the opposition was taking the low road. That is her assessment of having a discussion and a debate and, most importantly, being held to account on national security matters. I think this speaks volumes about the Prime Minister's sense of the importance she places on these matters within her government. National security is just descended in the pecking order of issues that should be under the attention of this government.

There is no greater responsibility of any national government than national security and if the Prime Minister does not believe that that is a topic—national security that she should be asked questions about in this parliament—then she is in the wrong job. But later this year the Australian people will have the opportunity to remedy that. They can put a government in place that will make national security a top priority, as it should be for every national government.

The Prime Minister is oblivious—I think because of her ignorance of these matters and her lack of appreciation of their importance—of the impact and damage that is being done by her own policies. That is no greater than in the area of this Prime Minister's own failings on border protection policy. No area of failure better demonstrates how this government does not work, how their policies do not work, than the impact of their policies on Australia's national security interests.

Every month, more than 3,000 people are turning up illegally by boat to this country—an average of over 2,000 per month this financial year—up from an average of just two per month when Labor came to government all those years ago. Twenty-three thousand people who arrived illegally by boat are now in the system in detention or somewhere else. Nineteen thousand are yet to even be processed, have their asylum applications received or assessed—19,000. By the time we get to the election in September of this year it is likely that we will have in the vicinity of 30,000 people in the system, the vast majority of whom—likely to be over 25,000—will have not had any assessments done on their claims whatsoever. What a legacy caseload that will leave to whoever forms government after the next election! That is no surprise, but I will come to that later.

This government has form on dumping the problems that they cause in one term and passing them off to the other side of an election. Fourteen-and-a-half thousand visas have been denied to people applying offshore in some of the worst places you can imagine because under this government visas have been given to people who arrived illegally by boat. More than 6,000 children have come on boats under this government's policy—a record. And, of course, the record blow-outs in costs have sucked the resources from our national security agencies, whether they be the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, Customs—my colleagues will talk about that today, I am sure. These have gone from $85 million in immigration alone—that is where it started in 2007-08—to $3 billion on these matters in the budget a few weeks ago for immigration.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much?

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

Three thousand million dollars—with blow-outs since 2009-10 of more than $10 billion, and counting and running. Labor's failures here have crashed the detention network—totally crashed it. That was in evidence again last night on the 7:30 program when we were reminded of those incidents on Christmas Island and reminded also of what followed at Villawood. The detention network under this government has become chaotic because, prior to the last election, the then minister, Senator Evans, ignored advice after advice of brewing tension within the detention network. He decided to do nothing, not to expand the detention network, and pushed decisions off to the other side of the election. By the time his successor, Minister Bowen, came to the job it was all too late. Night followed day, and riots followed the inaction of this government.

You might want to understand what happened to those who were involved in those riots, and those who seek to act up, to get a bit of a sense of this government's commitment to national security matters. Minister Bowen said that there had been 'hundreds' of people involved in those riots. He spoke tough at the press conference, saying that the government would use not just the criminal character provisions of section 501 of the immigration act to come down toughly on these people but also the general provisions. You would think out of hundreds of people that this government might have got tough.

This is what happened: of several hundred of those who were involved, 22 were charged and seven were convicted. Of the seven persons convicted, four are in the community having been granted a protection visa—that is pretty tough—one is in the community on a bridging visa E, one is in the community on a removal pending bridging visa, and one has been removed from Australia. Just one person was denied a protection visa because of their involvement and conviction as a result of those riots. Just one! That gives a pretty good idea of where this government sits when it comes to those matters.

After grinding the detention network into the ground and filling it to the brim, this government's next step was to just let people out, not because of any great doubt and compassion, which the government members might pretend when they go to their branch meetings, but because it was full. Left with no other option, in their view, and certainly they were unwilling to countenance the return to the Howard government's measures, they decided simply to let people out.

Since the decision of the government to let people out into the community—at the time they let them out with work rights although we warned the government if they let them out with work rights that would make a bad situation worse—we have gone from an average rate of arrivals over the four years prior to that of 288 per month to now an average of over 1,600 per month. That is what happens when the government decides to continue to weaken the measures and arrangements that are put in place to protect our borders and our national security.

Labor's bridging visa policy is a dumping policy. It is not a compassionate policy. This government is just dumping people into the community, out of sight, out of mind, with virtually no thought attached to that process. People are just dumped out there because there is nowhere else to put them. You might think if you are going to let people out into the community you should probably find out who they are and you should probably find out whether they are a security risk to Australia. In May 2012 in Senate estimates Senator Cash asked a series of questions about how people are assessed before they are released on bridging visas. Senator Cash said:

Do they have preliminary ASIO security clearance?

Mr Moorhouse, one of the deputy secretaries, said:

Whilst I do not want to go into detail … if we are looking at a temporary or bridging visa for a person—

this is in relation to the ASIO assessment in his words, not mine—

it is a lighter touch.

There are light-touch ASIO assessments for those released into the community under this government because the detention centres are full. They would be in detention centres, as single adult males—and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship would know this. They would be in detention and not in the community, single adult males who had arrived illegally by boat, if the government had not so badly stuffed up on the borders and let them be overrun and let our detention centres fill to the brim. Being forced into the situation of letting people out, the ASIO assessment that is provided is a 'light touch'. Mr Irvine from ASIO, who was questioned on these matters, said, We check the name against our records.' If someone gives a false name, has a false identity, and they provide that name then that is the check, that is how it is done. That is the light-touch ASIO protection of national security under this government's policies. When you go to the other end of the process—that is only if the government has even referred the matter to ASIO through DIAC—you have DIAC officers making a preliminary assessment as well, based on what has never been precisely clear. We have a light-touch ASIO assessment of people who are put out into the community.

Why is this a problem for those who have come illegally by boat? Why does this pose a greater risk? I wonder if the government is aware of these figures. Between 2010-11 and 2012-13, the average rate of negative assessments and qualified assessments of people who came by boat as opposed to people who did not come by boat was 20 times higher. The chance of someone getting a qualified or negative ASIO assessment if they have come by boat, as opposed to the other assessments that ASIO conducts through the immigration process is 20 times higher.

You would think with that type of rate, 20 times greater risk, regardless of the actual incidence, you would put a bit more care into the decision and the process. But as usual this government decides to do what it wants to do and does not think through its actions or the consequences. At the end of the day we all end up paying for it one way or the other.

This is a government that has had a litany of these issues, whether it is Captain Emad who we in this place all remember well. He continues to roam around the world, courtesy of this government. He was let in as a people smuggler and then let out as a people smuggler, with agencies not even speaking to each other and probably ministers not even speaking to each other. Then we have the case of Sayed Ali. When we asked the DIAC officials about him, they know nothing. They do not know anything about this bloke, despite the fact that he was reported in the Australian media. Then we have the red notice issued against a suspected terrorist who was held in a low-security detention facility in Inverbrackie. Then we have the Sri Lankan accused of murdering his girlfriend who was put on a bridging visa under this government. Then we have those who are charged with serious criminal offences and are waiting to go to court, and this minister leaves them in the community. He leaves them in the community with serious criminal charges pending to be addressed in the courts.

This government's attitude and approach to our borders betray a lack of interest. When it comes to our borders and when it comes to our national security, this government's heart is just not in it. It is not serious enough for this government. It is not a core issue. It is not the reason the government is here. It would seem members of the government are here for other reasons. They are certainly not here to protect our borders and they are certainly not here to put national security as the key and first priority of the national government. That is something the Prime Minister has demonstrated and it is something this government has demonstrated by its own actions.

There is an alternative to all of that, and that alternative sits on this side of this House. That alternative is represented by a party that will put back the measures that worked and that this government has rejected. It is an alternative that will actually use section 91W of the Migration Act to deny an outcome for people who we reasonably believe have discarded their documentation. They will not get the benefit of the doubt under a coalition government, but they do under this government. They do under this government because that is this government's view, and the Australian people know it. That is why we have seen myriad failed solutions from this government, whether it is the East Timor solution or the Malaysian people swap.

I note that at Senate estimates DIAC has confirmed that the Malaysian government has given no indication that it will support the Houston panel recommendations in relation to your own agreement. The Malaysian people swap in its current form has been rejected by the Houston panel. The Malaysian government does not sign up to the change they recommended, so the Malaysian people swap is an excuse to do nothing under this government. This government will do nothing other than blame everyone else for its own lack of interest in national security issues. The solution people are looking for in border protection and national security is an election solution, and it comes on 14 September. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. Firstly, I can assure the House that I will not be taking lectures on compassion from the member for Cook, who chose to suggest that we should not have allowed a child to go to his father's funeral in Sydney. I will not be taking any lectures from the member for Cook on how we deal with people compassionately. I certainly will not be taking lectures from the opposition on national security when the opposition, for the entire period of this parliamentary term, have done everything they possibly can to avoid listening to the experts in relation to border protection, refugee settlement and diplomacy.

We brought together three eminent Australians—the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, appointed by the Howard government and, indeed, appointed by our government; the eminent diplomat, the former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and former High Commissioner of Britain, Michael L'Estrange; and someone who has had over a quarter of a century of understanding in refugee settlement, Paris Aristotle—to come from different perspectives to forge some recommendations so that we could reduce the chances of and deter people endangering their lives by getting on unseaworthy vessels, leading, as we have seen in many cases, to maritime tragedies.

What we would expect from an opposition on matters of national security—if this is a matter of national security, and I believe it is—is a level of bipartisanship that we have not seen to date. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition will, I believe, go down in history as the most relentlessly negative opposition leader we have ever seen. The opposition leader in this place will do anything and everything if it is in his political interests, and he has shown that time and time again. How can you possibly refute and refuse to accept the experts' evidence on how we should approach these things? Even if there is any doubt on the other side about some of these matters—even if they have some doubts, for example, with respect to the Malaysian arrangement—why would they not allow it to be implemented to see what would happen, given the tragedies we have seen subsequently?

It seems to me that the opposition will say anything and do anything that is in its own interests. Just as it failed to respond to the experts during the global financial crisis by rejecting decisions made by government, it is now refusing to listen to the experts in relation to this very complex area of public policy; experts like the former Defence Force chief. If as the Immigration minister I have to take advice in relation to these matters I will be taking advice from Angus Houston, not from the member for Cook, if you do not mind.

The problem is that that Leader of the Opposition seems to be taking advice from the member for Cook, and that is a tragedy. We can talk all we like about what we will do with people in our community—and what we have chosen to do in the detention network is ensure people are detained either on bridging visas or in community detention—but, ultimately, we need to find a long-term, sustainable, regional solution to what is a complex problem. The first point of call has to be the Bali process so that we have countries of origin, transit and destination involved. The second is trying innovative approaches like the in-principle agreement we had with Malaysia, so we could see what would happen if we had a capacity to return or transfer arrivals to the transit country.

It is quite extraordinary that the opposition leader effectively says yes to a country that says no—Indonesia—and says no to a country that says yes—Malaysia. Why would he do that? Why, if someone were offered a solution to transfer arrivals to a transit country, would they say no when that country says yes? Why would they say yes to a country like Indonesia that says no to receiving people by returning back the boats? Why would they do that? Because they do not want to see something succeed. What they want to see happen is more boats. What the member for Cook and the opposition leader want to see, as they rub their hands, is more boats arriving in our waters. That is why they have chosen to not accept the recommendations by the expert panel in relation to these matters, including the Malaysia arrangement. It is the height of cynicism and negativity to go down that path.

If this were some simple municipal matter, some small domestic reform or initiative, then that would be something we could perhaps accept in the partisan nature of our parliamentary process. But this is a matter of national interest. This is a national security matter. Yet the opposition leader thinks it is entirely proper that he refuse to accept the way in which the government should proceed as advised by our national security and law enforcement agencies, and by the expert panel convened by this government. This will never be forgotten, I can assure you, Deputy Speaker, by those who will look back and say: 'What an extraordinarily reckless opposition leader. What an extraordinarily dishonest opposition that refuses to accept the advice of those experts.' It is extraordinary behaviour to refuse to accept such advice.

In relation to the other efforts made by the member for Cook to demonise and vilify certain people, to scare our communities by making all sorts of wild allegations about people on bridging visas, this is the lowest of the low we could ever see in this place. When they start to demonise and vilify people and scare our community, we can see this is an opposition that wants to run a fear campaign and frighten our community. I have not forgotten the member for Cook's efforts to scare people by saying we needed a register of people in our community. Notwithstanding the fact that these have gone through identity, security and health assessments, we need a register! I remember Senator Abetz following that commentary by the member for Cook, saying, 'It is not exactly the same as child sex offenders, but we need a register.' Fancy comparing people on bridging visas—in many cases genuine asylum seekers—with sex offenders! That is the level of the debate that has been conducted by the opposition in relation to these matters, and the opposition should collectively hang their heads in shame. It is a disgraceful act, it is a disgraceful form of behaviour. Is it any wonder that there are members opposite who are ashamed of the way the opposition are conducting themselves in relation to these matters.

This is a very important area of public debate but it goes to what really can be done and what really can be committed to by the opposition. We recall that before the last election the opposition leader had 'Stop the boats' as his slogan; that was his policy. That is all he had and he has had it for three years. But as we get closer to the election and he sees a chance that he may win the election—in fact he is already celebrating that he has won the election—he is trying to work out how he is going to stop the boats with a slogan. How can we stop the boats with a slogan?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting

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

Order! There are too many interjections on my left, and some members are not in their seats.

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

What we have watched in recent times is the opposition leader and the member for Cook and indeed the member for Stirling walk away from this commitment. First it was three months. Fran Kelly in 2010 asked the Leader of the Opposition: 'So if you have not stopped them in three months?' He said: 'Oh, I think in three months we will make a very big difference.' Then it was between six and 12 months in October last year when he was asked: 'Can you be more specific? Would that be 12 months or six months?' The opposition leader said, 'Well, within those time frames.' Then it was 'a few months' again on 21 February this year. Then the member for Cook could not say when or how they would stop the boats. He said on 13 March in an interview on 2GB: 'I believe we can get back to the outcome that the Howard government achieved. I do not put any time frames on it and I am not about to. I am not about to make such forecasts. I would like to see it happen as soon as possible.' This is the new slogan of the opposition—it is 'Stop the boats as soon as we possibly can' or 'Stop the boats but I can't put a time frame on it' or 'Stop the boats because we would just like to do so'. The fact is that they have walked away from their slogan because as they get closer to the election they realise they have nothing in place to stop the vessels and they have not listened to the experts and they have not engaged with the region effectively.

As I talk about engagement with the region, let us think about what the shadow minister, the member for Cook, has done in his dealings with the region. Can you imagine a person who wants to be minister for immigration—although I am told he may not want to be minister for immigration; I hear that he is pleading to get out of the portfolio just in case they win. But just imagine this if we can. Let us imagine that you want to be minister for immigration and you need the region's support. Why don't you fly to a foreign country like Malaysia, stand on Malaysian soil, call a press conference and abuse the reputation of that country? That is effectively what the member for Cook did. He thought, 'What is a good idea? How do I get a regional solution to this regional problem? I think I'll fly to Malaysia, call a press conference and abuse of Malaysian government.' That is effectively what the member for Cook did when he visited Malaysia.

And what did the opposition leader do in relation to Indonesia? He has got a 'turn back the boats' policy. He meets the president of Indonesia, and does he raise the issue? He did not even ask the question: will you accept turning back the boats? Do you know why he did not ask the question, Deputy Speaker? Because he knows the answer is no. So here you have an opposition leader who says no to the country that is yes and yes to the country that says no. Why does he do that? Because he wants the policy to fail, he wants to see more boats because he works on his base political interests, motivated for personal gain—not motivated in the national interest, motivated for the wrong reasons, for the wrong purposes. Indeed, the opposition has shown its disregard for the national interest the entire time of this parliamentary term.

There must be a point where the opposition has to come clean about its policy, because stopping the boats ain't enough. All the qualifications and inconsistencies they come up with, all the assertions they make, they have absolutely no basis for putting them forward. The member for Stirling talks about stopping the boats. He may say that but you actually have to explain it. Let us think about it. We have no regional architecture in place; we have abused the Malaysian government—

Mr Keenan interjecting—

The member for Stirling will get his go in a minute.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Stirling will have his opportunity. It is far too noisy in this place, from both sides of the chamber.

Mr Keenan interjecting—

The member for Stirling will stop interjecting.

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

The fact is that this opposition has done everything it possibly can to stymie the expert advice that was provided to the government in order for us to see a reduction in people dying at sea, people coming to our shores, people getting onto vessels in circumstances where they should not. That is the most important element of all. It seems to me that when the consequences are so tragic then it really is incumbent upon the parliament to come together.

We have had an opportunity on a number of occasions in this parliamentary term for the parliament to come together to reduce the chances of people dying at sea—men, women and children perishing at sea. It seems to me that we can talk about fiscal costs, and they are important, and we can talk about all sorts of costs. But what about the human cost of not stopping these vessels? Therefore, it seems to me entirely proper that the parliament—that is, the opposition and the government—rely upon the expert advice that has been provided to us and try that approach. Even if the opposition in some cases does not agree with all the recommendations or even if the opposition thinks that this may not be entirely effective, why would they not give it a go? This is in the end about not only whether we can protect our borders but whether we can protect people, particularly children, endangering their lives at sea.

I call upon the opposition to rethink its position in refusing to support eminent Australians' views about these matters. I think it is absolutely critical that we do that. The fear-mongering that is continuing to be conducted by the opposition should cease. It is not leadership to scare the community, it is not leadership to frighten people in their homes, it is not leadership to demonise vulnerable people.

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

Order! Before I call the member for Stirling, I would say to the member for Indi and the member for Braddon that, if they wish to continue their private discussion, they can continue it outside the chamber, not across the chamber.

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

Do not wish that on the member for Indi, Mr Deputy Speaker! We have just heard everything that is wrong with the Gillard government. The minister who is actually responsible for doing something about these problems got up for 15 minutes and did nothing more than rant about the opposition's policies. It is not leadership when all you can do is complain about the opposition when you have completely failed to control our borders and when Labor's border protection failures are, without a doubt, their most significant policy failure in the life of this parliament.

This MPI today focuses on the very significant implications for our budget and the significant national security implications of Labor's border protection failures. I want to particularly focus on the national security dimensions, given that the member for Cook has already outlined some of the budgetary problems that are associated with this failure. Firstly, I want to talk about what this is doing to our national security establishment. The national security agencies are the agencies that are tasked with cleaning up Labor's mess. We have got the wrong immigration policies. That is encouraging people smuggling and it is encouraging people to take this dangerous journey, and the national security agencies are the ones that are forced to deal with the consequences. Secondly, I want to talk about what happens when you lose control over who comes here and the fact that undesirable people will seek to take advantage of that.

We have been talking in question time today about ASIO and the cuts that ASIO have had to their budget. This has been confirmed to the opposition by government responses to Senate estimates questions. ASIO have had significant cuts in the life of this government, both the Rudd and the Gillard governments. By this stage they were supposed to have 1,860 people. That was the goal of the Howard government, which was adopted by the Rudd government and was recently abandoned by the Gillard government, who have frozen ASIO staffing at 1,730. This is occurring at a time when ASIO are being asked to make security assessments on the upwards of 42,000 people who have arrived here courtesy of a people smuggler. They have been asked to conduct 34,000 security assessments, and the drain on their resources is enormous.

When people arrive here on a people-smuggling boat the chances of them having identity documentation are very slim, because they are told by the people smugglers to destroy it. So I think people in this chamber can appreciate how difficult it would be to properly establish somebody's identity. In fact, with the resources at their disposal, it is impossible for them to do a comprehensive security assessment on the sheer volume of people who are arriving here, so they do what is called a light-touch assessment. That means that you come in and you say to the Australian authorities, 'My name is Bill Bloggs,' and then they go and check the name 'Bill Bloggs' against their intelligence holdings and they come back and say, 'Well, we don't have anything on Bill Bloggs, so that is all fine.' They do not have the resources at the moment to properly establish someone's identity and they are forced to accept the identity that is given to them by the person who they are supposed to be vetting.

Clearly this is an unsatisfactory situation. It means that there could be people coming to Australia who, quite frankly, we do not want here. Astonishingly, in light of the fact that ASIO's workload has gone up so much and their budget has been cut, one of the budget cuts that was inflicted on them by the Labor Party was a $6.9 million cut to the budget that ASIO have to conduct these security assessments on asylum seekers.

ASIO, our national security establishment, are not alone in being subject to, firstly, very significant cuts by the Labor Party and, secondly, having their resources diverted away from other things that they should be doing to deal with Labor's border protection failures. The Australian Federal Police have been the subject of very significant budget cuts since the Labor Party came to office. In every single budget they have had both funding and personnel cuts—to the point where they are clearly struggling to fulfil their responsibilities, as the Australian public expect of them. At the same time, they are forced to divert an enormous amount of resources to, firstly, tracking down people smugglers and, secondly, dealing with some of the consequences of the fact that we have a detention network that is literally falling apart.

The AFP's public order specialists—basically the federal government's riot squad—have been forced to sit at Christmas Island to deal with any unrest that might occur. That is enormously expensive. To prosecute people smugglers is also enormously difficult and expensive and it takes an enormous amount of Federal Police resources—resources that could of course have been used to go after other criminals rather than people smugglers if that trade had not been reinvigorated by the Labor Party's failed border protection policies.

Customs and Border Protection have been dealt savage blows by the Labor Party since they came to office. Under the Howard government, Customs had 5,850 officers; under the Labor Party, their workforce has been reduced by over 15 per cent and they now have 5,000 officers. Customs have enormous challenges in dealing with the increase in cargo that is coming into Australia and in dealing with the reinvigorated people-smuggling trade through Customs and Border Protection Command. Customs have had to divert an enormous amount of their resources to deal with Labor's border protection crisis, and this has occurred in an agency that has been savagely attacked by the Labor Party for six years—to the point where the opposition has serious concerns about whether Customs have the resources that they require to stop contraband and other goods from coming into Australia.

There are consequences when your national security agencies are having their resources attacked, when they are having their personnel numbers stripped and when they are having to divert an enormous amount of their time and energy to deal with Labor's self-induced border protection crisis. One of those consequences is that it is virtually impossible for the national security establishments to make a sensible judgement about the sheer volume of people who are arriving here and whether they pose a threat to the Australian community.

Under the Labor Party's failed border protection policies, 42,500 people have arrived here illegally. We know that upwards of 60 have failed security assessments and we are hearing now through the media—not through the government, because they refuse to come clean about these things—about particular cases that have caused enormous concern for the opposition.

One case in particular was somebody who was the subject of an Interpol Red Notice, the highest form of alert that the international policing organisation can issue. It is the equivalent of an international arrest warrant. Somebody who arrives in Australia who is the subject of such a notice should have immediately rung alarm bells within both our law and order community and our national security community.

Instead, what happened was that the Labor Party placed him for almost a year in the low-security detention centre at Inverbrackie in the Adelaide Hills, a detention centre they promised the locals nobody remotely dangerous would be placed in. If you are the subject of an Interpol Red Notice, you are a serious person of interest to another law enforcement body, in this case, presumably, the Egyptian government, and you are not somebody who should be appropriately detained within a detention centre that is effectively surrounded by a pool fence.

When the government was alerted to this—and I do not know when they were first aware of this—they kept the guy in Inverbrackie for almost a year. They did not do anything about it until it was raised in a newspaper, and when it was raised in the media they moved this individual to Villawood, which is a higher security environment. It is not even clear that the government was aware of who they were keeping in Inverbrackie until they were alerted by the media, and they have failed to explain why it took the media exposing what had occurred before they took some action to put this person in a more appropriate detention environment.

In the case of another man who has come in via people smugglers, somebody who is accused of murdering his girlfriend, what happened was even worse. He was released into the community on a bridging visa as an accused murderer.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Now the government is interjecting, but can anybody seriously stand up on the government side and say that they believe this is an appropriate way to deal with people who are accused of the most serious crimes? I challenge anyone—and the government has a couple of speakers coming up in this debate—to get up and tell the Australian people that there are no other cases like this within the 42,500 people they let into Australia courtesy of people smugglers, because they are failing in their serious responsibility to protect Australia's borders.

Mr Champion interjecting—

And there are consequences of that. There are budgetary consequences—over $10 billion blown out and wasted, $10 billion that could have been spent on other priorities for the Australian people—and there are national security consequences, that we have highlighted here today, for our agencies that are already being stripped of resources by the sustained attack on them by the Labor Party since they have come to office.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since I have been in this parliament, like many other people, I have taken the view that we should treat intelligence matters in a bipartisan way. We all acknowledge that the security services must be allowed to do their work, subject of course to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, without being made the subject of partisan bickering. Most parliamentarians feel that the security of the Australian people is more important than politics. During the years of the Howard government, we on this side gave steadfast support to the government's changes to our security laws in the wake of the 9-11 attacks and the Bali bombings. We did this despite considerable criticism of the government from the media and academia, who thought we should have opposed those measures. But we took the responsible view and supported them in the national interest.

In contrast today we have heard the intellectually lamentable performance from the member for Cook who conflated the increase in boat arrivals with national security. Of course there is not one person convicted of a major terrorist crime who has arrived in Australia by boat. As part of the bipartisan concern that I think we should evince on security matters, senior members of the opposition are given briefings by the security agencies so that they are fully informed of developments. That privilege afforded to us when we were in opposition is now afforded to the current opposition. The confidentiality of those briefings has always been respected.

A significant breach of this convention has taken place in recent days. Comments of the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, appear to reveal information he was given as part of a briefing from ASIO. I am not going to compound that breach by repeating what he said, or by commenting on it. I respect the senator for Queensland, the would-be Attorney-General, a person who would be in charge of our national security, but he ought to know better. In a further breach of the tradition of bipartisanship in national security matters, the opposition in question time yesterday and again today have tried to claim that funding to our national security agencies has been cut under this government. It is easy for an opposition to make these allegations, as it was easy for the member for Stirling to talk about the man who came here from Egypt, based on press cuttings. Does he think the government knows nothing else? Of course they do. But the government cannot respond because it cannot reveal confidential information.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Brandis should have spoken to the honourable member for Berowra, a former Attorney-General and a man for whom I have a great of respect on security issues despite our other party differences, before they embarked on this reckless course these last two days. Moreover, as the chair of the intelligence committee, the honourable member for Holt said in answer to the own-goal question from the Manager of Opposition Business today, 'The Leader of the Opposition is as unqualified on national security matters as the former member for Werriwa, Mark Latham.'

The Leader of the Opposition's spurious campaign, the essence of it, can be very easily dealt with, and the Prime Minister dealt with it very effectively yesterday when she explained there had been no cuts to our security services. Since this government came to office, there has in fact been an increase of $18 billion in national security funding. In this budget ASIO gets an increase of $32 million. Since 2007, ASIO's funding has risen by 27 per cent and ASIO's staffing has risen from 1,349 to 1,778, a 32 per cent increase.

I think all members of this House regard this expenditure on security as justified. Since the murder by Jamaah Islamiya of 88 of our fellow Australians in Bali, there have been no successful attacks on mainland Australia. That is to the great credit of the security services and to the non-partisan support for them and their activities by both sides of politics. So the hysteria about national security and alleged decreases in the budget and their effects by the members for Stirling and Cook have no real basis in fact. We in this country are very lucky that there have been no killings of Australians on mainland Australia.

Until my elevation to parliamentary secretary, I was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, chaired by the honourable member for Holt. In the years I served on that committee I never heard our able national security agencies say they were unable to fulfil their tasks because of a lack of resources.

Without revealing any of the confidential information that was given to the committee when I was a member of it, I can say that the efficiency of our intelligence services has not been affected by funding considerations. Of course, no government agency can expect a blank cheque in the context of any budget. But this government, like previous governments, has given a very high priority to the safety and security of the Australian people and has funded our agencies accordingly.

In recent weeks we have seen shocking confirmation of the security challenges facing Western democracies, with a spread of Islamist terrorism: in Boston with the killing of innocent bystanders at the end of the marathon and also a police officer; the cold-blooded murder of a British soldier in the streets of London; and a similar event in France. Fortunately, we have seen no such attacks in Australia. It is not a matter of luck; it is a matter of the highly competent and highly effective response by our national security agencies, funded by this government and previous governments.

Since 2003, there have been 35 prosecutions of terrorist related charges, resulting in 26 convictions. However, it is proper to note that some of those convictions are still subject to appeal. Each of those convictions represented a real threat to our national security, not some of the nonsense that was talked about by the member for Stirling, and they were thwarted by our security services. These security services would not have been able to do that unless they were properly funded, staffed and resourced and, indeed, unless they had people who were there with the spirit of Australia to protect their fellow Australians.

This line of attack from the Leader of the Opposition, in my view, is very hollow when we know that he and his shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for North Sydney, are publicly committed to cutting $70 billion from government spending. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to give a commitment that security agencies will be exempt from Public Service cuts here in Canberra, I would be pleased.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously on national security, then he will come into this House and direct the honourable member for Wentworth that he will not allow the Chinese telecom Huawei permission, against the explicit advice of the security services—the security services they have been lauding and talking about so effusively over the last few days—to bid for the NBN. The security services of Australia have advised the Australian government and the Australian government has followed their advice that Huawei will not be allowed to bid for the NBN. That is not supported by the opposition spokesman on communications.

If the Leader of the Opposition is really serious about national security and concerned about these kinds of issues, I call on him to follow the advice of the security services and to come into this House and explicitly tell the Australian people that he will follow their advice and not that of the spokesman on communications.

The Leader of the Opposition has also committed himself to sacking 20,000 public servants. Has he given an undertaking that these cuts will not affect the security services? Again, unless he is prepared not to cut ASIO staff, his comments over the last few days on national security will be seen as humbug, because that is what they really are. You cannot cut the security services and promise that you will do that, not offer them any exemptions, and then come into this place and go around the country railing about the effects on national security.

All in all, this has been a sad day for those of us who really care about national security and who have tried to take a bipartisan line on these issues. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General play some of the cheapest, most dishonest kinds of politics with these matters. I think it is a disgrace and I think it is harmful to our real national security. I hope that the opposition will pull back from this reckless and irresponsible course and take the counsel of people such as the member for Berowra.

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

Threats to national security are very important to any nation. But we are faced with this Labor government that simply cannot grasp the serious nature of the issue that is before us right now.

The Australian people have watched on as the government took a perfectly good solution—the border protection measures that were put in place by the Howard government—and dismantled it. They tore it down. They threw away a perfectly good solution and created for themselves and for the nation a problem, an escalating problem—a problem that is so out of hand that the very issues that were actually raised in this place by way of an MPI a couple of weeks ago pose a serious threat to the Australian public.

The budget, as we all know, is in crisis. The $5 billion border protection blow-outs in the budget, resulting from this government's poorest border policy, are a threat to the Australian people. It is the taxpayers who have to fork out for this waste and this largesse. It is the taxpayers who have to stand by and watch their government open the doors and windows and invite terrorist threats into their country.

Every time someone gains illegal entry into Australia without documentation, without identification, without knowing who these people are and what their background actually is, we open the door to a potential national security threat. When we open the door to two of those unauthorised entries, that threat is doubled. If three illegal entries sneak through the back door, then it is tripled. The reality is that, in the last week alone, 900 security threats entered through the doors. And that is this government's legacy.

Since November 2007, when the term of the last government ended and this government came to power, we have seen over 42,000 illegal immigrants arrive on Australian shores. The population of the Whitsunday Regional Council in my electorate is smaller than that!

The sheer scale of Labor's border protection failure now surpasses the population of most towns in my electorate of Dawson. And people in my electorate have genuine concerns about their country throwing its doors open to economic refugees, to people smugglers, to human traffickers and, potentially, to terrorism threats.

We have had 22,000 illegal arrivals come to this country so far this financial year. That is a figure that the department of immigration has admitted could blow out to 25,000 by 30 June. Yet we have the government pretending in their budget that somehow they are going to get it down to 13,200. That is simply not going to happen. This month is the second consecutive month in which more than 3,000 people have arrived by boat in Australian waters. That is going to continue as long as this government remains in power.

But, as I said, people in my electorate have genuine concerns about this issue and about the potential security threat. And so they should because, in the post 9/11 world, we see airport security getting tighter and tighter and tighter, and we see all of these measures in place, but we see border security, under this government, getting looser and looser and looser.

When I warned of potential security threats to our country when I spoke on the last MPI, it was not just my view. This is what the Australian Federal Police have to say about illegal entrants gaining access to our country. They say it raises serious security and criminal concerns. It raises quarantine and health issues. It costs, obviously, time and money in processing. Most importantly, they say, illegal immigration infringes on Australian sovereignty, giving us less control over our own borders. As I said, they are not my claims; they are statements found on the Australian Federal Police website in relation to people smuggling.

The Gillard Labor government, not content with having the worst border security crisis in the history of our nation because they dismantled the policies that actually worked, are now trying to pull the rug out from under our national security agencies. These are the agencies that are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that those who are coming illegally to our shores do not pose a risk to this nation.

This is what the Labor Party wants to do about those agencies. At the start of this month, on 1 May, there was a report on Radio National headed 'Labor backbenchers pressure government on ASIO assessments' in which we heard:

The Federal Government says it's considering calls by its own backbench for increased scrutiny of the way ASIO makes adverse assessments of asylum seekers.

These guys—and I presume there are some backbenchers over there who are amongst them—are upset because 55 asylum seekers are being detained by ASIO because they are security threats to the country. They want them released into the community. So, far from recognising the security threat to this nation, the Labor Party wants to ignore what our national security agency, ASIO, is saying, and just let them in.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You voted to let them in.

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

Order! The member for Wakefield will have his opportunity in three minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for defending my honour! The member opposite will get his opportunity. But I have to say that he and every other member of the government ignores the advice of ASIO at its peril.

I am reminded of a story which was printed in The Australian on 4 September 2001. That was fortuitously one week before the infamous 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. That report was titled 'Bin Laden code red in Jakarta'. It said:

INDONESIAN and foreign military and government officials are concerned the organisation of notorious international terrorist Osama bin Laden is looking to Indonesia as a potential springboard for terrorist operations.

It quoted the then US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James Kelly:

Mr Kelly said the flow of illegal immigrants from South Asia and the Middle East into Indonesia was a further source of concern. "If it's easy to move people under strange identities around that's a capability that terrorists who we know exist can then use."

That is what he said.

Speaking about these issues, earlier this month the world watched in horror as scenes unfolded in the UK of the brutal slaying of a British soldier in the middle of London. There are two suspects in this barbaric atrocity, Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, both Muslim converts of African descent. Intelligence agencies warned of copycat attacks. But the intelligence services themselves have actually come under fire over in the UK for allowing these two men to slip through the net in the first place. According to reports, both of those men were on the radar of intelligence agencies but were not considered to be serious security threats.

A similarly revolting attack unfolded earlier in the year at the Boston Marathon where the accused perpetrators were family members of men granted asylum in the US. Russia had strongly opposed the US's decision to grant those people asylum, but America had ignored the warnings.

The Adelaide Advertiser reported yesterday that a suspected terrorist wanted by Interpol had lived in Inverbrackie with his family for about nine months, in a detention centre with the equivalent of a pool security fence. He was able to go out into the community, to go out to the local mosque, I assume, and on trips to the library—that was the level of security around that fellow. We cannot go on ignoring these warnings. We cannot continue to expose our citizens to unnecessary elevated risk.

The Liberal-National coalition has a plan to restore the borders, but I fear that the crisis that this government has created means that we are actually going to have to go much, much further than the Howard government went.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Adult governments need to take the concerns of their citizens seriously. Adult governments need to take the most important concerns and the important responsibility of national security seriously, because a nation without a border is like a house without walls; a house without walls is not a house, and a nation without borders is not a nation— (Time expired)

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

I call the member for Wakefield.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for my indulgences taken while you were in the chair. There can be no greater threat to the nation's security than a political party that puts its short-term political interest ahead of the national interest. That is what we have seen from this opposition, who only a year ago came into this House and voted against giving the government the power to do the Malaysian transfer agreement. They sat in this House with the Greens party, over on that side of the chamber, and voted against giving the government the ability to implement the Malaysian transfer agreement that may have prevented people coming through regular maritime arrivals.

This has been a long debate. It has been going on since the seventies. In the seventies you had Mick Young and Ian Macphee—those two fine gentleman of this House—sit down, in the wake of the terrible war in Vietnam and in the wake of 1,700 boat people arriving on our shores, and come to an agreement to bring refugees to our country in a safe way. That was part of bipartisan consensus, and it was a great tribute to Mick Young. The Labor Party at the time could have played the same grubby, short-term politics that the opposition today play. We could have done that, but Mick Young didn't—and Ian Macphee didn't. In the eighties and the nineties the Hawke and Keating governments implemented agreements with countries from which asylum seekers had fled from, like China and the rest, to prevent such arrivals and they implemented mandatory detention. It was the Labor Party which implemented that. It was the Labor Party which first said that we should manage the borders in that way.

Now we come to the noughties, in particular 1999 and 2001. We often hear the opposition crowing, in a sanctimonious way, about how John Howard solved this issue but they neglect to tell you that it is an issue that they presided over. In 1999, when John Howard was Prime Minister, 3,700 people arrived by boat. In the year 2000, when John Howard was Prime Minister, 2,939 people arrived by boat. In 2001, 5,516 people arrived by boat. An issue was resolved on his watch that he presided over.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He resolved it. Bring yourself to that. He stopped the boats.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But here's the thing—I hear the interjections and I am reasonably gracious towards the former Prime Minister—and here is the difference. He had a parliamentary majority, he had an opposition that actually supported him—just like Mick Young and Ian Macphee. But what do we have today? An opposition that puts its own dark partisan interest ahead. They come in here with all this talk about national security and they talk about matters they frankly know nothing about. They are at a dangerous level of ignorance, and ignorance is what we heard from the member for Dawson. We hear this dark partisanship repeated over and over again at this point. We had the member for Stirling come in here and give us a lecture about national security. Last year, in the debate over the Malaysian transfer agreement, he blubbered; he had tears up there at the dispatch box. That is what we had from Joe Hockey, the shadow Treasurer. Now we get this lecture. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot come in here last year and frustrate the government's ability to act by voting with the Greens party in a sickening marriage of convenience—after all the lectures about how the Greens party are evil they came in here and voted with them—and then, a mere eight months later, roll in here with this sort of dark partisanship. It is reminiscent of the reds under the bed. Oh, they're coming to get you!

I will be quite plain with the House. I do not want people arriving by boat to this country. I will be quite plain that zero would be the primary number that I would like, so zero people arriving. I am not against refugees coming to this country and settling appropriately if they are good citizens and if they are good Australians. That is what we have been doing since the fifties. But what I am against is people taking a dangerous journey, a journey that endangers their lives and the lives of ADF personnel and Customs officials. I am against that because frankly we get these issues. That is why I pushed in my party for a long time for mechanisms like the Malaysian transfer agreement. That is why it was so galling and stunning to come into this House and see the Liberal Party, who beat their chests relentlessly about this, go over there and vote with the Greens and frustrate the government's ability to act.

The truth is we will never know what effect the Malaysian transfer agreement might have had. It might have prevented the sorts of arrivals that we had. It might have prevented the 6,000 Sri Lankans who decided to try and come here by boat, of which 1,100 or so have been removed back to Sri Lanka by the government, so sent back home. We do not know what effect the Malaysian transfer agreement might have had. It might have had the effect of dissuading people from making irregular maritime arrivals. I think it is a great misfortune for this country that not only did the opposition vote against it but they have trashed this option by trashing the Malaysian government in the process in their vindictive dark partisanship—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Short-termism.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, short-termism. So they trashed the Malaysian transfer agreement and the option to do transfer agreements with other countries. They trashed that option and trashed a key part of the Bali process. Then what did they do with the expert panel? I can tell you what they did with the expert panel. They said from the outset of the expert panel, 'Well, the expert panel can do what it likes but we'll ignore it. We've got our own solution.' That brings me to their own solution. The minister alluded to this, that they have got one big promise—'We're going to stop the boats. We're going to turn back the boats.'—but I can tell you that this is a very, very dangerous high-risk policy. We had an un-named Navy officer quoted in the Australian on 23 January 2012 saying:

"They'll see us and they'll burn their boats," … "They'll do that to stop us repairing them."

Then we had Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, the head of the Navy, in Senate estimates—a serious forum—saying:

… there were incidents during these activities, as there have been incidents subsequently, which have been risky. There have been fires lit, there have been attempts to storm the engine compartment of these boats, there have been people jumping in the water and that sort of thing … yes, there are obviously risks involved in this process.

That is a terrible, terrible risk to take. You hear the Navy telling us that this is a dangerous option to pursue and yet Tony Abbott, what is his response? On Sky News on 21 April this year he said:

It's not easy and we've had various naval officers tell us that it is tough, and that people don't always like it.

I'm not saying that it's not difficult, under certain circumstances, it might even be dangerous …

So even the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that this option might be dangerous. And not just dangerous for asylum seekers, but it is also going to be dangerous for ADF personnel. That is who it is going to be dangerous for. And anybody who has been up and seen the important work that those people do would not put them in danger. And yet that is what the Leader of the Opposition, this armchair general sitting here in Canberra, is going to do. He is going to give them orders to turn back boats to a country that has made it clear—Indonesia has made it clear that it is not amenable to this policy.

So they have trashed every option. They have trashed Malaysia and they are in the process of trashing our relationship with Indonesia. It is a disgrace. We have an opposition that are so brazen. They think they have the election won and they are so brazen that they would come into this House and talk about national security, and in their ignorance display their idiocy—the member for Dawson, who is a fool, displays his ignorance—but the truth is that they use this issue as an incense burner for their vanity and for their lust for office. They will regret it in the long run because in their short-termism they have betrayed the national interest—not betrayed the government, but betrayed the Australian people.

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

I was just gathering my thoughts as I was listening to the member for Wakefield. I understand he is very emotional and he is upset because his party trashed the Howard government policies that worked, and that has had a significant impact on him because the Labor brand is trashed and it is going to impact on him in his seat come September.

This matter of public importance focuses on national security and the budget. We have heard members on both sides talk about the impacts on the budget and national security. I would like to take a bit of a different stance: I will talk about the budget implications, but I will also talk about my electorate that I proudly represent. I spoke on this issue a couple of weeks ago, and the boats just still keep coming. I guess that is why I thought it was really important that I speak again on this very important issue.

Managing Australia's borders is about balancing the need of those who flee their homes and embark on an often dangerous journey to travel here with the needs of the Australian community, and the detriment that this budget overkill has had on the Australian economy. I have said many times in this place that it is of great concern to me that people smugglers exploit the vulnerable, and I remind the House that the Gillard Labor government is implicit in this because it removed the border protection policies of the former Howard government that were proven to work. The Gillard Labor government has had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to fix the border protection chaos that this has created, but it has done nothing except continue to give the people smugglers a product to sell.

The Gillard Labor government's policies have left our hardworking border protection, Customs and Defence personnel overworked and understaffed. And we now know that ASIO personnel are also under pressure because there is a backlog of security checks that need to occur because of the spike in arrivals. Earlier today I asked the Prime Minister in question time:

I remind the Prime Minister of the admission yesterday from immigration officials that 63 asylum seekers have escaped from immigration detention in the last year and 25 are still on the run.

And I asked the Prime Minister could she:

… guarantee that all these people had undergone comprehensive ASIO security checks prior to the escape into the community

Well there is probably no surprise here, but there was no direct answer from the Prime Minister—the one who is responsible for laying out the carpet for the people smugglers, giving them a product to sell. But do you know what? The Australian people want answers, and they want this problem that Labor created fixed. They are sick of it.

We now know from Senate estimates that around 25,000 people are expected to arrive here on boats. The member for Wakefield said in his contribution that he wants the boats to stop; he does not want the boats here. We on this side also do not want—we want the boats to stop; we do not want people coming here illegally. As I said, we now expect 25,000 people to arrive here on boats this financial year, and we know already that there have been 148 boats carrying more than 10,000 people this year courtesy of the people smugglers and the Gillard Labor government.

People from my electorate ask me what is the cost, and that is a very good question—one that I think many Australians will be interested to know. The Gillard Labor government's failed border protection policies have cost taxpayers $10 billion, with $5 billion of that $10 billion being spent this year alone. I can only dream of what $10 billion could do in my electorate and my colleagues' electorates. It would just be amazing. Imagine having money to spend on improvements in health, education, community safety, housing and child care. I could do a lot with $10 billion, what about you guys?

Opposition members: Very much so, yes.

But instead this money is being spent on a policy that is clearly not working.

Last time I spoke on this issue a couple of weeks ago, I outlined the boats that are targeting the Top End waters. There have been some new arrivals. I think it is only appropriate to give the facts because we like to deal with facts in this place. About 30 minutes after my last speech, there was another boat that arrived in Top End waters. So I will just go through the list again.

On 1 January this year, HMAS Armidale intercepted a boat west of Darwin carrying 43 people. On 28 February, HMAS Launceston intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 33 people. On 20 March, HMAS Pirie intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 78 people. On 24 March, HMAS Pirie intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 41 people. On 27 March, HMAS Pirie again intercepted a boat, south-west of Darwin, carrying 147 people. On 3 April, HMAS Bundaberg intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 41 people. On 9 April, HMAS Ararat intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 73 people. On 17 April, HMAS Childers intercepted a boat west-south-west of Darwin carrying 78 people. On 21 April, HMAS Maryborough intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 67 people. On 23 April, ACV Ocean Protector intercepted a boat north-north-east of Darwin carrying 65 people. On 26 April, HMAS Maitland intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 75 people. On 3 May, HMAS Albany intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 160 people. On 4 May, ACV Botany Bay and MV OMS Endurance intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 105 people. On 13 May, HMAS Glenelg intercepted a boat at Cobourg Peninsula carrying 11 people. On 14 May, ACV Triton intercepted a boat west of Darwin carrying 42 people. And, on 17 May, HMAS Armidale intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 80 people. That is 16 boats targeting Darwin carrying almost 1,200 people.

On top of these boats, we have another 310 people being transferred to Darwin for processing since 14 May. On 14 May we had 49 people transferred. On 16 May we had two people transferred. On 19 May we had 76 people transferred. On 22 May, 85 people were transferred. On 23 May, 98 people were transferred.

Is it any wonder that Territorians are asking me questions about the cost of the Gillard Labor government's failed border protection policies? It is also the additional pressure that is put on my electorate with the service providers. It is already hard enough to get service providers in the Northern Territory, but having extra people has put pressure on my electorate. We all know very well that every dollar spent on border protection policies is money not being spent on or in our communities. The people of Darwin and Palmerston, in my electorate, are telling me that they are tired of the Gillard Labor government's failed border protection policy. They want it fixed and they want it fixed now.

Let me finish by saying that there is an alternative for the Australian people. We have a choice, and that choice is to vote for the coalition come 14 September because the coalition has a plan, an alternative, to mitigate the disastrous impact that the Gillard Labor government has had on border protection policy. We have stopped the boats before and we will stop them again. The coalition will restore what the Labor Party abandoned, and that was 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 protect our borders. We will prevent this problem by minimising the numbers coming from both initial countries of origin and first asylum countries. We will disrupt the business of people smuggling and intercept the boats when safe to do. (Time expired)

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

The discussion has concluded.