Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Oh, it is his responsibility now, is it? Duck-shoving it—which he has always done. In fact, he has been stripped of all his authority. The Oceanic Viking picked up another boat yesterday with 48 people aboard. They must have been thrilled to have been picked up by the Oceanic Viking. Here we go again, I suspect. Of all the boats you could be picked up by, that is the lucky draw. If the minister had stayed in the chamber and I had read to him Mr O’Connor’s press release, which has just come out—I was fortunate enough to pick it up—I bet you he would not have known. I bet you he would not have known there has been another boat arrival. What are we up to—over 120; maybe 123 or 124 since the law’s change? You can map it from August 2008. From the point that the laws were softened the boats started to arrive—the product started to look attractive. People smugglers were back in business, and the tragedy is the human cargo.

Whatever morality you want to put up on that side , people’s lives are being lost. Whatever morality you saw in those laws to soften them, whatever group you sought to pander to, they have failed. Admit that; change it. Change it because, as I said, this is not pink batt backflips, this is not ETS backflips, this is not Julia Gillard’s wicked waste. This is dealing with people’s lives. There is a moral dimension to this portfolio and that drongo you have in charge of all of this has led you to this point. It is more than just a political matter. He is not only doing you untold political damage. He is not only weakening our border security which is a fundamental responsibility of any government—put politics aside; it is fundamental—but also risking the lives of every person who jumps on those boats when he can make it better.

We reduced the boats to zero—to three. You cannot stop them forever. You will get the boats coming through but not 124 boats. You will get three. Reduce it. Have some compassion. Look at that sort of morality. That is where we are coming from on this side of the debate. We are doing no more than that, as we did in government. We sought to fulfil the fundamental responsibility of a government: border security. We took up the moral dimension of it, as hard as it was. We sought not to pander to a certain group—and we know who they are—from the left.

I appeal to the minister to get control back from his portfolio. Take charge. Admit or do not admit the error—it really does not matter which—but just make the changes. I appeal to the two senators in the Labor government who have bothered to turn up to this fundamental issue. It is actually a debate in which we are supporting the legislation of the government and they still do not have the courage to come in to talk even on the bill. There might be something you could boast about in this bill but you still do not have the courage to come in.

I heard it reported the other day that at pre-budget drinks at the Lodge some of the caucus had the courage to front the Prime Minister and ask him a few hard questions. I have no doubt. I would hope a lot of it dealt with border security—the political effect it was having, the moral effect it was having. We know five Sri Lankans have tragically gone missing in the last week, because they were induced to come to Australia. They locked themselves into the hands of the people smugglers. Today where are those who approached the Prime Minister and asked him some hard questions at the Lodge? It was all a bit of Dutch courage by the sounds of it. They probably woke up and sobered up because they do not have the courage today to take the Prime Minister on, to take their own government on on this deep issue. This cuts deep.

In fact, the senator on the front bench knows it only too well. If she wants to interject and say she does not, that I am misrepresenting her, she can. But I know only too well this is one she should walk into her caucus for—not down at the Lodge where you have a few drinks in you. Go into your own caucus party room and raise this issue about the softness of the laws. Have they got the courage? Well, they do not have the courage to stand up in the parliament they were elected to and speak on the issue. How would they have it in caucus? I would hope they would and you should. We have done it. The coalition party room has no fear or favour in it, and you saw that recently on the issue of the Emissions Trading Scheme. What an eruption within a party room that was. You will not see the likes of it ever again—at least I hope not. I had not seen it prior to that and I lived through opposition once before.

We believe in some things over here. We do have courage from time to time. We do allow dissent. You do not like it when it gets out and you do not like it when it is close to an election, but I keep saying this issue is an exception and you ought to treat it as an exception. You ought to start saying, ‘We have to get tough.’ This is not enough. This bill is too little too late. It makes technical changes to the penalties if someone is caught people smuggling. Trying to get them to and through the courts in Australia is very difficult but a worthy aim. But most of them, as we know, are operating over in Indonesia. We need Indonesian laws. They are many years away.

You have given ASIO extra powers. That is good, but they were operating anyway, if the truth be known. But it has clarified their powers. They know they can go straight to the source of people smuggling and not via some sort of border security issue. That is a good thing. You have broadened telecommunications interception powers to define a serious offence that entitles telecommunications interception to include people smugglers. Those are all very good and we support them, but there is a bigger and more important issue here. Those changes do not go to the heart of the problem. You know what the heart of the problem is. It is staring you in the face and, because you have all allowed yourselves for three years to be cowed by a Prime Minister, his department and his kitchen cabinet, you are not willing to stand by the oath of your office just once in three years on this critical human issue, this moral issue. It is not a financial issue. Politics plays second to it, quite frankly. It is a moral issue.

Senator Hutchison has walked in. He has just got himself another six years in parliament after the New South Wales pre-selection deals which are done before the real pre-selection.