Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I rise too today to contribute on general business notice of motion No. 485, in relation to border security. The bad news for Australians is this: despite the comments of the previous speaker, Senator Thistlethwaite, in which he continually referred to the Gillard government's border security 'policy', unless the Prime Minister is currently doing a press conference the Australian Labor Party do not have a border security policy. Had you worked that one out yet? Do you remember that this morning you had an urgent cabinet meeting because you are in such disarray when it comes to protecting Australia's borders? Do you recall that you have all just been at a 4.15 pm caucus meeting to discuss what you are actually going to do by way of a policy? The Australian Labor Party, the current government, are in a situation that no other government in the history of Australia has ever been in: they do not have a policy in relation to the protection of Australian borders. Not only was their latest policy solution, the Malaysia solution, thrown out by the other place when a vote was taken on it, and not only has the High Court had a look at their latest policy solution, the Malaysia solution, and thrown it out; they actually cannot bring the legislation into the parliament. Do you know why they cannot bring the legislation into the parliament? Because they do not have the support for it.

A number of members of the left wing of the Labor Party last night were probably celebrating and drinking their chardonnay, which they like so dearly—if they were not bathing in it; whether they were drinking in it or bathing in it I am not quite sure—when the Prime Minister had to go to them and say, 'I can't bring the legislation on tomorrow, because the government will actually fail; we do not have the numbers.' The reason that they do not have the numbers is that, without a doubt, the so-called Malaysia solution is one of the most disgraceful policies that has ever been brought before this place. For the left of the Labor Party to have even been entertaining the idea that they would sit on that side of the parliament and vote for the Malaysia solution just shows that they are prepared to compromise every principle that they have ever held dear.

Since the inception of the Commonwealth in 1901, the first and foremost responsibility of a Commonwealth government has been the protection of Australia's borders, to ensure the security of its nation and its people. This is a fundamental responsibility of the nation's Commonwealth government, and it is a fundamental responsibility which every government other than the former Rudd government and the current Gillard government has taken seriously. A government, when it is elected, has some very clear choices to make. One of those choices is whether or not it will discharge its fundamental responsibility of protecting Australia's borders and ensuring the security of the nation of Australia. If a government is serious about discharging its fundamental responsibilities, it will take policy steps to ensure that this important portfolio area is not compromised. If you look at the track record of the former Rudd Labor government and the current Gillard Labor government, you will see that both governments have failed dismally when it comes to their first responsibility to the people of Australia. We now have a situation whereby the Australian Labor Party are confronting an institutional failure in their border protection policies. Why? Because when they were elected to office in 2007 they deliberately chose to commence a wind back of the proven border protection policies of the former Howard governments.

When the Labor Party were elected to office they inherited a solution. Let's not start talking about the $22 billion in the bank that they inherited. Let's not start talking about the billions of dollars in future funds that they inherited. Let us talk about the fact that in relation to border protection they inherited a solution. Under the former Howard government, we stopped the boats coming to Australia. As the former Speaker said his own government wanted to do, we broke the people-smugglers model. We instituted strong and effective policies. We stopped the boats.

When those on the other side were elected to office in November 2007 they inherited a solution. What did they decide to do with that solution? A little like the $22 billion surplus, a little like the future funds that we actually shed blood over to create whilst paying off Labor debt, which was in excess of $96 billion, they decided: 'We were given a solution, but we are smarter. All the coalition did was stop the boats. All the coalition did was break the people-smugglers model. We are so smart and we will do it one better.' I do not know what that one better was meant to be. What did the other side do?

In 2008, the Labor Party took steps to wind back our strong border protection policies. I would say that that is possibly one of the most stupid acts ever undertaken by a government in Australia. Why do I say that? The statistics prove that that is exactly what that act by the Labor Party was. The Labor government abolished the Howard government's strong, proven and effective border protection policies—and that was only in August 2008, not that long ago in the scheme of things—and over 12,000 people have jumped on boats and attempted the treacherous journey to Australia. Two hundred and forty-one boats have arrived in Australian waters. That is a successful policy if ever I heard of one, especially when their stated objective is to stop the boats! Twelve thousand people on 241 boats, and what is worse is that the Labor government have only been able to remove three per cent of those 12,000 people because they have failed, yet again, to negotiate return agreements with other countries.

In Senator Thistlethwaite's contribution to this debate, he raised a number of issues in relation to Nauru. He said that Nauru was not a valid option for three reasons. He said it was not effective. That is just plain wrong because, again, in 2007 zero people came to Australia and, unless my recollection is incorrect, we had offshore processing on, lo and behold, Nauru. The argument put forward by Senator Thistlethwaite that Nauru was not effective is just plain wrong. He also said that Nauru was more expensive than the Labor government's policy. He quoted a figure of $1 billion. Senator Thistlethwaite, $1 billion to reopen Nauru and keep it running is far less expensive than the $1 billion of taxpayers' money that the Labor Party are wasting every year in cost blow-outs in the area of immigration policy. The current Labor government have had more than $3 billion of taxpayer's money in that area and they have thrown it up against a wall, because they could not leave the border protection laws in Australia alone.

The third point that Senator Thistlethwaite made was that we could not do it because the High Court said that Nauru was wrong. Yet again that is just plain wrong. That is not what the High Court said. The High Court made it quite clear, and the coalition received legal advice from the former Solicitor-General that Nauru was not impacted by the High Court's decisions for some very salient reasons. One of those reasons was that the asylum seekers on Nauru were overseen by Australians. We were able to ensure that the human rights of those people sent to Nauru were actually upheld because Australians were working on Nauru. That is very, very different to the current arrangement, which is no longer an arrangement as of this morning because there is no Malaysia solution. But the government of Australia did manage to negotiate an agreement with Malaysia—a rather strange agreement because we send them up to 800 and we get 4,000 back. It is an agreement with a country that is not a signatory to the UNHCR treaty and clause 16 of the transfer arrangement negotiated between the parties specifically states that the agreement is not legally binding. Clause 16 states that this agreement represents merely the political aspirations of the party. How absolutely fantastic! The last time I checked, if something was not 'legally binding' it meant that neither party was able to enforce its obligations under the agreement. But the Labor Party, the champion of those in need, does not seem to care about that. It does not seem to care at all.

What is worse, though, in relation to the Malaysia solution, which we really should not be calling a solution, based on what is currently occurring down in the caucus room—Senator Mason, do you have an update for me? Does the Labor Party have a border protection policy? Has there been an announcement?

Senator Mason interjecting—

Okay, there has not been an announcement so we are still in the situation where there is no border protection policy in Australia. But what is worse is that over 1,200 people have arrived in Australia since the Malaysia solution was announced. Remember, the deal was good for only 800 people. What did the Labor Party do? They slightly reworded what they were going to do and said, 'No, no, it was not since the agreement was announced; it was since the parties signed the agreement'. So, 1,200 people have arrived since the solution that is neither a solution nor a policy was announced. The solution was only good for up to 800 people since it was signed, and guess what? Guess how many people have now arrived in Australia since the two parties signed the agreement? That would be just shy of 800—730. One more boat, which may have left Indonesia and be arriving shortly, and guess what? The Malaysia solution is all over before it has even begun.

The government can stand up and say, if and when it manages to get this legislation through, 'By the way, 800 people who arrive here all know—' But guess what? They have already arrived. Do you know who I feel good for? That is lucky No. 801. Do you know who I feel really bad for? No. 800. Can you only imagine? 'No. 800, you are off to Malaysia, but you, No. 801, have won the Labor Party border protection jackpot. You get to stay in Australia.' That is absolutely farcical and does not in any way represent responsible border protection policy in Australia.

It is not just those on this side of the chamber who have consistently criticised the stance that the Labor Party has taken on the Malaysia solution. Only yesterday in the chamber I had to remind those on the other side who were not from Victoria that the Victorian branch of the ALP had voted unanimously—yes, unanimously—to urge the Labor caucus to reject the so-called Malaysia solution. The last time I checked, none of us were in the Victorian branch of the ALP so that must mean the Victorian branch of the ALP does not support the current federal government's policies. But it went further than that. What did Michele O'Neil, the National Secretary of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, have to say about the government's Malaysia solution? A big supporter of the Labor Party is dear Ms O'Neil, and she had this to say:

This is a shameful moment for us as a party.

Again, that was not anybody on this side of the chamber saying that—that was a staunch Labor Party supporter.

Let us not forget the emotional pleas made both publicly and behind closed doors in caucus by Labor elder statesman Senator John Faulkner. He is someone you might say those in the Labor Party should be minded to listen to. It did not stop there. You had Left faction convenor, Senator Doug Cameron. Maybe he was one of those who was celebrating last night that Mr Crook was not going to support the government's Malaysia solution. And it did not stop there. We all know Senator Gavin Marshall is passionately against the Labor government's Malaysia solution. They all came out against the current government's policy.

Again, they are not on this side of the chamber—they are not us. I am quoting directly from members of the ALP, the Victorian ALP and a member of a union. All of them are opposed to the position that the government has taken on Malaysia. But it does not stop there. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee had an inquiry into the Malaysia solution. If you go online and read the submissions to the inquiry, all of them oppose the government's Malaysia solution. Then we have the Monash University research, which shows that only 7.3 per cent of Australians think that the government is doing an okay job when it comes to border security.