Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, that really was a most remarkable contribution by Senator Cash. I will summarise very briefly her contribution. She referred to the 'greatest policy failure of the current government', 'another boat arrived yesterday' and 'what will be the cost to taxpayers?' She referred to budget measures, a blow-out of portfolio costs to the tune of $1 billion and referred to it as 'Monopoly money' et cetera. Not once did she choose to address the motion before the chair—that is, 'The failure of the current government to maintain effective and humane border protection policies in order to deny people smugglers the product that they sell.' Let us think about that motion, because I do want to address it.

We currently face a terrible set of events. One really should start at the outset by indicating sympathy for those people who drowned yesterday to their parents and to their loved ones. It was a terrible set of events that we faced yesterday morning. It was terrible on two levels. Firstly, there were the deaths of the six young people in Indonesian waters—and I am advised there are another 20 people still missing. But, perhaps more terrible, when we pass the instant events of yesterday, is the continuing set of events year in, year out, which inevitably, as sure as God made little apples, will lead to further death and harm in this debate. For almost 10 years, without interruption, people have been drowning at sea as they seek entry into Australia. So one may squarely ask the question: why has that continued for up to 10 years? Surely it is not beyond the wit of human kind that after one, two or three years one could devise a solution that is acceptable and put it into practice.

We know in this country that we have had longstanding bipartisan immigration policy relating to entry into this country since the immediate post-war years—arguably the best in the world: low-cost, flexible, variable, changing according to the needs of those who want to come into this country and those who seek additional labour. So, family reunion might change to a higher concentration, for example, on skilled migration or labour market demands in Queensland and Western Australia. But every three, four or five years, in between governments and through governments, immigration policy in this area changes according to the needs of people and markets. So, we have had for many years an orderly, effective and lawful immigration policy.

In that context, why do people choose to put themselves at risk? As we saw from the events of yesterday and last Christmas, many people drown at sea. The answer, I suggest, is simple, plain and clear. On this issue, advice to government from those who have authority and experience over many, many years in this discussion and this debate, is very direct. That advice to government is: 'We need a genuinely effective deterrent to prevent asylum seekers taking the dangerous boat journey to Australia.' There are three key words in that phrase: 'genuine', 'effective' and 'deterrent'. 'Genuine' means controlled, managed and lawful; 'effective' means a policy that works and that is understood in this country and the wider region; and 'deterrent' means preventing people taking the risk of drowning. That is what we have needed for 10 years, that is what we needed yesterday and that is what we need now. But we do not have such a policy, so people jump on boats, like last Christmas, at the peak of the season, and they jumped on boats yesterday, as the season is about to peak this year, and the boat overturned. Twenty are missing and six are dead—one a child—yet we do not have a policy after 10 years.

This government has tried for the last three years to get a policy. Why don't we have one? Because the opposition, those people over there in this place, refuse to respect the will of the elected government and let the government of the day, whoever the government of the day is, give authority to executive decisions of that government. They work to prevent the government of the day, the executive of the day, giving effect to its lawful policy, to implement its policy, through the House of Representatives. They refuse to allow the government to implement the Malaysian transfer system.

Now, why do they choose to do that? Why do they say, 'It's better that boats fall apart at sea; that 20 people are missing; that six people drown; that one child will never see adulthood'? Why is that a better position that the mob over there choose to adopt and implement? The reasons are base political reasons. For reasons best known to themselves, they combined with the Greens down there and the net result is what? The net result is this: people die, because people are seeking entry into this country so they can have a better life. So this opposition flouts long-standing convention in a very difficult and very delicate area of public policy for its own base purpose. The results of that continuing practice in the house are twofold: the convention is flouted for political gain and people—children, women—die unnecessarily.

This could be fixed tomorrow. It requires a degree of humility, it requires a degree of modesty, it requires a degree of common sense and it requires the same application to bipartisan policy on entry into Australia that both political parties have applied for many years since the post-war years. The answer is this: that the government of the day, through the executive of the day, is permitted in the House of Representatives to get its will carried out through necessary amendments to legislation. What happens there? It requires a simple decision—as has been outlined repeatedly—to be made by the Leader of the Opposition to have a private discussion with the Prime Minister and say: 'The opposition may not agree with your approach. It may do different things should it come to government sometime in the future. It thinks the approach is incorrect and it might not work. But you are the government and we will consent to you governing. We will support your amendments in the House, as have successive leaders of the Labor Party for many, many years in opposition.'

When the coalition government of the day sought to amend acts of parliament to give effect to policy change in the area of lawful immigration, asylum seekers or illegal immigration, the then Leader of the Opposition—whether it was Mr Beazley, Mr Crean or whoever—gave the support of his party in those delicate negotiations. The current Leader of the Opposition, instead of making ongoing, cheap points in the other place, must show maturity when he approaches the government and let it make decisions. If Mr Abbott does not like it, he has the right to put in a caveat that if he should come to power and have the necessary support of the House of Representatives then he would seek, through customary mechanisms, to change the position and implement the policy or the laws that he as leader of the government thinks is appropriate at that time. I am sure I can say without fear of contradiction that if we were in opposition we would so indicate support for such a decision by them. But that is not the case.

So let us address the final point that Senator Cash raised about Nauru. She said that notwithstanding the issues about budgets, blowouts and costs, we should go back to the solution of the Howard government, eat a bit of humble pie and implement what worked then, some four, five or six years ago. That is okay, but you really do have to come into the real world—2011—and face the current set of facts that apply about Nauru. Nauru does not break the people-smuggling trade, as Senator Cash and the opposition well know. It does not provide the disincentive to stop people taking that dangerous boat journey down to Australia. Go back to the advice that the government had—that it needed to have a genuine, effective and humane policy. It needed one policy that acted as a deterrent, and we know for a fact— (Time expired)