Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today at a very sad time. All Australians are very focused on the lives that were lost at sea and the circumstances surrounding that. It is very right for us to focus on that in this place at this time. I have heard much about politics and policy, not only in this debate but in the media as well. It is quite clear that we need to take the opportunity to reiterate not history as you would like it to have sorted out but history as it actually happened.

In 2007, Labor took over government on the basis of a range of promises and undertakings made to the Australian people. They said that when they got into government they would change border control policy. They did that not for reasons of mischief but because they believed that the policy as it stood then was not compassionate and was too hard. They thought that it needed to be softened. They believed that their far more open policy would be more compassionate. That is a wonderful motivation. The reality is that if you change a policy you should be able to examine what happens as a result. The policy was changed and as a direct result of that policy change—nothing else—Australian became a target.

People flee their countries for a whole range of reasons. We are very lucky not to have many of those circumstances in Australia. But when you flee, invariably, particularly if you have access to a vessel, it becomes about where you go. The people who flee go to a particular place, almost as though they are hearing the legendary call of the sirens spoken of by ancient mariners. It is an irresistible call. The ships will steer towards the sound of that siren, Australia, because Australia gives them one thing that is not available to them anywhere else in the world, and that is security through permanent residency. That is the fundamental thing. Before that time, we as good Australians, had decided that we would provide people with protection until such time as they no longer required it, a very reasonable position. That was lifted and the government said, 'In three months, once you've had your security checks, we will give you permanent protection and residency.'

That is an irresistible sound to those in particular who traffic in human misery, because those individuals are able to say to their potential customers: 'Boy, have I got a deal for you. We can offer you a product that is offered nowhere else in the world. We will offer the answer to all your concerns.' The whole world understands that. But this is a luxury holiday destination, so only some can afford it. For $10,000—and that is the conventional figure much quoted across the media—for every person, you could afford access to this particular outcome.

There are many people who can afford that outcome; there have certainly been plenty since 2007. In the year Labor took office, four people had arrived on boats—not 400 and not 4,000, but four people. In the previous year, 2006—and we thought that was a pretty bad year—60 had arrived on boats, with 11 arriving the year before. Labor came to office in late 2007. In 2008, we had 161 arrivals on boats. In 2009, 2,726 people arrived. At that point, I reckon that you would man the pumps. At that point, you would reckon that something might be wrong with our policy; that might have been a bit of a signal. We have gone from 11 to 2,720. If that was not going to set fire to you what about 2010, when 6,555 asylum seekers arrived? At that point, maybe they should have started doing something about their policy; maybe they should have started to provide some leadership not only to this nation but to those people seeking a refugee outcome to ensure that they do not place their lives at risk by heeding the sirens' call.

Under the tried and true policies of the Howard government, in 2001 we had one person arrive by boat. In 2003, that went up to 53. In 2004, it was 15. In 2005, it was 11. There were 60 in 2006, as I said. These were numbers that this government can only dream of. These arrivals are hardly worth a mention in comparison with what we have now. We are only up to June, halfway through the year, and there have already been 4,428 boat arrivals. By now you would reckon that it would be panic stations. 'We must change this policy,' someone would be saying. But that would take leadership. I remember the bloke I always considered to be a great leader. He said:

We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.

For that he was pilloried as someone who was not particularly compassionate. But if you look at what he was saying, he was simply saying that the circumstances under which they come should be that they are those people who are the priorities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. And they were not those people who could afford to pay $10,000—$10,000 for each man, woman and child to get on a boat and come here.

The demographic with the most need at the moment is people who are living in camps like Kakuma in Kenya and whose lives are not particularly long. One could say, 'The individuals there change,' and 'The list is a bit mumbled.' But those are the people most in need, and the circumstances are such that they are the ones who need the most help. But it is about us deciding who comes here and the circumstances in which they come, and that was about leadership—the sort of leadership this country currently does not have, and that is very sad.

I can recall several months when ago Andrew Bolt wrote:

How many more boat people must die before the Left judge a 'compassionate' policy by its consequences, rather than intention?

He was much maligned because of that reality. The reality is that it is the policies here. I do not suggest any mischief from those on the other side. It is the policies that are the sirens' call to the refugees and to those people who deal in human misery. That call has to stop. We have to change that call. We have to go back to doing the sensible things. At the moment there is the suggestion that Malaysia is somehow a solution. We had 48 people die tragically on the shores of Christmas Island and we have just lost another 90, yet the boats will keep coming. They think they have lost only two boats out of hundreds. But before 2007 every boat was turned back. There was no chance of getting there, so you did not leave. You did not have the rolled-gold-plated permanent residency outcome that those trafficking in human misery were selling in their brochures. That was not available. These are principal issues. Offshore processing is a fundamental part of that mix—the reintroduction of turning back the boats, reintroducing temporary protection visas and processing offshore the refugees who come here in boats.

In closing, the notion that somehow we should think about Malaysia as an answer is, as I have indicated, a folly in any practical sense. The High Court actually found that we have no way of enforcing any side agreement that we need in order to make sure that the asylum seekers would be subject to all the human rights that have been laid down. There is absolutely no chance of doing that at all. So there is only one step forward from this point: those on the other side, with the assistance of the Greens, must acknowledge that if there is not a change then the same things will keep happening. This government owes it to those people in the world who are seeking a refugee outcome—and there are 14 million of them—to ensure that the sirens' call of a guaranteed outcome in terms of residency and the other things that are a part of Australian life is stopped. They need to adopt our policies: turn back the boats, reintroduce temporary protection visas and reintroduce offshore processing in Nauru. (Time expired)