George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7348:

(1) Clause 41, page 30 (line 5), omit "Australia", substitute "Australia (which may include repelling vessels from the contiguous zone, or prohibiting vessels from entering or further entering the contiguous zone, or towing vessels to another place whether inside or outside the contiguous zone)".

(2) Clause 41, page 30 (line 24), omit "chased without interruption", substitute "towed or chased without interruption".

(3) Clause 54, page 38 (line 8), omit "Note:", substitute "Note 1:".

(4) Clause 54, page 38 (after line 9), at the end of subsection (1) (after the note), add:

Note 2: A specified course or speed may include a direction to adopt or maintain a course that will take the vessel to a place outside Australia.

The parliamentary secretary, Senator Feeney, has already in a sense anticipated the debate on these amendments. Contrary to what Senator Feeney has said, the opposition is not satisfied that the powers gathered together and consolidated in this bill do make it sufficiently clear that the powers of masters of Australian vessels or those in control of Australian vessels, including naval vessels, do include the power to turn around and tow back other vessels, foreign vessels. For that reason, the effect of these amendments is to insert a provision into the act, in particular by amendment to proposed section 41 of the act, that makes it clear beyond doubt. The relevant words in the principal amendment which we move, amendment (1), are to make it clear that the powers to enforce laws of Australia in relation to foreign vessels include the power of repelling vessels from the contiguous zone, or prohibiting vessels from entering or further entering the contiguous zone, or towing vessels to another place whether inside or outside the contiguous zone.

It is essential, in the opposition's view, that the existence of this power be clarified in this bill. This is the bill that consolidates in a rational scheme which the opposition otherwise supports all of the maritime powers that have hitherto variously been located in a variety of different acts of parliament. What an appalling oversight it would be if, in effectively codifying those powers in a single act of parliament, that act of parliament omitted the biggest issue that is on the minds of the Australian public at the moment when it comes to the exercise of maritime powers, and that is the exercise of a maritime power to repel from unlawful entry into Australian waters foreign vessels and, in particular, vessels containing unlawful entrants or unlawful attempted entrants.

The parliamentary secretary said in his remarks—reading from a script no doubt written for him by officials—'To the extent that Australian law contains such powers, they are preserved by the bill.' The introductory or qualifying words of his contribution 'to the extent that' in a sense make the opposition's point, because it is by no means clear from this bill that that power exists as clearly as it should. We the opposition make no apologies for saying that the power to repel or turn around foreign vessels should exist and that the existence of that power should be made explicit in this codification of Australian maritime powers. It is as simple as that.

Might I remind honourable senators and those who may be listening to the broadcast this evening that, when Mr Kevin Rudd—remember Mr Kevin Rudd; of course, you do, Madam Temporary Chairman Stephens, because you are one of his supporters, and are you one of his supporters, Senator Feeney; I can never keep track of the Labor Party; they are like a merry-go-round—was elected as the democratically elected Prime Minister of Australia in 2007, during that election he said, emphatically, 'We will turn the boats around.' It was very controversial within the Labor Party but, nevertheless, Mr Kevin Rudd was elected on that promise in November 2007: we will turn the boats around. I have to concede that when Mr Kevin Rudd said that, Mr Howard, the then Prime Minister, could hardly say that Mr Rudd was not taking the issue seriously. But, unfortunately, within a year of the election of the Rudd government, by legislation introduced into this chamber, in August 2008, by the then Leader of the Government in the Senate and the then minister for immigration, Senator Chris Evans, the Howard government's tough border protection policies were repealed. And the rest, as they say, is history.

We went from a situation in which Australia's borders had been protected and our maritime borders had been made secure, since the Howard government's reforms of 2001, to a situation in which a green light was given to the people smugglers. I think people know that, the people of Western Sydney know that, the people of Western Australia know that and people in every region of Australia know that. I see my distinguished colleague Senator Michaelia Cash, a very distinguished Western Australian senator, nodding in agreement. She will no doubt speak in this debate from a Western Australian perspective.

But let me remind you of the facts. There was a problem of the borders getting out of control at the end of the 1990s. There is no doubt about that. In 1999, 86 unlawful asylum seeker boats made it to our shores and, in 2000, it was not a lot better—there were 51. Then in 2001 the government of Mr John Howard introduced tough policies. He introduced, in particular, temporary protection visas and a suite of policies which were designed to send a message loud and clear to the people smugglers: we are going to destroy your evil trade and we are going to put you out of business.

Do you know what happened? The policy worked because, in the year after it was introduced, in the calendar year 2002, not one asylum seeker vessel tried to enter Australian waters—not a single one. In 2003, one asylum seeker vessel tried to enter Australian waters; in 2004, there was not one; in 2005, there were four; in 2006, there were six; in 2007, there were five; and, in 2008, there were seven. In the course of those eight years there were 23 vessels, an average of about three a year, because the policy worked.

But out of an excess of zeal and moral vanity, Senator Chris Evans repealed those policies by legislation introduced into this chamber in August 2008. In the ensuing less than five years more than 500 vessels have made that perilous journey and, as you know, Madam Temporary Chairman, several of them have sunk. More than 1,000 lives have been lost and most of those lives have been of women and children.

I have said before in debates on this issue, bad policy always has a price. I do not for a moment doubt Senator Chris Evans's good intentions. I remember his profession of humanitarian sentiment when he stood at that table, in August 2008, and announced these changes. But the problem is that when a bad policy is so bad that it reignites a trade like people-smuggling, in which innocent women and children are taken across perilous waters and their lives are placed in peril and, as a result, more than 1,000 of them drown, it is not just an academic exercise; a dreadful, horrible, human price was paid for that catastrophic policy decision by this government. It is a decision that it has been trying, without admission or acknowledgement of its error, to walk away from ever since.

The Australian people know that there is one side of politics that gave the green light to the people smugglers in August 2008, regardless of all of their retrospective affectations and posturing of toughness—and that is this government, the government of Mr Kevin Rudd and Ms Julia Gillard. They also know that there is another side of Australian politics which gave the red light to the people smugglers which drove them out of business, and that was the side of politics that I represent—the government of John Howard, who, by introducing tough measures in 2001, stopped the people smugglers and saved lives. Who can say how many lives would have been lost in those years between 2001 and 2008 if we had not had the spine to introduce the measures to drive the people smugglers out of business? But we know how many lives have been lost, because in 2008 your government, Senator Feeney, did not have the spine to hold onto those tough measures: more than 1,000.

I feel sorry for Senator Chris Evans. I have served in this Senate for as long as I have been a senator with Senator Chris Evans. He is, in my view, undoubtedly a good and decent man. But he took responsibility for a catastrophic error and people died in their hundreds—in their thousands, possibly, certainly more than 1,000—as a result of that policy error. That is, I am sorry to say, something with which his name will always be associated and I feel sorry for him. But in these jobs we have to take the responsibility for the consequences of our decisions. If those consequences are as grievous as the consequences of that particularly egregious policy error then I am afraid that is the record that history has left.

We moved this amendment to ensure that in codifying maritime powers, the policy that worked under Howard—and will work again if the Australian people elect Mr Tony Abbott and his shadow ministers to government later this year—will be enabled to work again, to turn back the boats when it is safe to do so, to embrace temporary protection visas and to reopen Nauru. The government have already walked back on the issue of Nauru—we know that—in a terribly humiliating backdown, a backdown made more humiliating by the fact that the government did not have the grace to admit that it had made an error and was reversing an earlier policy decision to close down Nauru. But without introducing the whole suite of policies, including turning the boats around—the policy on which you were elected to office, Senator Feeney—and temporary protection visas then the people-smuggling business model will not be broken.

You said that this amendment was introduced to make a political point; not so, Senator Feeney. The amendment is introduced to make sure that it is as clear as can be in this bill that the power exists. But there is an important point to be made, and call it a political point if you will, but the reality is and the record shows, indisputably, that there was a will and a steel to break the people smugglers that was supported by effective policies when my side of politics was in office that will be restored if my side of the politics is elected to office which your side of politics entirely lacks.