Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do apologise. The hypocrisy we have seen from the likes of Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Wright and Labor senators on this issue is absolutely extraordinary. I can see why Senator Wright would not want to get into the detail of this, because the detail does not back their argument. The detail does not back the Greens argument. It does not back the argument that comes from the left of the Labor Party, which seems to now be dominating them in opposition once more on this issue of border protection and illegal arrivals.

The Labor Party pretended at the end of its time—having completely messed up this policy with tragic consequences—that it had learnt its lesson. But in opposition unfortunately, as we see with this bill again today, the Labor Party is showing that it has not learnt a thing. It has shown that, if it is ever given the opportunity again to govern and to be responsible for the border protection of this nation, it will go back to the same old failed policies that the Greens advocate here openly and which the Labor Party has pretended is not part of their policy any more, but we are seeing it more and more.

I want to go to the difference in approach on this issue between the coalition government and the Labor-Greens view of the world, as put in place in government when they were there and as continued to be advocated by the opposition and by the Greens here today in an ongoing way. The difference is crystal clear. The Labor-Greens policy saw 50,000 illegal arrivals. We saw a flood of people coming to this country illegally and claiming refugee status. We saw at least 1,200 people drown in an effort to get to Australia, lured by the bad policies which were put in place by the Labor-Greens coalition—by the Labor Party in government, egged on by their Greens partners. That is their legacy. There were something like 2,000 children in detention under the Labor Party at one point, because they had been lured here. There were children and adults who got on those boats and did not make it here. That is the tragedy of these policy failures. We have seen a dramatic turnaround on all of those indicators—and I will go to each of them.

Anyone who really cares about this issue should acknowledge that the coalition's policies have actually seen a positive shift, because people are not drowning any more. We should be celebrating that fact. We should be celebrating the fact that we see fewer people in detention, fewer children in detention, now than when we came to office.

I heard Senator Macdonald's excellent contribution earlier where he talked about what the committee had been told in relation to the dramatic reduction in numbers that we had seen. And in fact the expectation is that those numbers will continue to reduce so that we will see, hopefully very soon, a situation where we do not any more have children in detention, just as we did at the end of the Howard government. That is the legacy when you get control of the borders. When you get this policy right, not only do you stop the drownings, not only do you regain control of the borders but you also see the ability for governments to effectively deal with these issues, and that is what the coalition is getting on with the job of dealing with.

I do find it extraordinary—we expect it from the Greens as they are quite extreme on this issue and we have come to expect it from parts of the Labor Party, though it is concerning—that a party of government, the opposition in this nation, still allows itself to go back to a policy direction which it acknowledges failed. Labor ministers saw that those policies were failing. They were failing Australia, they were failing our responsibilities, they were failing those who got on boats and did not make it here and they were failing those who waited in refugee camps overseas who could not be resettled because there were far too many people coming here and claiming asylum. So the policies failed across the board, and the Labor Party continues to advocate them.

I do find it extraordinary that we see protests. I have had protests at my office in recent times, and people are entitled to protest. Some of those protesters and some of those who were silent when people were drowning—and many of those people were silent when people were drowning—are now coming out and are very loud. As I said, we had had 50,000 arrivals but what has happened this year? I think there has been one successful people smuggling venture to this country this year compared to 50,000 arrivals over the term of the Labor government. Those people should be saying that is a good thing and some of them occasionally acknowledge that but many do not. The Greens Party certainly does not. I have not heard the Labor Party acknowledge it. But I would ask those protesters, as well-intentioned as some of them may be: why were they silent when people were drowning trying to get here because of bad policy? They were silent. Many of them were silent. They believe that those policies were reasonable, well, they were not and they failed.

Why was the Human Rights Commissioner silent? It was extraordinary, the evidence we heard recently, where the Human Rights Commissioner said that her concerns were there in late 2012. She had concerns about these issues in late 2012 but she chose not to launch an inquiry in 2012. She chose not to launch an inquiry while there was a Labor government all through 2013 and the boats continued to arrive, when numbers peaked at 2,000 children in detention. Apparently the Human Rights Commission was not concerned enough to inquire into that. Lo and behold there was a change of government to a coalition government. We stopped the boats, we started to significantly reduce the number of children in detention and that was when the Human Rights Commission thought it was a good time to start inquiring. Based on those facts, you would have to question the impartiality of such a body. It had got concerns from late 2012 and did nothing about it until after there was a change of government. That change of government actually significantly improved the situation that the Human Rights Commission was concerned about, but that was when it started to inquire. So Australians could be forgiven for thinking that many of these activists and the Human Rights Commission are not coming to this in an impartial way. They are actually found out to be quite partisan on this, and I think that is unfortunate.

So let's look at the record on these issues that we are told are of concern. All of us should be concerned about people getting on a leaky boat and not making it here. Thank God that no longer appears to be happening. It is a very rare thing. Thank God we have not seen drownings in recent times. We should all be pleased with that outcome. Surely that is something we can all agree on—that that is a good thing and that that is a significant improvement. Surely that has come about due to policy change because the message has gone out that that is not the path the residency. Getting on that leaky boat is no longer the path to residency in this country and that must be good thing.

We are reducing the numbers, we are getting through the legacy case load and this legislation goes to that legacy case load. It must be a good thing that we are seeing fewer and fewer children in detention. In fact there are far fewer children in detention now than when we came to office. The expectation is that with the right policy settings that will go down to zero as soon as possible, and that is what we should be striving for. I say to some of those critics including the Human Rights Commission, including some of those protesters: why not actually look at those facts and say we are heading in that direction? We are stopping the drownings, we are seeing fewer children in detention and we are getting order back into our immigration system—order that was sadly lacking for the past six years.

In taking significant measures, the coalition now has to deal with the legacy case load that was left to us by the Labor-Greens, Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. That is what we are doing and this legislation is about dealing with that. Labor and the Greens now, having created the problem, are again trying to sabotage the solution and are denying work rights to thousands of people—because people who are voting against this bill are denying work rights. So the Greens on the one hand say they want to see work rights but there is a policy in place from the Labor Party that denies people work rights. We are looking to reinstate them through this legislation and they are voting against it.

So what does that say about their commitment? What does that say about their commitment to these people? It says it all—that they would far prefer to pontificate and to oppose, and to go back to their failed policies, than actually help us deal with solutions that will improve the lot of many but that will maintain the integrity of our immigration system. If we do not maintain the integrity of our immigration system we can see the catastrophic results: we see the thousands of people drowning, we see children in detention and we see all of the things that we do not want to see.

That is what this bill does; it honours the coalition's commitment to restore the full suite of border protection and immigration measures to stop the boats. It reintroduces temporary protection visas; it introduces the safe haven enterprise visa—which is also a temporary visa; it reinforces the government's powers to undertake maritime turnbacks; and it introduces rapid processing and streamlined review arrangements.

The issue around turnbacks is an important one and it is worth reflecting on. Turnbacks have worked. Turnbacks have been an important part of the suite of policy measures that the coalition has put in place. Richard Marles knows this. Richard Marles acknowledged the turnbacks have worked.