David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today.

For the second day in a row, we have seen a level of disinterest by the government in probably one of our most important public policy areas—that is, border protection. This government is clearly disinterested and, may I say, soft on border protection. Yesterday we saw the minister calling for a report, some four days after the vessel was sighted and apprehended last Thursday. Today, the minister representing the minister for customs disclosed absolutely no knowledge or understanding of or ability to come to terms with any of the issues associated with border protection, given that we are saying to the Navy, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, you can have two months off over Christmas.’

Since August, there have been seven incidents. On 7 October, a group of people was arrested and taken into detention at an oil and gas platform. This is highlighting a massive shortfall and a lack of capacity and capability—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the chamber.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To have vital strategic assets like oil and gas platforms that form a strong basis to our economy approached by illegal immigrants in vessels, willy-nilly, uncontrolled and undetected, is in fact a scandal. It is a scandal. What did the Prime Minister say in question time yesterday? He denied that there is any issue, notwithstanding seven incidents since August. I wonder, seriously, whether he was consulted about sending the Navy on Christmas holidays. I really do wonder whether he was part of that.

It is not just the fact that we know it is a problem for national security and border protection. Mr Steve Cook, the Chief of Mission of the International Organisation for Migration in Indonesia, is reported as saying that people smugglers are responding to the change in Australia’s immigration policy over the past 12 months with a significant increase in activity. As I said yesterday, our changing disposition to illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and whatever is to simply say: ‘Come on down. You can be released into the community.’ Mr Paulus Purwoko, deputy chief of criminal investigations in the Indonesian National Police, has confirmed their growing concern about people smugglers, who are paid over A$18,000 for each passage. It is big money, and it is the wrong message coming from this government.

Again—and I want to underline this—the government and its ministers in this place have disclosed, firstly, no understanding and, secondly, more concerning, no interest in this issue. The West Australian yesterday ran a picture of the boat. It is a 40-foot boat, off Shark Bay, standing three metres above the waterline. We have a massive amount of radar, aerial surveillance and patrol boat facilities, and yet it was undetected. I would have thought that these ministers would have been concerned about that. I would have thought that they would have been asking questions and would be prepared to answer questions in this place yesterday and today as to what has happened in order for this boat to get through, and yet all we get is, ‘I’m calling for a report,’ and no answer as to which boats will be deployed.

There was a very interesting contradiction between Senator Wong and Senator Faulkner. Senator Faulkner admitted that seven of the Armidale class patrol boats would be stood down during the period 1 December to 31 January, but Senator Wong today said that operational intensity will be maintained. So half the boats are going to go twice as far in the same time? I think not. Again, there is no understanding. They are coming into this place unprepared to answer important questions, when a boat full of people comes into Australia at a latitude equal to that of Brisbane. I must say, if it had been Brisbane, if it had been the eastern seaboard, I am sure they would have been much more concerned. The editorial in the West Australian says it all:

The embarrassing incident has put the spotlight on border protection amid accusations that the Rudd government’s changes to immigration rules announced in July have sent an open invitation to people smugglers.

(Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on the opposite benches must be desperate—desperate to try and gain some credibility, desperate because they do not have policies of their own. They sit there making groundless criticisms of the government’s policies, but behind those smug looks are ingrained the words ‘If only. If only we had done the right thing. If only we had done the right thing on climate change, the right thing on ratifying the Kyoto protocol—if only.’ But what did they do? They shied away, they denied, they put their heads in the sand. If only they had done the right thing on skilled migrants and the 457 visas, on immigration laws, on the ‘children overboard’ saga. If only they had done the right thing on education—primary, secondary and university. If only they had not blundered their way through 18 failed broadband plans. If only they had not stripped away the rights and conditions of Australian workers. Once again, we get back to the important issues of the Kyoto protocol, climate change, workers and Australian families. If only they had acknowledged the pain the past holds for our Indigenous people and apologised for the past injustices. If only they had given more—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wortley, I am listening very carefully. We do allow wide-ranging subject matter in taking note of answers, but the motion was to take note of answers given by Senator Wong today, and I would suggest that you try and relate your remarks to that issue.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. My remarks are related to that issue in relation to the ‘if onlys’ of the former government. If only they had given more thought to dealing with the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin instead of making that ham-fisted attempt to grab control last year.

The Liberals have shown no leadership on climate change and are not seeking a long-term response to this issue. They look only for short-term political advantages. For 12 years in government, they opposed an emissions trading scheme. On the eve of the last election, they supported an emissions trading scheme. The environment is not on their agenda. Their questions to the minister are questions thought up just for political advantage on the day. They opposed emissions trading. They supported it again. In many areas it has been a case of a new day, a new policy—and on some days, on some matters, no policies at all.

Over the past five or six years we have experienced inflows into the Murray that are worse than the CSIRO’s worst-case scenario for 2050. Just as they did for 12 years in government, the opposition would rather play irresponsible short-term political games than prepare Australia for the tough challenges of the future. We need to act now. Minister Wong provided those answers today. The minister has been working very hard in addressing the issues that were neglected for so long by those opposite when in government—the issue of water, the issue of the Murray-Darling Basin, the issue of the environment. I see the senators across there shaking their heads. They are shaking their heads.

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

Relevance!

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is relevant to what the minister responded on today, but that was not what you wanted responses on. You want responses on other issues. Water is a crucial issue to the Australian people and it is something that today we have heard the minister provide adequate responses on—and she will continue to do so in the future. We will not waste time like you did in government. We will act on this issue and we will deliver to the Australian people, which is more than those opposite can say they have done in the past 12 years. That is the reality. They are sitting there with all of their ‘if onlys’, and today the minister has provided the answers to the questions, as she has been providing to those questions over the last number of weeks. But, no, they sit there shaking their heads continually, just sit there shaking their heads on the entire issue of water, on the issue of—(Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to take note of the answer from Senator Wong pertaining to the decision by the Rudd government to close the Australian National Academy of Music. I want to say at the start that this is a shameful decision. It is an unjustified decision. Ever since the minister made it, he has been hiding in his office and failing to justify to anybody why he made the decision. What is even more disgraceful is that he implied for a long time that it was because the internal reviews of the academy had in some way suggested or recommended that it should be closed, when in fact both internal reviews said the academy should be better funded than it is now and should be expanded, not be closed.

Since the minister announced this, nothing satisfactory has been done. There has been no real consultation with the academy—nor was there any before the decision to close. Minister Garrett did not ever set foot in the place, he did not visit it once, before he made his decision to close it, and now it is to be closed down in favour of what will be an inferior institution. The University of Melbourne will supposedly be taking this over if it is allowed to close. As I said, we heard the minister say today that there will be a revitalised program. Well, nobody has said that the existing program is not excellent. In fact, they have had expressions of support from symphony orchestras from one end of the planet to the other and, here in Australia, from the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra and so on.

I was privileged to be at a concert there last Friday night, where those students played for their lives. They played for their teachers, they played for the love of music and they played for the future of the academy. You had to be sitting there in that audience to know that all that talk about problems in the academy that required it to be closed down was simply false. You would not get students playing in the way that they did, for the love of it, if those allegations were true.

I have to say it had all the hallmarks of Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt. People will remember they had been there that night and will feel incredibly privileged to have been part of a concert where Richard Tognetti, one of Australia’s most incisive and impassioned violinists and conductors, conducted Beethoven’s fifth. For me, it will be the definitive Beethoven’s fifth because I will always see the faces of those young people, knowing full well that Minister Garrett and Prime Minister Rudd shut down their institution and took away the careers and opportunities they had planned for next year, with no replacement. There is no transitional arrangement in place that is appropriate for the level of skills. How can you close down an institution, not provide the transitional arrangements in the time frame and then try to pretend that you are encouraging some sort of excellence?

Let me deal with some of the things the minister said. Firstly, she said they wanted better geographical representation at the school. Number 1: this school is a school of excellence. You audition to get into it. Excellence is not determined by where you live; it is how well you perform. If 53 per cent of the students there come from Victoria, so be it. It is not where they come from; it is how well they play. It worries me that, if this is how their new institution is going to operate, based on geographical quotas, it will not have musical excellence. Secondly, when I pointed out that not one single person on the new board is an internationally acclaimed musician, the minister cited people from various conservatoriums around the world. She actually talked about one institution that does not exist—she cited someone from a school in London that does not exist. They are administrators; they are not musicians. We need the care and teaching of these students to be by internationally acclaimed musicians.

What we want in this parliament is to see this academy stay open for the next 12 months. It is disgraceful to leave these students with nowhere to go in the new academic year, with no appropriate transitional arrangements in place. It must stay open for 12 months. We must be able to negotiate its future and the excellence that it offers Australia’s young musicians. If Minister Garrett and the Prime Minister close this down then the education revolution is bereft because it is one of cultural philistinism. That is all you could say about it, because this is an utter and absolute disgrace. I look forward to seeing what the Prime Minister does.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Wong today relating to border protection. We on this side wondered when the fear factor card was going to be played—it has only been one year and those opposite have already played it. A fear factor card was played today, as it was played yesterday, particularly by Senator Johnston. The opposition is trying to suggest that there is a surge in people smuggling and again Senator Johnston tried to claim there had been a surge, stating some figures.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re safe In Tasmania, aren’t you? It’s not an issue in Tasmania, is it?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I can understand how Senator Cormann may be a bit hot under the collar. He has already showed his hand and played the fear factor card, but the Australian public will not fall for it.

As I was saying, the Prime Minister said yesterday, when asked similar questions, that in 2007 five boats with 148 passengers arrived and in 2008 there were four boats, with 48 passengers. Senator Wong said today ‘there is no gap’ in border security. The Australian government is committed to keeping our borders safe, despite the needless and shameless scaremongering tactics by those opposite to suggest otherwise. The Rudd Labor government has enhanced and continues to enhance our border security measures. The government understands that such measures are not only necessary to keep our borders safe but also necessary, and in fact the responsible thing to do, to deter the illegal activity of people smugglers, whose actions put countless lives at risk each and every day. As the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, and Senator Wong have already pointed out, contrary to the scaremongering by those opposite, there has been no relaxation of our border security measures.

If those opposite bothered to do their homework and were to actually take a considered interest in this area, they would know that the Rudd government has retained many of the previous government’s border security measures, which remain firmly in place. In fact, we have also taken a range of measures to increase our capacity to build stronger border security. Amongst other things, we have maintained the patrolling of our northern waters by the Navy, Customs and other agencies, maintained the policy of excision of offshore islands and maintained a system where the mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals is in place and unauthorised arrivals are processed on Christmas Island. Having said that, I note the government has also stuck to its election commitments in this area and has brought to an end the Pacific solution and temporary protection visas. These were two measures that were allowed to operate under the previous government. They were highly controversial, questionable and regarded internationally as being a stain on this country’s reputation. The abolition of such measures represents a commitment by this government to pursue in this country a tough but fair approach to border protection, an approach that is reasonable and necessary and in no way reflects a relaxation of the government’s stance on border protection.

Interestingly, those opposite have not previously opposed these changes and they have not promised to reintroduce them if re-elected—hardly likely. They seem to have so many policy positions that it is hard to figure out just where they stand on important issues such as border protection. Where do they stand now? If those opposite cannot even decide where they stand on important issues such as this, how can they be trusted to protect our nation’s borders? Indeed, Senator Johnston’s contribution proves that for those opposite it is nothing more than being all about scaremongering. I will quote Senator Johnston’s contribution, which goes to prove that it is all about scaremongering and it is all about playing the fear-factor card. (Time expired)

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

It is funny when we come into this place and listen to those on the other side trying to rewrite history. But this is one time when they are simply not going to get away with that because the Australian people are on to them. Take the matter of border control. It is amazing that we have a Prime Minister who clearly thinks denial is a place in Northern Africa. Well, denial is in his mind if he thinks we do not have a border security problem. We have had 108 people attempting to breach our borders over the last four months. If that is not something happening to our border protection, then I do not know what is.

Labor have been winding back our border security from the very first day that they have been in government. They started off on 29 November 2007, when they shelved their election promise, which was pretty pathetic in any event: ‘What we’re going to do is have this new coastguard, so we get the existing vessels and we get some paint and we change their colour.’ There has been no ordering of new vessels and there have been no new personnel, just more spin as they put all of that on hold. The most important aspect of that, homeland security, has been shelved too. But the thing that is terrifying those people who seek to traffic in human misery is of course the big plan of the Rudd government—they are going to have a review! They are shaking in their boots. I can imagine them packing up their bags and closing down business. It all absolutely beggars belief.

Labor claim they are all about border security and they are all about building our borders. But what did they do in the last budget? They said they were going to cut $51.5 million from the budget. That is a pretty clear indication of how fair dinkum those opposite are about border protection. Of course every time you do something like this you send a signal. We have an environment in which communication is almost instant. If you have a policy change in Australia, that is detected and interpreted within nanoseconds. Those people who are in the business of trafficking in human misery are very well in touch with the policies of the Australian government. Whether it is a tough policy or whether it is a policy that is just simply a yawn is something that is of special interest to them.

We know of seven known attempts by people smugglers on 13 August, 30 September, 7 October, 20 October, 11 November, 19 November and 27 November. To all those people in the defence forces who may be listening today, this information is no surprise to you; it is deja vu because the business of border security happens at that time of year. It happens over the Christmas period for two reasons. One of the reasons is the strong south-easterlies that gust up to 40 knots in areas for about 10 days at a time. You can punch your lights out into 40 knots, but if you have not got a particularly good boat you are not going to make it. It is very hard, very ugly and absolutely impossible unless you have a reasonably serious motorised vessel. So the people traffickers wait until this time of year to have people depart.

The other reason is that it is part of Indonesian folklore—and this is well known to people traffickers—that at Christmas time Australians have a very special culture: they all go on holiday and they all have a bit too much to drink and have a good time—a great part of our culture. Whilst we are all quite proud of that culture, it is interpreted to occur at a time when the Navy is distracted by other business. So quite specifically the people smugglers and those who choose to come and steal our sovereign resources leave their shores and come here at that time. So here the government go: ‘Right at Christmas time let’s make a strategic decision to give the Navy a holiday.’ Let me tell you: the Navy do not want a holiday. Navy people love their job. They take their job seriously. They know that they are a fundamental part of border protection. We have the weasel words from Senator Wong when she indicates: ‘No, we’re not stopping. There’ll be no operational difference. We haven’t sold any of the boats.’ Yes, but they are parked up in Darwin harbour with crews on furlough. No weasel words are going to persuade the Australian people that that is any different.

People need to understand and recognise that this is a humanitarian crisis. I can remember on Christmas Day in 1994 standing on the deck of Jabiru with 36 kids barely able to stand up. That is the sort of humanitarian crisis that sending the wrong signal will cause. I think it is an absolute outrage that those on the other side have taken an excellent border control system and its excellent processes and are now unwinding it all. We are sending a clear signal that Australia’s borders are now open for business—and that is an outrage. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Wong in relation to the Australian National Academy of Music. I am very pleased to be co-sponsoring the motion this afternoon with Senator Milne. I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of some of our fine students from the Australian National Academy of Music. Can I say to them and to those many thousands of people who are appalled at this decision: we will continue to fight this on your behalf and on behalf of those students who are yet to start studying and who should be given the same opportunity.

This matter does not pass the political sniff test. What I want to know and what Senator Milne wants to know is what is actually behind this decision? What has driven this decision? What has driven a decision where there was no consultation, where these fine young people and their teachers were not consulted and were not advised? I will not go through the motion because honourable senators can read that for themselves. But I note that, on 22 October, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts wrote to the chair of ANAM advising of ‘his concern that ANAM may not be the most effective or efficient model for the delivery of national programs supporting elite-level classical music training’. He then went on to say that he had asked his department to investigate alternative options for delivery of this training.

In relation to that letter of 28 October, in which the minister asked his department to investigate those options, will the minister immediately release whatever outcome there was of investigations which indicated that Melbourne university was the most appropriate institution to be taking over this training? I demand that answer, Senator Milne demands that answer and the young people in the gallery demand that answer. Will the minister immediately release that documentation? I suspect that it will be written on the back of a postage stamp, if it is written at all. I suspect it has not been and that there is a reason for this fabrication out of the minister’s office to justify the unjustifiable.

I also note with great interest that, at the end of August, the minister wrote to ANAM requesting that they introduce significant reforms to the way they conduct their training programs. The board wrote back and said that some of these reforms had been implemented and that they were putting together a working party to address the minister’s concerns, which any reasonable organisation would do once requested by the minister. Before they had even started that process the financial rug was pulled out from under the organisation—no excuse, no reason given, no explanation to the board and no explanation to the students as to why ANAM were not given the opportunity to address these matters by the working party, having been requested by the minister to do so. It was not sent down by carrier pigeon, landing six months after the event but by a letter to the board requesting that they do something about it—

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It must have been by broadband!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that is right—and the board offering to do so and to work with the department. This is a political sham, an academic sham and it is a professional music sham. We should be serious about encouraging the very best in this country. And, as Senator Milne said, it does not matter whether they come from Victoria, Tasmania or Sydney, we do not care. We have a fine institution that was training the very best in this country. This notion from the minister that elite classical musicians must be trained at degree level is a bit like telling an Olympian that they have to go back and do a physical education course. That is absolute, patent nonsense. A lot of these young people have already done degrees. This is about finishing off their expertise and enabling them to make their mark in the world. And have no fear: this is about world-trained young men and women. We should proudly go out and laud the great musicians of this country, the same as we laud our Olympians. Senator Milne and I want to know what the answers are to the questions that have yet remain unanswered and, on behalf of the young people in the gallery, we will insist on it.

Question agreed to.