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

My question is to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I refer the minister to his answer yesterday when he accused Senator Nash of using ‘deliberately provocative language’ when she referred to some asylum seekers as ‘illegal entrants’. Has any government minister used similar language in recent days?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion has obviously had a bad morning. First of all, I would like to advise him that, as far as I know, I am still the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship—so I am not ‘representing’. And, as far as I know, Senator Cash has not changed her name—so she is still ‘Senator Cash’. Now we have got over the problems with the question, I can indicate that I thought the senator was trying to be deliberately provocative. We have had that debate about language—Senator Brown is particularly concerned about it—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Answer the question.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, if you stop interrupting, Senator Macdonald, I will have a crack at it. There is a deal of concern around language in the community, particularly the sector who have had a long history of concern about language. The point I was making was that Senator Cash was deliberately trying to cause—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This is not a time for debate; it is a time to listen to the answers that are being given and for people to ask questions. Senator Evans, continue.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was attempting to encourage those senators, like Senator Cash—and particularly the Western Australian senators, who seem to have decided there is some sort of political advantage in going the low road, in trying to incite fear and anger against asylum seekers—to try to have a calm, rational debate about the public policy challenge of unauthorised boat arrivals. This has been a problem for governments over many years. We have had arrivals in 25 of the last 33 years.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The minister was asked a very specific question: has any government minister used similar language in recent days? He has 11 seconds in which to answer the question—with ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘I don’t know.’

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I consider that the minister is answering the question. The minister might not be answering the question in the manner in which you desire; that is a different issue. From what I have heard thus far, I understand that the minister is answering the question. He has 11 seconds remaining.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would urge all senators to approach this debate in a rational manner and to seek to deal with the policy issues, not to try and spread fear and loathing. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion is on his feet waiting to ask his question, and you are interjecting upon your own side. I cannot understand it.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us who said:

I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for taking a hard line on illegal immigration to Australia.

Was it in fact the Prime Minister just eight days ago on ABC Radio?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to confirm for Senator Scullion that the Prime Minister and this government does maintain a hard line on border security. We have maintained mandatory detention. We have maintained excision of offshore places. We have maintained processing on Christmas Island of unauthorised boat arrivals. And we have increased the number of boat and air surveillance available to ensure strong border security measures. So, if the question goes to whether or not we maintain the hard line of border security, the answer is absolutely yes.

The key question here is about what policy is maintained, and we have made it very clear that we maintain a strong policy on border security. We do want to manage those who come by boat to ensure that on arrival they have identity, health and security checks and are processed in accordance with our laws. We will continue to pursue that policy.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Was it the Prime Minister who said on the same program:

Our job … is to take a hard-line approach in dealing with the challenge of illegal immigration.

Has the minister told the Prime Minister that he considers the Prime Minister’s language ‘deliberately provocative’? If not, why not? Have you reminded the Prime Minister that it is not in the interests of this issue to ‘take the low road’? Or does the minister’s affected moral outrage and courage only extend to opposition senators?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I very much support the approach the Prime Minister has taken to these issues. As I indicated when I announced our detention reforms, it is about getting the balance right between strong border security and humane treatment of those seeking asylum in this country. With the previous government the balance had gone astray. The treatment of persons under the previous government’s policies were inhumane.

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

Mr President, on a point of order on relevance: as both you and the minister would know, the question went clearly to the use of the term, by the Prime Minister, eight days ago on ABC radio, ‘illegal immigrants’. We have been lectured by the minister for days over our apparently inappropriate use of this term. We are simply asking him: has he also reprimanded the Prime Minister in this regard?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said on a previous point of order, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. Whether you agree with the minister’s answer to the question or not, that is something you will have to take up at the end of question time when there is time to debate the issue. I draw the minister’s attention to the fact that there are 29 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have been clear on, the policy of the government remains one of being strong on border security and providing humane treatment for those seeking asylum. The opposition cannot seem to work out its position. Apparently, on some occasions we are too soft. Last night Mr Abbott said we were too brutal. You are in such a mess that you cannot work out what your lines are.

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

Mr President, I rise to take a point of order, again on relevance. Whilst understanding clearly your direction at my last point of order, the minister has taken absolutely no effort at all to go to the point of the question about the fact that the Prime Minister used the term ‘illegal immigrants’, and he has been lecturing this side about that matter for days. The question simply was: has he reprimanded the Prime Minister for the use of this language in a similar way? I would like you to require the minister to be relevant.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot tell the minister, as I have already said to you, how—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, thank you—a point of order at last! On a point of order: we have now seen two instances of impermissible behaviour in this Senate in taking a point of order—firstly, taking a point of order that was, quite frankly, unnecessary, but then using that point of order to restate the question, if not badly then inaccurately, and, in doing so, providing a false impression of the original question. So this point of order is in answer to that point of order—there is no point of order, and the minister is being relevant to the question that is being asked and is dealing with the policy issue.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was saying, anyway, that I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question, as I said before. The minister has two seconds remaining to answer the question.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. You indicated that you could not direct the minister, but could I draw your attention to correspondence that I believe was circulated to all senators. I know I have been the victim of false communications in the past, Mr President, but—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have got to be able to hear Senator Abetz’s point of order.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I was just wondering whether you could confirm whether you communicated to all senators on 18 November 2008 that answers will be required to be directly relevant to each question. And, if you did so circulate, I invite you to advise the Senate and, indeed, those listening in whether you actually believe the minister’s answer is directly relevant, as you indicated he would be required to be in your correspondence to every senator.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have already said in response to a point of order, the minister is being relevant. As I have said, I cannot instruct the minister how to respond. That is the one thing I cannot do: I cannot direct a minister how to respond. The minister has two seconds remaining to respond.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, you indicate whether the minister is relevant or not. Your correspondence clearly indicated a requirement—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans, I have got to listen to the point of order.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans, resume your seat. I understand you are on your feet for a point of order, Senator Abetz?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct, Mr President. I think most people understood that, Mr President, even if it did slip past the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is very simply this: it is, with respect, Mr President, not sufficient to say that the minister is being relevant; the test is ‘directly relevant’, as you yourself stated, and I am asking you to indicate to the Senate whether you are ruling that the minister is being directly relevant—not ‘relevant’ but ‘directly relevant’—to the question that was asked.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, with the greatest of respect: I am not going to have words put into my mouth. I have already said that the minister is being relevant to the question that has been asked. I said I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. All I am saying now is: I have given the minister two seconds remaining on the clock to answer the question that has been asked by Senator Scullion. The minister—two seconds.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reiterate my advice to opposition senators about their behaviour and language.