Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans. Given that we have now seen more than 2,300 people jump on a boat—risking their lives—to try and gain asylum, the government cave in and give special deals to people who have effectively hijacked an Australian ship, riots at the overflowing Christmas Island detention centre, and more boats on the way, will the minister now finally concede that Labor’s border protection policies must be changed?

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

I thank Senator Humphries for the question. I think Senator Humphries exaggerated the conditions that apply, but he certainly did correctly describe the years of the Howard government when more than 11,000 people arrived in three years.

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

We fixed the problem.

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

You fixed the problem, Senator Abetz? I will take that interjection. I am very pleased to see that, because the former Prime Minister Mr Howard never claimed that. In fact, he went out and built an 800-bed facility because he knew they would come again. It is a very good thing that he did, because it provided capacity—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not what you said at the time.

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

I have always maintained that, Senator—always. I think Senator Humphries uses a bit of dramatic licence, but it is a more accurate description of the period of the Howard government. What I can say is that we appreciate the support we have received from the opposition in the changes we have made to immigration policy since coming to government. We have received support from the opposition on all key measures except on the question of the abolition of TPVs, which they did not seek to disallow when they had the opportunity. But in recent times they have decided to reintroduce temporary protection visas. That of course is their call, but, as we know, Mr President, they did nothing to stop boat arrivals. In fact, in the years after the introduction of TPVs, record numbers of people came. The other thing to remember about temporary protection visas is that, of those people who were granted them by the Howard government, more than 90 per cent are very happily residing in Australia, many of them citizens now, making successful lives. So for the opposition to claim that somehow it was a deterrent—more than 90 per cent stayed. Very few—three per cent—went home. So clearly those measures failed. (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Noting the minister’s comments about bipartisanship, will the minister now join with the coalition and support the tabling of documents—as we have called for in this place—about cabinet’s border protection subcommittee? Otherwise, what has the government got to hide?

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

It is a rather confused question. First of all, I did not refer to bipartisanship in my answer. Secondly, the senator seems to be reflecting on the vote of the parliament yesterday, where there was a request for a return to order moved by the opposition. It was defeated by the parliament, Senator. You got to argue your case for the return to order. It was defeated by this chamber. So I am not sure what your question is, other than that somehow we should agree to a motion that was defeated in the Senate yesterday. I would argue that you had your chance, you put your case and it was not supported by the Senate. I am certainly available for estimates in February. I am sure Senator Fierravanti-Wells and others will enjoy spending time with me. We can run through anything you like. I have been available at question time for the last couple of weeks. You have asked plenty of questions. We remain accountable and available for questioning. (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Why is the government arrogantly refusing to reveal the truth about its special deals with those from the Oceanic Viking?

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

I think it is fair to say that the questions have got weaker as the week has gone on. Clearly the tactics committee did not meet this morning and they have decided to continue this line of questioning, which I am afraid shows the lack of ideas and inspiration in the Liberal Party. We have not arrogantly done anything. What we have done is debated the proposition that the opposition put and seen it defeated in a vote in the Senate. You may not like it. You may be upset at losing. We all have to bear losses—there are a lot of Liberal senators in this place, obviously, who had a loss today. But, Mr President, the proposition that Senator Humphries makes was debated in the Senate chamber yesterday. His proposition was defeated. I am not sure what he is seeking to do today in reflecting on that decision. The Senate has spoken on that matter and obviously we remain open to any further questions you have. (Time expired)