Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. I acknowledge that this debate takes place at a time when the federal government is backflipping and backtracking left, right and centre as its disastrous performance, in this case on border protection, comes home to roost. The sound border protection policies of the Howard government have now been comprehensively undone, and this has sent a strong signal to people smugglers that Australia is fair game for their criminal trade. This has profound implications and has placed considerable strain on our facilities at Christmas Island. Indeed, those facilities are now so strained that asylum seekers have had to be moved from Christmas Island to places like Darwin and Curtin. Of course, there is also considerable strain on Customs officers and Navy personnel who are attempting to cope with the consequences of that failing policy.

The government’s failed border protection policies have, at the same time, encouraged people smuggling across our region. They have persuaded vulnerable people to make dangerous journeys across the ocean in unsafe vessels, which has resulted in some cases in the tragic and unnecessary loss of life. Only in the last week or so we have seen what appears to be the loss of five lives in the Indian Ocean. That loss of life was unnecessary, it was avoidable but it was, in many ways, the consequence of policy settings which encourage people to engage people smugglers and to make these journeys. The Rudd Labor government has, in the face of ongoing pressure and swamped with continuing arrivals, realised that it has a policy setting which is unworkable and disastrous. It is in the process of taking stock of its policies and attempting to backtrack on the settings that it has put in place—but, in my opinion, only partially successfully.

This bill amends several acts in relation to Australia’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework. In relation to the Criminal Code, the bill creates a new offence of supporting the offence of people smuggling which targets people who organise, finance and provide other material support to people-smuggling ventures entering foreign countries, whether or not via Australia. The penalty for this offence is a very steep one: imprisonment for a maximum of 12 years, a fine of $110,000 or both. The bill creates two new people-smuggling related offences in the Migration Act: firstly, the offence of supporting the offence of people smuggling and, secondly, the aggravated offence of people smuggling, involving such things as exploitation, danger of death or serious harm, which will carry a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum of 20 years, a fine of $220,000 or both.

11:21:55

There are also amendments affecting the enforcement mechanisms available to those attempting to combat people smuggling. In relation to the Surveillance Devices Act, the bill will extend emergency authorisation for the use of a surveillance device to investigations into the aggravated offence of people smuggling. Currently the ability to maintain emergency authorisation for a surveillance device does not extend to offences under the Migration Act. In relation to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, this bill will simplify the criteria to be satisfied by agencies when applying for telecommunications interception warrants for investigating people-smuggling offences under the Migration Act. Under these amendments, agencies will no longer have to establish that the offence involves two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation as well as the use of sophisticated methods and techniques and so forth.

This bill will amend the definition of the term ‘security’ in the ASIO Act to officially give the agency the statutory power to obtain and evaluate intelligence relevant to the protection of Australia’s territorial border integrity from serious threats. Such intelligence can then be communicated to agencies such as the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service or other law enforcement agencies.

All of that is good insofar as it strengthens the capacity of Australian government agencies and others with whom we cooperate to detect and deter, perhaps through prosecution, the trade of people smuggling. So the coalition supports what is contained in this legislation, but we need to acknowledge that in a very substantial way what is contained in this legislation is simply window-dressing. It is an attempt to disguise the fact that this government has presided over a weakening of Australia’s border protection policies and so it has brought forward tough-looking, tough-sounding legislation to beef up penalties against those who engage in people smuggling in a way which is good insofar as it goes, but which fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of people smugglers in the past have not been apprehended and prosecuted and in the future they are unlikely to be apprehended and prosecuted.

There is one arm of government policy which seeks to suppress people smuggling as an industry, but there is another arm of government policy which is quite clearly at the present time encouraging that trade to occur. The change made by the Rudd government to the Howard government’s border protection policies is precisely the kind of policy setting I am referring to. We have one part of government policy which is applying the brake to people smuggling and another part of government policy which is applying the accelerator. While that confused and mismatched policy is in place, we will not see an end to the very large trade in people carried out by people smugglers across Australia’s northern borders.

It is worth reflecting at this point on how that dismantling of Australia’s border protection policies has come about. It is a matter of record that in 2000 and 2001, after a significant number of boat arrivals, the Howard government took strong action to deter the trade in people. It made the tough decisions in the interests of Australia’s border security through a range of settings including offshore processing of asylum seekers, maintaining a policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers, excising territories from our migration zone that were previously attractive to people smugglers and engaging in an effective partnership with regional players such as Indonesia. The result of that change of policy was stark and clear. After the surge of arrivals in 2000 and 2001 and the announcement of new policies, we saw in 2002-03 no boats arrive on Australia’s northern shores. In 2003-04, there were only three boats. In 2004-05, again there were no boats. In the following three years, eight, four and three boats arrived in each of those financial years respectively.

The last of those years was 2007-08, a period which was partly under the new Rudd government. In the early year or so of the Rudd government’s reign, the slow pace of boat arrivals that had been characteristic of the previous government continued, but in August 2008 the government announced a change of policy. The government’s announcement was intended to send a signal that Australia was relaxing its previously ‘harsh’ border protection arrangements. Whether or not the government intended the signal to be as clear as it was is irrelevant. The fact is that it sent a very clear signal to people-smuggling operations around our region and the consequence was a surge in arrivals by boat.

This all comes from the Prime Minister who, as the king of spin, the day before the 2007 election when asked: ‘What would you do about boat arrivals in northern waters?’ said: ‘You’d turn them back’. That was what the Prime Minister to be said on the eve of the 2007 election. He said he believed in an ‘orderly immigration system’, but after a suitable interval he then set about undoing the coalition’s policy settings and repeatedly blamed push factors for the surge of arrivals that followed. He is responsible therefore, through his government’s decisions, for the large number of arrivals on Christmas Island and elsewhere in the interim. When those arrivals began to become politically embarrassing to the government, the Prime Minister referred to people smugglers as ‘representing the absolute scum of the earth’. Even while he was in the process of stimulating their business and allowing them to make the profits that they made and continue to make from people smuggling, he was describing them as the ‘absolute scum of the earth’.

It was this Prime Minister who called in a favour from the President of Indonesia in October of 2009 to stop a boat coming to Australia that he could not stomach, which subsequently led to an embarrassing and longstanding stand-off in Indonesian waters. This is the Prime Minister who offered a special deal to 78 asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking, including the transfer to Australia of four asylum seekers who were later deemed a security risk by ASIO after a rushed check of their security status. This is the Prime Minister who continued to let numbers increase on Christmas Island because of a lack of conviction and a lack of will to alter the policy settings and who placed such strain on the resources that eventually Australia has had to let that number of asylum seekers overflow to the Australian mainland and facilities that had been closed for some time have had to be reopened. This is also the Prime Minister who planned for only 200 arrivals at Christmas Island in the 2009-10 financial year and who embarrassingly had to come back to the Australian parliament and ask for a further $134 million to cover the 1,400 arrivals that had actually taken place. That in turn has turned out to be an inadequate amount of money to cover that cost, with a record 4,580 arrivals and counting this financial year to date, including two further boats in the earlier part of this week.

It is not hard to see why people smugglers understand that a different policy has applied in Australia, that it is now open season once again and that the considerable profits that they are likely to generate from their nefarious activities are now available for them to continue to pursue. Welcome as the measures in this bill are and effective as they may be in the small number of cases where people smugglers can actually be intercepted and their work interdicted, the bill does not alter the fact that this legislation will not change the landscape with respect to that trade in people. It will not alter the landscape and it will not affect the number of people travelling to Australia. Nor, I suspect, will the government’s announcement that it will temporarily suspend the processing of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

We saw the evidence produced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report that showed a 29 per cent increase in asylum applications in Australia while countries such as the United Kingdom experienced a five per cent decline in 2009, the clearest evidence that these policies simply are not making a difference. The changes in policy are simply not going to make any substantial improvement in the outlook for this particular problem that the government is now facing.

This is a government that clearly has difficulty in making difficult decisions. It is a government that cannot deliver and is flailing around desperately trying to make order out of chaos as it tries to satisfy both those critics on its left, who believe that it is already being too harsh with asylum seekers, and the critics on the right, a category which I suspect includes at this point the vast majority of Australians, who simply think that the government has lost control of our borders and who are not prepared to accept that the present policy makes any sense.

I have to say that, although there is a very powerful debate that has taken place in Australia over the status and entitlements of refugees—and I do not propose to traverse that debate here today—I think that anybody who is concerned about the welfare of refugees and is concerned to make sure that their interests are protected would do everything in their power to ensure that those people are not encouraged to board those unseaworthy vessels in Indonesian ports for that hazardous journey to Australia. Whatever we think about the need to protect refugees and to offer them protection and safe haven, we would never want a policy that is as firmly based on passage across the sea in those boats as the present government’s policy appears to be.

An indication of the way in which the government’s policy settings have changed the landscape came in an interview only a couple of weeks ago on the ABC, on 24 April, in which a would-be Iraqi asylum seeker had this to say:

Kevin Rudd—he’s changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different, different … Maybe accepted but when John Howard, president, Australia, he said come back to Indonesia.

I think that it is not surprising to hear those sorts of comments made. It is a question of perception, and the perception of those people who use the services of people smugglers is that this government’s policy has allowed them to make that journey and to obtain something of value from making that journey, and the people smugglers are more than willing to satisfy that particular market.

It is not surprising, therefore, that on 23 February this year, in the midst of the hype surrounding the counterterrorism white paper, Ministers McClelland, Evans and O’Connor announced a policy shift to try to disguise the green light which has been given to people smugglers for some time. It appears to date as if that attempt at smoke and mirrors has not succeeded in changing the approach of either people smugglers or their customers. I suspect that the government will need something else to achieve the effect that it desires.

To reiterate, the opposition does support this bill but we predict that it will have little impact on the scale of the people-smuggling industry in our region. In the future, we fear for the lives of those people who continue to make those journeys in that way and who obviously place themselves and their families at great risk by undertaking those journeys. We have a policy today that is neither tough nor humane. The Prime Minister said he wanted and was achieving a policy that was tough and humane. Clearly it is neither of those things. The 122 boats that have arrived since August 2008 and the 5,621 arrivals on those boats are stark testimony to the need to change policy, a change which we are yet to see from this government. The boats are still coming. There were two more earlier this week, carrying 36 and 86 people respectively. This indicates that the government still has not understood the nature and effect of its policy. I urge the government to assess the need to go back and revisit these policies. What is on the table today is welcome and will make a difference on the margin, but it does not tackle and address the real problem at the heart of the government’s flawed border protection polices.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, currently before the Senate, seeks to amend six principal acts: the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, the Criminal Code Act, the Migration Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.

In his second reading speech on this bill, the minister set out the proposed amendments to the various principal acts. In describing the purpose of the bill he stated:

This bill will strengthen the Commonwealth’s anti-people smuggling legislative framework, supporting the government’s plan to combat people smuggling.

I, and those on this side of the chamber, have no objection to supporting legislation that is designed to combat the insidious people-smuggling trade. But, as I will demonstrate in my contribution to this debate, this bill is too little too late and it has only become necessary because of the deliberate policy of the Rudd Labor government to soften the coalition’s tough but fair border protection policies.

As I have indicated, this bill amends six principal acts. Firstly, the bill seeks to ensure that people smuggling is comprehensively criminalised in Australian law, with tough penalties for the most serious forms of the insidious crime of people smuggling. Secondly, the bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, the Surveillance Devices Act and the ASIO Act to provide the legislative authority to investigate people-smuggling activities and to enable law enforcement and national security agencies to play a greater role in support of whole-of-government efforts to address people smuggling and other serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity.

Thirdly, the bill introduces a new offence of providing material support or resources for people-smuggling activities. Again, the minister has indicated in his second reading speech:

Such support or resources could include, but would not be limited to, property that is tangible or intangible, currency, monetary instruments or financial services, false documentation provided by corrupt officials, equipment, facilities or transportation.

Fourthly, the bill will introduce a new aggravated offence in the Migration Act for people smuggling involving exploitation, or danger of death or serious harm. The offence will apply to people-smuggling ventures to Australia.

Fifthly, the bill proposes to extend the application of the higher mandatory minimum penalty to the new aggravated people-smuggling offence involving exploitation, or danger of death or serious harm. And finally, the bill also proposes to extend the application of the higher mandatory minimum penalty to persons who are convicted of multiple aggravated people-smuggling offences in the same hearing.

These are all very commendable amendments and there is no doubt at all that Australia’s laws need to be strengthened to take account of the unprecedented number of illegal boat arrivals of people who have been shipped to Australia by unscrupulous and uncaring people smugglers. However, having acknowledged the need to strengthen Australia’s laws, it is now appropriate to ask the question and to examine the reasons why there has been such a dramatic increase in illegal boat people arriving in Australia since the Rudd Labor government was elected to office.

Following last night’s budget, why has it been necessary for the Rudd government to increase its spending on Australia’s border protection so dramatically? Again, in his speech the minister sought to hide behind the alleged push factors by referring to conflicts and turmoil in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Sri Lanka. He said that these are the driving reasons as to why there has been a global surge in people smuggling. Consistent with his performance to date in this portfolio, the minister continues to fail to admit that it is in fact the pull factors, not the push factors, that he and the Rudd government alone have created that are the real reason we have seen an increase in the unprecedented number of illegal boat arrivals coming to Australia.

Have you noticed that when anything goes wrong on the Rudd government’s watch it is always someone else’s fault? Mr Rudd is a gutless wonder; he is spineless—he has no backbone. If he were a true leader, he would stand up and take responsibility for his failed border protection policies. As I said yesterday, no wonder there are rumours circulating of a Gillard/Emerson ticket. Gillard and Emerson must be rubbing their hands in glee, watching Mr Rudd slip and slide down the little slope that he is now on. If things get much worse, who wonders whether or not Mr Rudd will be replaced?

In terms of the failure of their policies, let us just reaffirm for the Australian people a number of other Rudd government failings to accept responsibility and their blaming of someone else. What about the failed insulation scheme? This has now cost Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. But on top of that it has tragically claimed four innocent lives to date, and there is a complete failure by those on the other side to take responsibility for it.

We all now know, of course, of the revelation in the Weekend Australian that officials in the Prime Minister’s and Peter Garrett’s departments assessed the risk of death or injury of the program to be extreme three times in the three months before the four young workers were killed. Yet, despite the irrefutable evidence of Rudd Labor’s mismanagement and incompetence, Rudd Labor continue to blame everybody else but themselves. Then we go back to the current legislation, which they tell the Australian people is designed to strengthen Australia’s border protection regime. And it is, but the problem is that the government are the reason behind why we now need this legislation. If they had not touched the Howard government’s strong border protection policies, we would not be here today in this chamber debating the need for the additional measures to assist our border protection.

When it comes to the failure of their border protection policies, Rudd Labor are always full of excuses. It is always the push factors coming from overseas; it is never the pull factors. But the bad news now is that there is so much on the record—and it is not just coming from this side of the chamber—that refutes the claims made by the Rudd Labor government. As the previous speaker, Senator Humphries, stated, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stated that push factors have been easing in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, providing increasing opportunities for those previously seeking asylum to return home. But Labor cannot admit this. They will not admit it, as it will undermine their push to have Australians believe that global push factors are the reason that the boats continue to arrive here.

It is not only the United Nations commissioner who has commented. You will also recall, Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins—in fact, you will recall them well—the comments from Dr Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who said on the ABC’s Lateline program—not this year, but in November 2009:

I think this talk about the push factor is an over-exaggeration. If there were, as I said, a push factor, why didn’t they go across to India which is so close by, 22 miles away from Sri Lanka? Instead they head all the way to Australia. There must be another reason than simple push factor here.

There is another reason, and it is sitting across from me in the chamber: the good minister Senator Chris Evans from Western Australia.

Most Australians believe the influx of illegal immigrants is due to the widely publicised invitation that the Rudd government extended to people smugglers after the election in 2007. The people smugglers saw Australia go from a very tough place to get to—in fact, under the Howard government, the boats had stopped arriving—to having the red carpet thrown down for them and the Rudd government saying, ‘Come on down; the Rudd government have invited you here.’ The people smugglers now know—and, again, this is because of the Rudd government’s policy failures—that so long as their boats carrying illegal immigrants can get within about 200 kilometres of Christmas Island, they can make a phone call to the Australian Navy, claim that their boat is sinking and, guess what, the Rudd government are there to welcome them into Australia.

Soon after that, what do the Rudd government then give them? We all know, based on what they gave those on the Oceanic Viking, that it is an endless list of handouts that the Rudd government give to illegal people, handouts that the pensioners and the mums and dads in Australia must only wish that they had access to as well. What is Mr Rudd’s response to this influx of illegal immigrants? His response was:

We believe that we have got the balance of the policy right …

You have got to be kidding me. I say to the minister: ‘What do you say, Minister, to those people who have sat in refugee camps, who have done the right thing by Australia, who have done the right thing by the United Nations and who have sat in those camps year after year, waiting their turn and wanting to come to this country the right way? What do you say to them every time another boatload of unlawful immigrants arrives?’ You say, ‘Too bad mate; really sorry but there is no place for you because under our policies we allow queue jumpers into Australia.’ Minister, that is not good enough and it is certainly not fair to those people who are doing the right thing in the United Nations refugee camps.

Mr Rudd’s election promise to Australians that he would keep our borders safe was nothing more and nothing less than hypocritical rhetoric. It is a little bit like the promise he made to Australians prior to the 2007 election that he was an economic conservative. We all now know that that was blatantly untrue. If Mr Rudd and his minister honestly believe that the legislation that we are debating today is actually going to protect our borders, based on their current record, they are in absolute denial. We have all known for several months that the number of illegal arrivals from Sri Lanka has been declining, but the government refuse to acknowledge this as, once again, this undermines their spin that it is all about global push factors.

Labor’s policy solution to the increasing number of boat arrivals was to just increase the capacity of Christmas Island. There is a policy solution for you: we acknowledge that they are on their way; we will do nothing about actually stopping it, but what we will do is increase the capacity of Christmas Island. But, hold on, there is no more capacity at Christmas Island. So what did they do? The minister said, ‘Well, the good news is that there is another base that we can open in Derby in Western Australia’—his home state—‘and we will put the overflow of the asylum seekers there.’ That has gone down very well with the people smugglers, because they now know that when these bases actually reach capacity all the Labor government will do is just open another one. They are saying, ‘Come on down’ yet again.

As the previous speaker, Senator Humphries, outlined, when the coalition were in government we were given a problem, and the minister is right in acknowledging that we did have a number of illegal arrivals on our watch—we did. The difference between us and Labor, however, is that we saw that there was a problem. We acknowledged that tough decisions needed to be made to ensure that Australia’s borders were protected. So what did we do? We took tough policy measures. We had a problem, it was reflected in the number of boat arrivals, we put in tough policy measures, and what was the outcome? We reduced the boats to nil. That is the gift that the coalition government gave the Labor government when they took office. We gave them a solution. The Labor Party, as they do with most gifts they are given, looked at the solution and said, ‘How can we make a mess of it?’ That was very easy. All they needed to do was to make some very weak policy decisions to wind back the tough measures that the coalition had put in place. And guess what? All bets were off and the people smugglers were back in business.

Tony Abbott, our leader, is correct when he says that people are entitled to think that the Prime Minister has dudded them when he assured them that Australia’s border security would be safeguarded by his government. As with everything that came out of the mouth of the now Prime Minister prior to the 2007 election, that was nothing more and nothing less than Ruddspeak for ‘I want your vote and I will do and say anything to get it’.

The actions of the people smugglers are well and truly speaking louder than any of the policies that Labor have implemented. Labor’s failure to control our borders, and it is a failure, means that Australians are no longer in charge of deciding who comes lawfully to this country and under what circumstances they will come. It is a responsibility which the Rudd government have gladly abrogated and it is a responsibility that they should be ashamed of abrogating. Notwithstanding the amendments proposed in this current legislation, Mr Rudd and his government have an appalling record in relation to Australia’s border security and their lack of strong, decisive action continues to confirm that Rudd Labor are failing to protect our borders.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 and I pick up the point from my colleague Senator Cash, which is in summary that we can see that the Howard government saw and inherited a problem and found a solution for it. When this government came into power, Prime Minister Rudd had a solution at his hands and rejected every platform under which that solution had been developed. Of course, he now has a problem.

The fundamental point is that to stop this trade the people smugglers have got to be stopped in the first place. Why do they do it? Because, as we know, it is a very lucrative trade—up to $US10,000 per person delivered onto vessels upon which in the first place they should never be placed. Where do we have to stop the problem? We have to stop it at its point of origin. We have to stop the advertisements that we know exist in Sri Lankan newspapers, in Afghani newspapers and in other locations that are saying that Australia is now open for business. And we have seen nothing and they have seen nothing, regrettably, and neither will this proposed legislation provide any more that is going to discourage them. What a shocking, lamentable, despicable trade it is in human cargoes, yet that is what we actually see: a trade in human cargoes.

Let me put it to the perspective here in Australia regarding one of those costs that is not often recognised. I asked a question in Senate estimates earlier this year of the Australian Federal Police and they have provided me with this information. Between September 2008 and February of this year, in Western Australia 106 people smugglers were apprehended. Seventy-six of them are on remand and 28 of them have already been dealt with and found guilty and are now in our prison system. So we have 106 people who we did not budget for for whom there should be no burden on the Australian taxpayer or the Western Australian community. It may be of some interest to the Senate to learn that that figure alone equates to in excess of $10.6 million per year of cost to the Australian taxpayer for those people. According to the annual report of the relevant department in Western Australia last year, it costs just on $100,000 per annum, $2,000 a week, to keep somebody in our prisons. That is $10.6 million each year for that group, and that is only for those who have come since September 2008 through to February 2010. The cost, unfortunately, is borne by the Western Australian community in the main because there is no direct payment back from the federal government to the state government to actually take account of those costs. I learn that it is picked up in the GST calculations by the Grants Commission. We all know what Western Australia’s share of GST is this financial year. For those who do not, it is a mere 68c in the dollar, a 68 per cent return. So those hard-earning taxpayers of that state are picking up the $10.6 million. As I learnt in the media only yesterday, in most instances we are looking at a minimum of four-year terms of imprisonment, so you can multiply that $10.6 million by four.

The other cause of concern I have, and this legislation is not going to change this position one iota, is the question of how these people are arriving at our shores in the first place. In many instances they are people of Islamic background. Over the years we know that they have come into Asia, into Malaysia, another Muslim country, where they had been made very welcome but only in transit. They make their way then from Malaysia down to Indonesia, where they are made welcome in transit but not to remain. Of course, their objective is Australia.

I have asked myself over the years why it is that those of an Islamic background, keen to pursue an Islamic tradition, for which I applaud them, want to move through Islamic countries—through Malaysia; through Indonesia—to come here to Australia. But the case gets worse for them: they are, for whatever length of time, left in camps. They have not come through the front door in their application to come to our country. For whatever period of time, these poor people are left in camps and then they are put on leaking, unseaworthy vessels to come across some of the more dangerous of waters. We saw only this week a case where there have apparently been drownings of would-be asylum seekers.

The people smugglers, at $10,000 or more per head, are reprehensible. Do many of them actually make the voyage from these countries to Christmas Island or to Ashmore Reef? The answer is: no, they do not. In some instances they pay impoverished Indonesian fishermen—and that was the situation with a case that was dealt with in the courts in Darwin the other day. They pay them a meagre amount of money.

But it gets even worse than that. I want to draw attention to the exercise involving the Customs contracted vessel, the Oceanic Viking, in the northern waters in October-November last year and draw attention to what is actually happening in many of these cases. These vessels are unseaworthy and have insufficient water and insufficient fuel. They are going outside the territorial waters and the people smugglers are being taken off those vessels to return to the safety of home ports. In the case of the 78 Sri Lankans, when they actually made their call last year to Australia for some degree of assistance for survival at sea, their vessel was disabled—the rudder was not functional and there was insufficient fuel. They were simply at sea, in the water. So we had the circumstance where there was an incredible amount of money paid, yet these people were left to their own devices.

Did that group make contact with the Indonesians, given the fact that they were in Indonesian territorial waters? We think, no, they did not. According to Mr Carmody, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, when answering questions from me in Senate estimates, direct contact was made from the vessel to AMSA here in Australia. We of course then had an obligation under the safety of life at sea convention.

But did the issue stop there? No, it did not stop there. As we know, people were transferred onto the Oceanic Viking. It is true that, at the time they went on board that vessel, they were inspected, checked and searched for, amongst other things, mobile telephones. So you might say, ‘Well, this is all fine; this is safe. We’ve got an Australian vessel,’ and you would think that, for that complement of crew, including the security officers, the commercial crew—the vessel being under contract to P&O—and the 78 asylum seekers, a contingency plan would be in place should any untoward activity take place. You might ask: ‘Why would there be any untoward activity?’ Go back to April last year when we had SIEV36—which has now played out its role in the coroner’s court in Darwin. On that occasion, fuel was thrown into the bilges and as naval and other Australian Defence Force personnel were either on board or approaching it the vessel blew up.

So one would have thought that there would definitely be a contingency plan in place to assist the security and other personnel on the Oceanic Viking should there be a similar event—for whatever reason. I learnt, to our regret, that there was no contingency in place. We had an Australian flagged vessel in international waters, close to Indonesia—well away from Australia—and that group of personnel had no back-up. It was then said to me, ‘The Indonesian Navy were to supply some form of back-up and assistance.’ The advice to me was that that group never came within a kilometre of that vessel.

So you go a bit further and ask under what circumstances people might have been at risk. Surely, if it was possible for any vessel to come within a commutable distance of the Oceanic Viking, it would have caused some degree of concern. But we learnt from the Australian that a correspondent actually got close enough to throw a mobile phone on board the Oceanic Vikingand great jocularity took place. In the words of the journalist: ‘Threw the mobile phone on board. They slipped it; couldn’t catch; couldn’t bowl; and the mobile went over the side.’ So what did they do? Typical journalists—they threw another mobile phone on board and it was through the agency of that mobile phone that the asylum seekers were continually in contact with the Australian media.

When I put to the head of Customs that this was potentially a dangerous circumstance for all on board, he rejected that. He said, ‘No, I can’t see where your concern was.’ I can assure you that those in the security contingent on board that vessel certainly saw the cause for concern. Under their rules of engagement, they had no capacity at all to inspect those on board—to search them and to find out if there were any items at all on board. So the mobile phones remained and the calls remained. But the question must then be asked: if it is possible to get close enough to throw a mobile phone onto the deck of the Oceanic Viking, what else may have been able to have been thrown on board? What else may have been able to be propelled from a vessel onto the Oceanic Viking? Remember who was on board: Australian border security personnel, the asylum seekers, the commercial crew actually in charge of the vessel and the various officials who were trying over time to negotiate with the asylum seekers—a totally and utterly unsatisfactory circumstance which could have had a similar outcome to SIEV36.

I then asked the question, ‘In terms of those on board, who was actually negotiating with the asylum seekers?’ You may recall the asylum seekers were refusing to leave the vessel. I could get little information as to the qualities, the competence or the qualifications of those who were undertaking it. We were then told by the minister opposite that there was no special deal done with those asylum seekers. Of course there was a deal done. I do not know why the minister persisted with that line for as long as he did when we know that a deal was definitely done. Ask them on Christmas Island whether a deal was done.

Then, worst of all, we had the scenario in which a person on board that vessel was the spouse of somebody who had already been refused entry to Australia as a result of ASIO investigations. I tried to establish whether it was known that that person was onboard the Oceanic Viking and the answer was that I could not be supplied with that information. As we know, subsequent to them being taken off the Oceanic Viking, one of those people was in fact denied entry to Australia as an asylum seeker. This is a totally unsatisfactory set of circumstances.

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

Factually wrong.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has made the point that it is factually wrong. I will seek the minister’s advice because the advice to me and the advice publicly is that a person who was onboard the Oceanic Viking at that time—

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

There were four.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were four. I am referring specifically to the spouse of a person who was denied entry to Australia. My point is that ASIO and others should have known that. The minister is quite right when he says that not one but four people on the Oceanic Viking were subsequently refused entry. Surely that must have sent a flag to Australian authorities that there was the possibility of greater risk to all of those on board—yet no action was taken, no contingency was put in place and no protection was given.

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

They were already off the boat when they got the security assessment. You are completely confused.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point that was made in my presentation was that the spouse of one of those people had already been denied access and she was on the vessel at that time.

I conclude with the observation that Australia is a very, very generous country when it comes to accepting refugees. It is my understanding that we are only second to Canada on a per capita basis in our acceptance of refugees. The point has been made and laboured, and has to be made yet again: for every person who comes in through the back door, who fails to apply to come Australia as a refugee in the normal way and who is accepted into this country, there is a person who has been a legitimate applicant waiting in a refugee camp elsewhere in the world actually being up for a longer period of time.

When I first came into this place there was derision from those on the other side about the amount of money that the Howard government had spent on Christmas Island—derision of that fact because at that time there was no great need. What do we see now? We see not only Christmas Island overfilled with asylum seekers but also a cost which will surely be blowing out. I think from last night’s budget, if I am correct, another $1 billion has been allocated to this whole exercise; yet the scenario continues that little action is being taken at the root cause—not attacking sufficiently the very people smugglers who are the genesis of this whole program.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand on this side of the chamber to support the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 and to also concur and associate my remarks with those of Senator Back, Senator Cash and other coalition senators who have expressed their extreme concern about the way that the government is handling the boat people and the immigration system, and the fact that it appears based on all the evidence available that the government has simply mismanaged this situation, which is basically bordering on being out of control.

Before I talk more broadly about some of those concerns, I want to commend the bill before us, and refer to the technical and administrative reforms and recommendations made to this bill by the government and to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report tabled just a few weeks ago. As the deputy chair of that committee, the coalition senators support the amendments that improve and streamline the federal government’s approach to anti-people-smuggling legislative efforts.

The bill before us amends the Migration Act to create new people-smuggling offences and harmonises the existing offences. It broadens the role of ASIO in gathering intelligence on people smuggling and other serious threats to border security. It increases the powers of law enforcement agencies to utilise surveillance devices and telecommunications intercept devices, and it expands ASIO’s powers to utilise telecommunications interceptions to collect foreign intelligence. There is a recommendation regarding the latter in the Senate report.

I thank the committee secretariat for the support in pulling this report together and the other members of the committee, including my fellow coalition senator, Senator Parry, and also the participating member, Senator Trood, on this occasion. We noted article 6 of the people-smuggling protocol. It does require state parties to criminalise people smuggling when it is committed intentionally and in order to obtain a financial or material benefit. We looked at article 19 of the protocol, which clarifies that the protocol is not intended to affect the responsibilities of states under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and we looked at the Bali process which kicked off in 2002, around the time of the Bali bombings.

I will come to the extent of people smuggling in a moment. It is a very, very serious issue and this is why, it seems to me, the government is out of kilter and the whole immigration system seems to be out of control. We noted in the budget last night that they plan to spend an extra billion dollars to try to alleviate some of the concerns, and that just confirms again, in my view—and I think in the view of many others—that the government has not got its act together. In terms of the recommendations in the Senate committee report, the coalition do support the reforms to expand the roles and achieve the objectives as we have indicated. There is a recommendation regarding foreign intelligence warrants, and that is recommendation 1, which states:

… that the proposed definition of ‘foreign intelligence’ in subsection 5(1) of the TIA Act should be amended to ensure that ASIO can obtain foreign intelligence warrants in relation to the activities of foreign nationals who are in Australia.

Now I want to come to the fact that the way in which our borders are being managed and mismanaged is out of control. It was confirmed last night in the House of Representatives, as I said, that the government plan to spend an extra billion dollars to try to fix the problem. It is a problem of their own making. The issue of waste and mismanagement is supreme. It is at the highest order. We had the pink batts fiasco where we saw—and confirmed in the budget last night—a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money go down the chute to try to fix that program.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Borrowed money.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

’Borrowed money’, says Senator Williams, and he is quite right. It is borrowed—as confirmed in the federal budget last night—to the extent of $100 million a day, $700 million a week, to pay for the reckless spending of the Rudd Labor government. It is shambolic. It is disgraceful. The government feel as though they have been forced onto the backfoot to pull out another billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to try to rectify a system which they have broken, which they muffed, which they stuffed, and that is what that money is being used for. That is taxpayers’ money, that is money that is being borrowed, and that confirms again that the system is out of control. I want to put on the record that the coalition will be digging deeper into these matters at Senate estimates in the weeks ahead, to make sure that we get to the bottom of it as to why these problems occurred and why we are in a pickle at the moment in terms of border mismanagement and maladministration.

We were advised yesterday that the Rudd government have decided to spend $1.2 million to house 79 asylum seekers in a four-star hotel in Brisbane, and that is frankly a consequence of the government’s failed border protection measures and policies. That is the bottom line. That is why those asylum seekers are there. If the government had proper policies in place, like we had under the previous government, they would not be in this pickle and they would not be causing Australians to borrow that extra money to spend in this way. Of course the neighbours are concerned; why wouldn’t they be? They have expressed their concerns publicly, and I hope that there will be coordination and liaison between the relevant authorities, the local police and the people in that community. This is, in fact, occurring in Treasurer Wayne Swan’s own electorate in Brisbane. The government are now paying $179 per night because there is no room left at Christmas Island.

We had another government backflip not long ago with respect to offshore processing. They slammed their hand on the desk and said, ‘We will have offshore processing.’ They were so adamant that they would continue to do this, and yet there was another backflip just months ago. That is another result of their failed border protection policies.

Let us have a look at the facts and the figures. Since Kevin Rudd started rolling back the strong border protection regime that he inherited from the coalition, 122 boats have arrived carrying 5,624 people. Apparently yesterday two more boats arrived, taking the total for the year to 54. I am advised that as at the same time last year, only 12 boats had arrived. It appears to me that the boats keep on coming. The report that I referred to earlier, the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—which was tabled just a week or so ago—says, on page 2, that as at 3 May 2010:

… there had been 92 unauthorised boat arrivals carrying approximately 4,300 people (including crew) during 2009-10.

There is a reference on that page that refers to some research undertaken by the Parliamentary Library, whom I want to commend for their research and diligence. I thank them for that and for the tremendous work that they do for the members and senators in this place. The report goes on:

In 2008-09, there were 23 vessels carrying 1033 people, while in 2007-08 there were three vessels carrying 25 asylum seekers.

You can see that the numbers are increasing fast and vigorously. Under the coalition, the average number of boats per year was about three.

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

That is not true.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the advice I have got, and that was in the last six years of the government.

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

So you forget the big years—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to be corrected by Senator Evans, and he can put his views on the record, but let us compare the record. In those last six years, the average of three boats—

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

Why only six years? Why not the full 12 years? Aren’t you proud of the first six years of the government?

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is it now, Senator Evans? How many boats, on average, are coming per year, per week and per month? Let us have a look. There are three boats per week at the moment, so do not crawl around here and try to snivel away and avoid the accusations and allegations.

12:22:16

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

You just be honest. Be honest with the figures.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can have the opportunity to respond, to put your view forward here, and you can say: ‘Yes, our border protection measures are 100 per cent right. Everything’s going fine and dandy.’ I can tell you, Senator Evans—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins—that the Australian public do not think so. They are not happy pumpkins. They are worried. They are concerned about the numbers and the fact that our borders seem out of control. Senator Evans knows that. He knows that the government changed the policy in 2008 and, as a result, there has been a surge in the number of boat people seeking asylum who are coming to this country. There has been an average of three boats per week under the Rudd Labor government. They are the facts. Let him deny them and let’s see what he says about them, because we have the research. It is in the report. It has been referred to, I have tabled it, and there is a library research document which confirms the matter. It seems to me that the government are saying one thing and doing another.

Why shouldn’t the people in that community express concern? Apparently they had no notice of it or advice about it. Senator Brandis asked a question about this yesterday and Senator Evans’s responses in question time were very disappointing indeed. He was saying: ‘This is inappropriate and unfair. This occurred under the Howard government, and why should the people in the local community be advised?’ I think he has it wrong. I think they should be advised and communicated with, including local authorities such as local law enforcement agencies. They should be and they need to be. They are acting as if nothing ever happened in terms of the communication process. We would like a full explanation as to exactly what the situation is and how that could have happened.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on it today, but the fact is that Christmas Island is at boiling point. It appears as though this government have the red carpet out and are saying, ‘Come on down and come on in.’ The boats are arriving just off Christmas Island—not that far away. Now the surge has occurred to the degree that Christmas Island is overflowing. The government’s policy said ‘offshore processing’ but the fact is that that is now not the case. They have done a backflip.

Even the local member in Darwin has been commenting. In the NT News yesterday there was an article that said:

Darwin’s immigration detention centre is already over capacity just weeks after it started housing asylum seekers.

Goodness me! How do the people of Darwin feel about that? The article says:

The Northern Detention Centre has an operating capacity of 382 people.

But the centre has been forced to go into ‘surge’ capacity—offering a further 164 beds—to cater for the 430 detainees who reside there.

The fact is: it is out of control. This government have no idea what they are doing and how they are doing it. Their mismanagement of the whole immigration policy is an example of putting the cart before the horse, and it is very disappointing.

The report also says:

The Federal Government announced last month it would transfer detainees to the mainland after Christmas Island reached capacity.

That is exactly my point: this is another government broken promise. Of course, it is on the back of the ETS, the ‘great moral issue of our time’, and the backflip on that and other broken promises, whether they be GROCERYchoice or Fuelwatch, or whether they be the GP superclinics, of which there are only three that are fully operational. What a joke: they have announced extra phantom GPs superclinics—I think that makes 59 in total—when there are only three that are fully operational. That was a promise before the last election. There have been so many broken promises.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Childcare centres.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were the childcare centres, as Senator Bernardi indicates. The government have ripped that promise up and thrown it away. In the quiet of a late Friday night, I think it was, the minister made that announcement at the bottom of a press release she put out, just quietly trying to tell people, ‘It’s not a big deal.’ The fact is: honesty is important in politics. Integrity is critical to building trust in members of parliament and decision-makers at the federal, state or local government level. And you have lost that trust. People do not trust what the government say anymore. That will be the problem with your federal budget—your assumptions and your figures just will not be believed. They are dodgy, unbelievable assumptions. On the one hand you say, ‘Put a tax on smoking and smoking will go down,’ but on the other hand you say, ‘Put a tax on mining and mining investment will go up.’ Come on! Pull the other one! Who is going to believe it? Your assumptions simply are not believable.

There is plenty more to be said about this, but I know others need to share their views. I do just want to refer to an article in the Age entitled ‘Push for missing asylum seekers inquiry’. What are the government going to do about the prognosis and the problems before them? They seem to have mishandled this issue so badly. Of course there should be an inquiry. We have had the tragic situation in which five Sri Lankan Tamils are believed to be dead after abandoning their failing boat last Wednesday, which is five days after Australian authorities learned it had run out of fuel. The issues are coming at us thick and fast, and the government simply cannot get a grip on the situation.

On the whole immigration process, Australia has a good record, and I am proud of that record of welcoming refugees to this country—those people who are doing what they consider to be the right thing in the various refugee camps around the world. We care for our fellow Australians, whether they be refugees or otherwise, and we should continue to do so. There is no excuse for not showing care and compassion. At the same time, we need to protect the national interest. We need to protect our immigration system and to make sure that our borders are secure so that we know exactly who is coming to this country and the manner in which they are coming. That is up to us as a parliament.

I think the government has not got it right. It needs to get it right and the time has come for the government to be called to account. This will happen, of course, in the weeks and months leading up to the federal election. People will have an opportunity to decide who is better able to manage our borders, to keep them secure, and who is better able to ensure that we have a professionally administered, carefully and properly operating immigration system so that we know exactly who is coming to the country and the nature of their coming. At the moment the immigration system is being run very poorly indeed.

Turning to population policy, the government seems to have and to accept the view that the population is huge and growing, but there is no rationale, no management and no thinking behind that particular view. It is a concern for a lot of Australians—they do not like it. I know, whether it is in Tasmania or other parts of Australia that I visit, people are feeling unsettled about this government’s approach to border security, about this government’s approach to population policy and to immigration policy more generally. The rubber will hit the road in the next weeks and months as we head into the election. I ask Australians to think carefully about who is better able to manage our borders, our immigration system and our population policy.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join my colleagues in this debate on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, the changes in which the coalition duly supports. But, as previous speakers have said, it is all too little too late. I will get onto the details and technicalities of the bill, but I could not help notice, in my rush to get onto the speaking list on this matter, that it is an issue which has moral, financial and social dimensions. It is probably the No. 1 issue in this country since climate change has been taken off as the No. 1 issue, and it ought to be. This is not pink batts. This is not a portfolio that is in the mess in which Peter Garrett, the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, left his portfolio. It is not the embarrassment and disgrace in which Penny Wong, the former Minister for Climate Change and Water, left her portfolio. It is not the portfolio of Julia Gillard, the Minister for Education, with its memorial halls and billions of dollars of waste. This is not the same. This is a portfolio in shambles. It is a portfolio that deals with human cargo. This is a little more serious. We have the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship sitting on the other side reduced to interjecting speakers on this side because he has surrendered every other part of his portfolio to the Prime Minister. What an embarrassment he has made of it. What a castration he has made of this minister. It must be embarrassing to see him stripped of his powers in the media and in the department. He is not interjecting me now; he is playing the ignoring game. Every other speaker—and I watched it on TV—he sought to interject, and that is what he has been reduced to. By the way, no-one else around here is backing up the minister at all. Not one of them is on the speakers list. This is a pattern of course with this government.

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

Because you’re voting for the bill, you goose!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought on this issue they might have backed you. They might have thought to back you. They may have had a case to mount. You seem to want to mount your case through interjection. That is how you mount your case. What an embarrassment! The Prime Minister has stripped you of all your authority and of your voice in public. You wander around, if not waddle around, Christmas Island saying, ‘We’ll fix this,’ as it bursts at the seams, and that is all you have done. In 2008 your own department warned you about all of this.

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

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. You do not know—you never read it, like Peter Garrett never read his reports. You were given a report in October 2008, if not the Federal Police report—the one by your own department. Both of them warned you that the changes in the laws would create a surge in illegal boat arrivals, as it has. You can screw up your face and say you never read it. Actually, I think you did not. I would agree: you probably did not read it. You are not on top of your portfolio—you never have been. I think you have been found out. You got to the leadership position through lack of talent on that side. You slipped into it.

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

You’ve been here 20 years and you’ve achieved nothing!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have still got the passion, I have still got the ideals and I have still got the belief—and I have never lied to this chamber.

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

They regard you as the village idiot. Even the National Party disowned you!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have never lied to this chamber. You have stood there and misrepresented this portfolio and what is happening in it. You have lied to this chamber.

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

Twenty years of failure!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have never spent 20 years lying.

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

Even the National Party disowned you!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are an embarrassment! You are useless! You are more useless than Peter Garrett, because you deal with human cargo and people’s lives are being lost.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McGauran, your remarks towards the minister are verging on the personal. I would ask you to stick to the subject in hand.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw those comments, as he scurries out of the chamber. You may like to know that another boat has arrived, Minister. Mr O’Connor, the Minister for Home Affairs, now makes a statement on your behalf. Mr O’Connor has made the statement that—

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s Mr O’Connor’s responsibility!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, it is his responsibility now, is it? Duck-shoving it—which he has always done. In fact, he has been stripped of all his authority. The Oceanic Viking picked up another boat yesterday with 48 people aboard. They must have been thrilled to have been picked up by the Oceanic Viking. Here we go again, I suspect. Of all the boats you could be picked up by, that is the lucky draw. If the minister had stayed in the chamber and I had read to him Mr O’Connor’s press release, which has just come out—I was fortunate enough to pick it up—I bet you he would not have known. I bet you he would not have known there has been another boat arrival. What are we up to—over 120; maybe 123 or 124 since the law’s change? You can map it from August 2008. From the point that the laws were softened the boats started to arrive—the product started to look attractive. People smugglers were back in business, and the tragedy is the human cargo.

Whatever morality you want to put up on that side , people’s lives are being lost. Whatever morality you saw in those laws to soften them, whatever group you sought to pander to, they have failed. Admit that; change it. Change it because, as I said, this is not pink batt backflips, this is not ETS backflips, this is not Julia Gillard’s wicked waste. This is dealing with people’s lives. There is a moral dimension to this portfolio and that drongo you have in charge of all of this has led you to this point. It is more than just a political matter. He is not only doing you untold political damage. He is not only weakening our border security which is a fundamental responsibility of any government—put politics aside; it is fundamental—but also risking the lives of every person who jumps on those boats when he can make it better.

We reduced the boats to zero—to three. You cannot stop them forever. You will get the boats coming through but not 124 boats. You will get three. Reduce it. Have some compassion. Look at that sort of morality. That is where we are coming from on this side of the debate. We are doing no more than that, as we did in government. We sought to fulfil the fundamental responsibility of a government: border security. We took up the moral dimension of it, as hard as it was. We sought not to pander to a certain group—and we know who they are—from the left.

I appeal to the minister to get control back from his portfolio. Take charge. Admit or do not admit the error—it really does not matter which—but just make the changes. I appeal to the two senators in the Labor government who have bothered to turn up to this fundamental issue. It is actually a debate in which we are supporting the legislation of the government and they still do not have the courage to come in to talk even on the bill. There might be something you could boast about in this bill but you still do not have the courage to come in.

I heard it reported the other day that at pre-budget drinks at the Lodge some of the caucus had the courage to front the Prime Minister and ask him a few hard questions. I have no doubt. I would hope a lot of it dealt with border security—the political effect it was having, the moral effect it was having. We know five Sri Lankans have tragically gone missing in the last week, because they were induced to come to Australia. They locked themselves into the hands of the people smugglers. Today where are those who approached the Prime Minister and asked him some hard questions at the Lodge? It was all a bit of Dutch courage by the sounds of it. They probably woke up and sobered up because they do not have the courage today to take the Prime Minister on, to take their own government on on this deep issue. This cuts deep.

In fact, the senator on the front bench knows it only too well. If she wants to interject and say she does not, that I am misrepresenting her, she can. But I know only too well this is one she should walk into her caucus for—not down at the Lodge where you have a few drinks in you. Go into your own caucus party room and raise this issue about the softness of the laws. Have they got the courage? Well, they do not have the courage to stand up in the parliament they were elected to and speak on the issue. How would they have it in caucus? I would hope they would and you should. We have done it. The coalition party room has no fear or favour in it, and you saw that recently on the issue of the Emissions Trading Scheme. What an eruption within a party room that was. You will not see the likes of it ever again—at least I hope not. I had not seen it prior to that and I lived through opposition once before.

We believe in some things over here. We do have courage from time to time. We do allow dissent. You do not like it when it gets out and you do not like it when it is close to an election, but I keep saying this issue is an exception and you ought to treat it as an exception. You ought to start saying, ‘We have to get tough.’ This is not enough. This bill is too little too late. It makes technical changes to the penalties if someone is caught people smuggling. Trying to get them to and through the courts in Australia is very difficult but a worthy aim. But most of them, as we know, are operating over in Indonesia. We need Indonesian laws. They are many years away.

You have given ASIO extra powers. That is good, but they were operating anyway, if the truth be known. But it has clarified their powers. They know they can go straight to the source of people smuggling and not via some sort of border security issue. That is a good thing. You have broadened telecommunications interception powers to define a serious offence that entitles telecommunications interception to include people smugglers. Those are all very good and we support them, but there is a bigger and more important issue here. Those changes do not go to the heart of the problem. You know what the heart of the problem is. It is staring you in the face and, because you have all allowed yourselves for three years to be cowed by a Prime Minister, his department and his kitchen cabinet, you are not willing to stand by the oath of your office just once in three years on this critical human issue, this moral issue. It is not a financial issue. Politics plays second to it, quite frankly. It is a moral issue.

Senator Hutchison has walked in. He has just got himself another six years in parliament after the New South Wales pre-selection deals which are done before the real pre-selection.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mark Arbib.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He must have really shook the hand of Mark Arbib. I do not seek to belittle that. I am glad. Thank goodness for Senator Hutchison—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hutchins.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You ought to get up and speak more; I would know your name better! You know who I am of course. I can honestly say he is one who would stand up in his caucus party room and I am absolutely bewildered why he has not to date.

Debate interrupted.