George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Williams today, relating to asylum seekers.

There is nothing sadder than the sight of a desperate government deeply in denial, and in all the mishaps, the bungling and the incompetence that have characterised the brief tenure of the Rudd government there is no area of policy in which the Rudd government is more deeply in denial than the catastrophic failure of its border protection policy. In no area has there been a more catastrophic failure than the fiasco of the Rudd government’s border protection policy.

Let us go back to where we stood in August 2008 immediately before Senator Evans announced the weakening of the Howard government’s policies that had kept our borders secure for the last six years of that government. Do you know, Mr Deputy President, how many people were detained at the Christmas Island detention centre at that time? There were five. Do you know how many there are now? The Christmas Island detention centre is over capacity. There are more than 2,500, and others have had to be transported to the Australian mainland, because our borders are out of control. And yet, as we saw in his answers to Senator Williams’s question today, Senator Evans continues to deny that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the weakening of those policies in August 2008 and the tremendous upsurge in the number of unauthorised boat arrivals in the two years since. In the last five years of the Howard government, after tough policies were introduced in 2001, the average number of unauthorised boat arrivals fell from a high number before the coalition government of the day introduced tough policies down to three per year.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Inhumane policies!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three per year! That was the situation the Rudd government inherited. After the tough policies came a phoney humanitarianism, Senator Pratt, which encourages women and children onto hazardous seas and puts them in the hands of people smugglers. After those policies were repealed in the name of a phoney humanitarianism the number of unauthorised boat arrivals skyrocketed. In the 2½-year life of the Rudd government there have now been 139 boat arrivals—an average in this calendar year of more than three per week. In the last five years of the Howard government there were three per year—a 50-fold increase. Senator Evans—no friend or supporter of Mr Kevin Rudd’s, as we all know—who has to bear the rap for these policies in this chamber, tried to persuade us that there was no cause-and-effect relationship between these two things. For five years the number of boat arrivals had flatlined. The policy was changed and suddenly there was an upward spike.

It is getting worse because of the signals that have been sent to the people smugglers. In the 12 months of calendar year 2009 there were 71 unauthorised boat arrivals. So far—not quite halfway through calendar year 2010—there have been 61 boat arrivals already. It is nothing more than denial for the government to say that there is no relationship between the softening of the policies, as they have done, and the surge in boat arrivals. In fact, the government’s own conduct by postponing the assessment of Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum seekers gives the lie to the argument that pull factors are not relevant. They themselves have sought to adjust their policy belatedly, too late in the piece. It has not worked because, as in so many other things, the Rudd government lacks the policy courage to do tough things. The Howard government was criticised roundly by certain sections of the community because its policies did have a hard edge. They had to have a hard edge, because all effective deterrents do. But those policies worked just as surely as the Rudd government’s policies have failed.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis indicated that he thought that there was nothing sadder than—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A government in denial!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a government in denial, yes. Thank you, Senator Brandis. He felt there was nothing sadder than a government in denial. I think there is something sadder.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is in serious denial.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, I think there is something sadder than a government in denial. What I think is sadder than a government in denial, Senator Brandis, is when a former Liberal prime minister is forced to quit his party because of the policies which that party is adopting. I refer to a brilliant article in the Agea great Australian newspaper—yesterday.

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

How is this taking note of an answer by a minister?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am taking note of what Senator Brandis had to say. He said that there is nothing sadder than a government in denial.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I know relevance is broadly interpreted for the purposes of these debates, but Senator Farrell has told the chamber that he is taking note of my remarks. That is not the question before the chair. The question before the chair is that the Senate take note of the answers of Senator Evans to Senator Williams, not what I may have said earlier in the debate.

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

Order! Senator Brandis, you are trying a point of order on a technicality, but the nature of debate is that people on either side respond to the comments that are made by the other side. I think that Senator Farrell is only responding to comments that you may have made as part of the debate to take note of answers.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, as a fellow South Australian, I thank you for your protection of me from Senator Brandis. What the former—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Brandis was heard almost in silence. I suggest you give Senator Farrell a fair hearing on his side of the chamber.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are perfectly right, Deputy President. Senator Brandis was heard in silence and we would seek the same courtesy.

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

What did you call John Howard?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to be heard in silence from my side as well. The resignation of former Prime Minister Fraser was very sad. As I do not want to quote him out of context, I will read this from the article in the Age:

… he hopes his resignation will send a message to the party to shape up and stay true to its core values.

When I first came to this chamber I was taught that there was at least one liberal Liberal left, and that was Senator Brandis. That is what I understood from what my colleagues told me. That is what even some of my Liberal colleagues—I have a couple of them—said. I always thought that there was one liberal Liberal left, so I was very disappointed with you, Senator Brandis, when you adopted the comments—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, civility is not a sign of weakness in debates. Can you please listen to me in silence—the same courtesy I gave to you?

Let us go back to former Prime Minister Fraser. This is a direct quote from him yesterday, as reported in the Age:

I believe playing politics with the lives of vulnerable people, seeking votes out of their misfortune, is about the worst thing any politician can do in any country in any part of the world …

The article goes on to say:

He later told reporters—

after, I think, he had opened an immigration program—

the coalition’s immigration policy, which includes the resurrection of the so-called Pacific Solution, had played a role in his decision to hand in his Liberal life membership.

So he has not only resigned from the party for which he was Prime Minister from 1975 to 1983; he has handed back his life membership of the Liberal Party. If that is not an indication of a former Prime Minister’s view about the policies of the opposition then I do not know what is.

As I said before, there is something sadder than a government that is in denial, and it is when somebody like former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has to resign from his own party to make the point that your policies on immigration are wrong. They are unfair, they are uncompassionate and they need to be changed.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And it is people like you, Senator Brandis, who ought to be doing the changing. (Time expired)

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

Doesn’t it say a lot about the Labor Party’s position on this matter that, when asked to justify its failed border protection policy, it defends itself by quoting the views of a man who was Prime Minister 30 years ago? The fact is that today, in 2010, Australians are losing confidence in your policies and in the approach you are taking to border protection.

Today in question time we heard from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, the old view that the fact that the boats are arriving in such large numbers is just a coincidence. He claims that it has nothing to do with their policies and nothing to do with their announced change of policy in 2008, immediately after which the boats began to arrive in significant numbers. He claims: ‘It has nothing to do with that. We are the victims of international circumstances. Those circumstances have conspired to change and to suddenly thrust all of these people onto boats and to cross the sea to Australia’s northern shores.’ I am sorry, but Australians do not believe that.

In recent opinion polls, Australians have demonstrated very clearly that they have lost confidence. They have not lost confidence in international security arrangements or in peacekeeping efforts in different parts of the world, but they have lost confidence in the Rudd government’s border protection policies because those policies are the ones that are now letting Australians down and failing to contain a problem of truly significant proportions to Australia’s border security. The fact is that in 2001, when the Howard government changed the settings on unlawful arrivals, we saw a change in the number of boat arrivals. The number plummeted. As Senator Brandis indicated, we went from hundreds of boat arrivals down to just a trickle—to three or so a year—for the next six years. That, we were told, was a coincidence. International conditions, we were told, had changed sufficiently to allow the boat numbers to reduce. But, in August 2008, the government again changed the policy. It softened the border protection policy in order to, in its own words, make it more compassionate. The boat arrivals began to surge again but, apparently, that was another coincidence. International circumstances had conspired to make people board the boats once again.

Never mind the fact that in 2001 there were more than 12 million refugees classified in the world by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. In 2008, when this surge began again, there were less than 10½ million refugees around the world and many of the regional conflicts which had characterised previous years, such as in places like East Timor, the Solomon Islands and so on, had ceased to take place. Notwithstanding those facts, somehow the surge has begun again. The point is that we know that the government’s policies have led directly to that surge and so does the government, because the government tried a few weeks ago to change its own policy by announcing a freeze on the processing of Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum seekers—coincidentally, the nationalities from which the most boat arrivals were coming. The signal was: ‘Don’t come here. We are not going to process any Afghan or Sri Lankan arrivals, so there is no point coming to Australia.’ Of course, that policy failed spectacularly within days of being announced. Since April, when that was announced, 33 boats have come and 1,492 arrivals, and counting, have taken place. It is a clear indication that this government has lost control of its policies.

The fact is that the questions asked by Senator Williams in question time today demonstrate very eloquently the attitude of people smugglers and their clients to Australia’s present open-door policy. It is that attitude, it is that perception of what the policy is, which is driving the business of those people smugglers. They can go to people in places like Indonesia and beyond and say, ‘We have something for you. We can get you into Australian waters and you’ll be taken into custody and you will get residency in Australia.’ That is the product they are selling. This government’s policy, to its shame, builds in a role for those people smugglers, it builds in a role for their product, and that is why we have seen this surge in boat arrivals. Do not insult the intelligence of Australians, senators opposite, by telling us that it is just a coincidence, that international push factors are causing this. Try changing your policy—and you know all about that; you are very good at changing your policy. Do not get too smug and complacent about what you are doing now, Senator Pratt. You could well be facing a backflip on this policy very soon. You know very well that this policy is what is driving these boat arrivals and that is what needs to change.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators opposite have argued using simplistic statistics. The peaks and troughs in boat arrivals fail to account for international people movements—movements of refugees driven by international movements of people. Referencing the Leader of the Senate’s answers to the Senate, what is most telling is that we are getting just a tiny fraction of those people who are seeking to flee countries in conflict. A tiny fraction of those people are making their way to our shores. Britain, Germany and France get tens of thousands of refugees. Are you saying they are weak on border protection? Is that what you are arguing? Britain, Germany and France are confronted with a significant problem.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you are trying to argue that they are weak. But they simple fact is that those countries and Australia recognise that, if those people are refugees, they deserve our protection. If they are vulnerable children who are refugees, they deserve our protection.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want weak? Look at the number of people who arrived under Prime Minister Howard. This is not a rhetorical debate. It is about strong border protection. It is about this government’s proactive agenda on border protection. It has been about the deterrence of people smugglers. It has been about cooperation with our neighbours. It has been about working to resolve and improve the situation on the ground. It is why we have armed forces in Afghanistan and it is why when genuine refugees come to Australia seeking asylum they should be granted it.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s compassionate about letting women and children drown on the high seas?

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us not talk about how many people have drowned under whose watch—shameful! Since taking office the Rudd government has implemented a big reform agenda, a necessary reform agenda, by dismantling the Pacific solution; abolishing unjust temporary protection visas; introducing fairer work rights and arrangements for asylum seekers in the community; increasing the size of Australia’s humanitarian program; introducing fairer arrangements for asylum seekers on Christmas Island, including independent review of decisions; providing access to migration advice; and abolishing the ineffective system of imposing charges upon immigration detainees.

I am proud of the values that this government has expressed in its immigration policies and its border protection policies—things like assisting Sri Lanka to resolve its conflict on the ground. There is no solution for any of us unless we can resolve the conflict on the ground. As I said, that is why we are in Afghanistan and it is why we are on the ground in Sri Lanka helping it through its period of transition as it rebuilds following two decades of terrible military conflict which we all saw intensify over the previous couple of years. Indeed, that conflict saw a big increase in the number of people seeking to flee Sri Lanka and in turn an increase in the number of people seeking to come to our shores.

I am pleased to say that progress is being made in tackling the challenging task of resettling hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens and rehabilitating their communities. This is important work and it is ultimately at the heart of the kinds of bipartisan solutions that this parliament should be looking for on the question of border protection and asylum seekers. I am tired of the politicking by those opposite. They seek to gain at the expense of ordinary people.

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

When Labor senators on the other side throw around statistics, they need to be very, very careful because statistics do not lie. Mr McClelland was asked in the parliament on 11 June: ‘How many children does the Labor Party currently have in detention behind bars?’ Do you know what the answer was? Was it higher than the 21 that were in detention when the coalition left office in 2007? Yes, it was. The answer was this: ‘Currently’—because the figure might have changed by the time he got back to his office—‘the Labor Party has 528 children behind bars.’ That is a complete failure of their border protection policies.

Despite its protestations, despite the hysterics coming from the other side and despite what it says are very tough words, the Labor Party does not have the moral ground when it comes to border protection. That is owned by the coalition, let me assure you. Under the soft approach to border protection employed by Mr Rudd, over 6,300 people have now risked their lives trying to get to this country. There is nothing humanitarian about implementing policies that encourage people, including women and children, to risk their lives to come to this country.

This is what the Labor Party does not want to tell the people of Australia and what it is afraid the people of Australia may find out: that under coalition governments Australia has a very strong and proud history of refugee resettlement. When the last coalition government was in power do you know how many refugees we resettled in Australia? We resettled in excess of 100,000 refugees and, when we get back into government shortly, we will continue to be committed to supporting Australia’s generous intake of refugees.

The major difference between us and those on the other side is that, for the betterment of this country and for the safety of women, children and families who may well seek to put their lives at risk, we believe in a fair and orderly immigration process for those coming to this country. What Mr Rudd again forgets to tell the people of Australia is that for every place that is given to a refugee who has come here unlawfully we have to say to those refugees who have done the right thing, ‘I’m sorry, mate, but someone else who did the wrong thing has taken your place in Australia.’

The coalition is very proud to stand by its commitment to priority being given to those who are offshore and who have done the right thing. Those who are in the United Nations refugee camps do not have US$10,000, US$15,000 or US$20,000 to pay to people smugglers, who, let us recall, Mr Rudd called the vilest form of human life. They do not have that money. They have nothing. They seek to do the right thing when coming to this country. Mr Rudd and the Labor Party are only interested in scoring cheap political points to deflect from their gross failure in border protection. There is no doubt that the boats will keep coming unless we elect a coalition government.

Question agreed to.