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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked by Senators Brandis and Cash today relating to asylum seekers and the Malaysian agreement.

Once again, we saw in the Senate this afternoon the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in this chamber incoherent and utterly incapable of justifying this government's incompetent, failed and cruel border protection policy—a policy which replaced an effective policy administered by the Howard government and which, in the name of false compassion, regenerated the people-smuggling business so that in the last three years some 11,000 human souls have put their lives and their children's lives in peril and sought to make the dangerous journey from the southern shores of Indonesia to Australia.

According to reliable reports, the caucus itself was told on Monday morning by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen, that the government estimated that some four per cent of people who set to sea on these leaky boats—encouraged to do so by the Australian Labor Party's weak border protection policies—lose their lives, drown. So not only do we have the horrible scenes we saw on the shores of Christmas Island last December, where some 50 people drowned, but, according to the government's own advice, hundreds more in the last three years have drowned because they have been encouraged to believe that they can make this hazardous journey. Four hundred and forty human souls have lost their lives to incompetent, morally vain policies.

Last Wednesday, the opposition accepted the Prime Minister's offer of a briefing with departmental officials. These are the officials upon whose advice the Prime Minister has repeatedly declared—as she did in the House of Representatives once again yesterday—that the government relied for its policy and, in particular, for its belief that the solution to the problem of its own creation was the so-called Malaysia solution. Mr Abbott and I and our staff, and Mr Morrison, who was on the telephone because he happened to be in Christmas Island at the time, participated for more than an hour in this briefing led by Mr Andrew Metcalfe, Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. It was not a confidential briefing, and for that reason I am at liberty to reveal to the Senate what was said. Almost nothing was said about the High Court's decision of 31 August. That part of the discussion took all of five minutes. For more than an hour, Mr Metcalfe and his officers explained the rationale of the Malaysia solution. We talked about it for that length of time. Towards the end of the meeting, I said to Mr Metcalfe, who was sitting across the table from me: 'Andrew, where does this figure of 800 come from? How was it derived?' He said to me words to the effect, 'Well, that's our best estimate of the number of people we think it would take to break the people smugglers model, if they are seen to have failed in their attempts to get to Australia and are sent instead to Malaysia, where the conditions are far less congenial.' I said, 'But, Andrew, where does the figure come from? What is the basis of the 800?' and he was unable to answer my question. I said to him, 'It's just conjecture, isn't it?' and he looked at me and replied, 'It is just conjecture,' quote unquote. So there we have it. I do not criticise Mr Metcalfe. Like all senior public servants, he does his best. That is his best advice. But we now know from the government's principal policy adviser that the very basis of the Malaysia solution is conjecture. It is a hope, it is a guess; it is not evidence based, it is not empirically derived. On that slender thread lies the entire government's immigration policy. (Time expired)

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

There is no doubt that getting on a boat to come to Australia is dangerous, but you really need to look at the coalition's policies to understand the true magnitude of the horror that these journeys entail. Turning boats around at sea—now that is dangerous. We accepted the advice that it was dangerous, and upon our coming to government where was that policy? It was nowhere to be seen. And nowhere should it be seen. But I cannot say the same for the opposition's policies. Turning boats around at sea—what happens then?

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

What's your policy?

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

It is not out policy and it has never been our policy.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators Wong and Brandis, if you wish to have a discussion, leave the chamber.

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

The government accepts the advice that it is dangerous—there is no clear evidence that the opposition does—and there is a likelihood that boats will be sabotaged at sea so that they are not turned around. If you want to be serious about preventing deaths at sea, you cannot even begin to entertain such policies. If Mr Abbott wanted to stop the boats, we would have bipartisan discussions on how to address these issues. That is why it was, indeed, only appropriate to offer a briefing from senior officials to the Leader of the Opposition on all of the advice we have received on effective deterrents to people smugglers. The advice shows that legislative change is necessary.

Times have changed. People smugglers know that if you are sent to somewhere like Nauru and found to be a refugee you will be resettled, and that historically has encouraged people to get into boats. We know that more than 60 per cent of those resettled from Nauru were indeed resettled in Australia and that overall 95 per cent of those were resettled in either Australia or New Zealand after what we know was a very long and distressing period of detention.

So we know it is not going to work and we know it is also incredibly expensive. That is despite the very bold claims that have been made by the opposition that it would be cheaper than the government's Malaysian transfer arrangement. In June this year the member for Cook said Nauru would cost 'significantly less than' the Malaysian arrangement. The opposition leader said that Nauru could end up being 'at relatively low cost'. They got it wrong. In fact, they got it very wrong. It is not cheaper; it is in effect much more costly. High-level departmental estimates show that the coalition's Nauru plan would cost the taxpayer around $980 million—that is, almost a billion dollars—in operational costs alone. Why does it cost so much? Because people are detained there for a long time offshore, outside our boundaries. That is almost a billion dollars and it does not even include the capital.

Mr Abbott made a clear commitment to the Australian people last week that he would act in good faith and not rule things in or out in looking at legislation. He said:

… I think that our country should have the best border protection policy that the government of the day thinks that it needs and I’m prepared to work constructively to give the Government, to restore to the Government, the option of third country offshore processing which it says the High Court and the Solicitor-General have denied to it.

If the opposition are serious about preventing deaths at sea then please: respect your commitments. It would be welcome, given the general huffing and puffing that has come from the opposition on this issue. We know that there are very precious human lives at stake.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were two things confirmed in question time today when Minister Carr answered questions from Senator Brandis and me. The first was the complete, total and utter hypocrisy of the Labor Party when they come into this place and condemn the coalition for their policy of turning back the boats, when it is safe.

The second thing that was confirmed by Minister Carr in question time today is that the Labor Party, and in particular the Left Wing of the Labor Party, who like to tell the public that they themselves hold the moral high ground when it comes to asylum seekers, have well and truly vacated that space. If Labor thought that their policy direction was bad under former Prime Minister Rudd, I can only say to them: based on your record to date under Prime Minister Gillard you must really wonder how you got into this mess. The Left of the Labor Party, those who used to say they had that moral high ground when it came to protecting asylum seekers have committed themselves to the Malaysian solution. This is the Malaysian solution that, when we send the 800 people from Australia to Malaysia, the Left of the Labor Party are unable to guarantee that these people will not be flogged when they get to Malaysia. Why can't they do that? Because, despite the protestations of Minister Carr, Prime Minister Gillard and immigration minister Bowen, the Malaysian agreement is not legally enforceable. It is there, in black and white, in the agreement that this government holds up as a binding deal with Malaysia. The only thing that is binding about that deal is that it is not legally enforceable.

What else has the Left of the Labor Party committed these asylum seekers to? They have committed to a policy that will allow this government to send children, who have engaged our protection obligations, to a country where they will not have access to proper education. They have also condemned these people to a policy whereby they will be sent to a country where they will share one—one—UNHCR medical clinic with 94,000 other refugees in Malaysia. I hope those in the Left of the Labor Party are very proud of the policy that their Prime Minister—and remember, the Prime Minister was a former paid-up member of the Left, a former supporter of allegedly humane policies—has signed them up to. That is absolutely reprehensible, but that is what this government wants to do. The left wing members of the Labor Party should be ashamed of themselves. They will never again be able to come into this place and stand up and criticise those on this side of the chamber for not respecting the human rights of asylum seekers.

In relation to the hypocrisy of the minister. The minister had the audacity to come into this chamber and criticise the coalition's tough policies that actually stopped the boats. One of those policies, as we know, was to turn boats around when it was safe to do so. The minister stood up yesterday and today and criticised that policy. When asked whether or not the statement that he had made to the Senate was hypocritical, he was unable to answer. Do you know why? Because they are ashamed. They know that former Prime Minister Rudd committed the Labor Party in November 2007 to a policy to 'turn back seaworthy vessels containing such people on the high seas'. You would turn them back. Why did he say you would turn them back? Because he emphasised that Labor, like the coalition, believed in an orderly immigration system enforced by deterrents. (Time expired)

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

I firstly echo Senator Pratt's comments in her contribution to this motion to take note of answers. She was absolutely right. The opposition is not genuine at all in its remarks seeking to support a policy that would stop people smugglers. The comments of opposition speakers are all about show and pretence, and that is quite disappointing because they have not taken any time out to renew their approach or contribute anything of substance to this debate. All we see and hear in this place is their continuing reliance on dog-whistle policies, fear mongering and misinformation, all designed to distract Australians from the fact that the opposition does not have any credible alternatives. Their alternatives do not work.

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

Nauru worked.

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

Nauru did not work. The Gillard government recognises that there are no quick fix solutions to the issue of asylum seekers. We have worked hard to strike a balance between a plan for the strong management of our borders and antitrafficking initiatives and a comprehensive and people focussed care plan for asylum seekers in Australia, as well as within our region. At the Bali Process in March this year, Australia was able to reach an agreement with our neighbours for a regional protection framework. That regional framework fits with Australia's respon­sibilities as a signatory to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and was a response endorsed by the UNHCR.

Since Bali, we have been having ongoing discussions with our neighbours about how as a region we can deal with those who are seeking asylum. We have also worked hard to develop policies aimed at breaking the business model of people smugglers to prevent tragedies such as the boat smash on Christmas Island, because this is the key to solving the people smuggling problem. If the people smugglers do not have a product to sell, if we can stop this problem at the root, then we have a better chance of stopping people paying exorbitant amounts of money to people smugglers and risking their lives by jumping on dangerous boats.

Whilst we face significant challenges to break the people smugglers' business model, let me be clear: Labor supports strong border protection. I will take a moment to reflect on the record of the Labor government and what we have been doing. We have detected and intercepted more than 99 per cent of boat arrivals before they have reached the mainland and have brought in new offences of up to 10 years jail for providing support to people smugglers and up to 20 years jail for people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm. We have overseen the offshore arrests of more than 270 people-smuggling suspects.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

The Labor government has invested in eight new Cape class patrol vessels, strengthening our fleet to 18 ships and 17 aircraft.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

We have reached an agreement with Afghanistan and the UNHCR on returning unsuccessful Afghan asylum seekers—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

and worked with Malaysian, Pakistani, Thai, Indonesian and Sri Lankan police to break up people-smuggling rings.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senators!

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

It is clear that our policies, as I have mentioned, aim to break the people-smuggling business model and discourage dangerous boat journeys before they start.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Williams interjecting—

And we reject the Liberal Party's inhumane temporary protection visas—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

and Mr Abbott's plan to tow asylum seeker vessels back to the sea. Let us examine the record of those opposite. As I have mentioned, those opposite introduced the—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Brandis simply has not shut up through this entire contribution. Can he just at least put a pause between his interjections?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, but I remind senators to listen to Senator Brown in silence.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I understand that Senator Brandis does not want to hear about the opposition's record on this matter—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

because their policies did not work; they are not viable, credible alternatives. They do not work and they did not stop the boats.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Williams interjecting—

After the Howard government introduced TPVs in 1999 nearly 8½ thousand people arrived by boat, and more than 90 per cent of those people are living in Australia. And those opposite must accept that Nauru was an unequivocal and costly policy failure. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shall I just talk all the way through your speech—

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

That is fine, Senator Wong: I will disregard your interjections. I remember back in the election of 2001—

Senator Wong interjecting—

We were running through the election campaign in New England. Stuart St Clair was the sitting member who was been challenged by Tony Windsor—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Wong! Senator Williams, resume your seat. It has been traditional in this part of taking note that senators do have some mild interjection. When it gets out of hand, the person in the chair will bring the Senate to order. Senator Wong, I allowed you to interject for a short period of time, and I think it has now become disorderly, so I would ask you to desist.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy President, but I would ask you to reflect on how long it took before you made such a ruling with respect to Senator Brandis.

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. Plainly, Senator Wong is reflecting on your ruling, and she cannot conceal the fact that she is reflecting on your ruling by going through the pretence of prefacing her reflection by saying, 'I accept your ruling'. She is reflecting on your ruling; she is not speaking to a question before the chair. She has not taken a point of order and she should be sat down.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shut up! Just shut up!

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Wong. It is not assisting. We will now continue. I remind senators not to interject continually. I think there has been a fairly even-handed approach today in relation to interjections. Senator Williams, you have the call.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. As I was saying, during the 2001 election campaign the then immigration minister, Philip Ruddock, came to—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hypocrisy—this is the one who lied!

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

I will take the interjection of Senator Wong, who just happens to have a glass jaw. She loves to interject but she does not like getting a bit back herself, and hence she is throwing a tantrum on that very issue. Let me continue, Mr Deputy President.

Senator Wong interjecting—

And the glass jaw continues to rattle on the other side of the chamber. I will continue on about the time, when we had a serious problem—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you were lying!

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

in July and August 2001, when we were getting 1,000 boats a month. The coalition had a serious problem. And what did they do? They addressed the problem and found a solution. This government now had a solution and it turned it into a monstrous problem.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop lying!

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

I'm not lying—I'm telling the truth, Senator Wong! You with your glass jaw do not like hearing the truth.

Senator Wong interjecting—

You sit there interjecting half the day; when you don't like something you have to throw a tantrum.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Through the chair, Senator Williams.

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

Always through the chair, Mr Deputy President! We had a problem and we found a solution. And so what happens? Here are the facts. We are getting plenty of—I don't like to use the word 'lies'; I like to refer to untruths, because I think calling people liars is a bit too low: we wouldn't do that in a shearing shed and I wouldn't expect to do it here!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A good shearing shed!

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

You've probably never visited one, Senator Wong, even though the shearers actually started the Labor Party, under the Tree of Knowledge at Barcaldine. Those in the Labor Party could not even load a handpiece let alone shear a sheep, because you are no longer the workers' party; you are the extreme leftist socialists, tied up there with the Greens—that is what you are, and that is why the people have deserted your party in droves. That is why your primary vote is 27 per cent—because you do not understand the working people of Australia. So, if you want an argument about a shearing shed, bring it on!

Let me get back to where I was. They were saying over that side that 95 per cent of those who were processed in Nauru came to Australia. That is wrong. That is simply wrong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is right!

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

If Senator Wong would actually shut her mouth for a minute and open her ears for a couple of seconds, she would be able to hear the figures.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They wouldn't say that in a shearing shed!

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

Here are the figures: 1,637 people were processed under the Pacific solution—Senator Cash, please do not make me laugh!—and 484 people, 30 per cent, were sent back to their country of origin. Now, I know, Mr Deputy President, what a genius you are at mathematics—you know that, if 100 per cent is a full lot, and you take off 30 per cent, that leaves 70 per cent. So how can they say that 95 per cent came to Australia? That is simply wrong—30 per cent were sent back to their country; 705 people out of the 1,637, 43 per cent, were resettled in Australia. The balance of 27 per cent were sent to other countries. So when we have these untruths, these misleading, falsified statements by the Labor Party saying 95 per cent of those who went to Nauru came to Australia, that is simply wrong. But truth is something I know that many on that side of the chamber use very carelessly. They are not very familiar with it. We only have to look at the great debate now being introduced into the other chamber, about the carbon tax—the one we will 'never have under a government I lead'. That is why I will go back to those polling figures. That is why they are like that: because the people have lost faith; they do not trust this government. That is why they were breaking all records on those low ends of the scale of polling: because of the way they have treated the Australian people, and what they are saying is not true. This is a serious problem.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And one for which you have no answer.

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

I give Senator Wong 10 out of 10 for persistence, but the effectiveness is very little. So what do we do? Do we continue on and process them in Australia while costing Australian taxpayers? This is a real issue, not only about the lives that are being lost at sea. What is it costing our country? A billion dollars a year! We look for money for aged-care facilities. My mother is in an aged-care facility, and I talk to the people who go around aged-care facilities—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong!

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

I have a message for Senator Wong. Senator Wong, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Question agreed to.