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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cash today relating to border protection and asylum seekers.

The height of arrogance is when a person who has been proven wrong refuses to admit that a decision that they took—and it may have been in good faith at the time—has been found to be completely, totally and utterly wrong. That is what we saw in the answers given by Minister Evans today to the questions that I posed to him. Despite the fact that his actions alone when Minister for Immigration and Citizenship have been completely, totally and utterly rebuked by the Labor Party, the minister still fronts question time today and refuses to accept that the actions that he took in revoking the Pacific solution were the wrong actions.

This is a minister whose actions resulted in $5 billion of taxpayers' money being wasted; 24,697 people arriving on 422 boats; and, what is worse, 704 verified deaths that have occurred since 2009. And the minister has the arrogance to reaffirm—not only last night on Q&A, but in the Senate today, that he is proud of the decisions that he took when minister for immigration in dismantling the former Howard government's Pacific solution. That is a decision that we know, with the tabling of the instrument of the designation of Nauru as an offshore processing country, has been refuted. Anybody who has read the reasons given by Minister Bowen for the designation of Nauru would know that everything that Minister Evans did when he was the minister for immigration has been completely, totally and utterly refuted and rebuked by the current Labor Party.

Despite the fact that the Houston report has effectively recommended the reintroduction of the Pacific solution, the Labor Party continues to say no to the reintroduction of the full suite of measures. This is despite the fact that yesterday was a historic day when it comes to border protection in Australia, because yesterday Australians witnessed the 10,000th person to arrive. Someone said to me earlier today, 'Was that in the entire time that the Rudd and Gillard governments have been in power?' And I said: 'You've got to be kidding me. That is almost 25,000 people. Yesterday Australians witnessed the arrival of the 10,000th person this year alone.'

Again, even that statistic fails to deter those on the other side to actually stop and consider that—despite the fact that when we were in government they continued to tell us that offshore processing would never work; despite the fact that for the last 4½ years we have told them that it did, statistics do not lie; but they have continued to demonise the coalition—the Houston report has effectively endorsed the position that Mr Howard took.

The Labor Party have now done what is now known as one of the greatest political backflips of all time and they have now endorsed at least the first step of the Howard government's policies. It does not go far enough and one can only think: how many more people will it take to arrive before the Labor Party understands that it is only by introducing the full suite of the Howard government's measures that you will actually do what we did and the Labor Party say is their stated aim: to stop the boats and to break the people smugglers' model?

This is a government that has now run out of excuses. In the same way that they denied during the period of the Howard government of the last four years the need for offshore processing on Nauru, they now, despite the evidence, continue to deny the need for the full suite of the Howard government's policies to be introduced. What we saw yesterday was 200 people on four boats arrive in Australian waters. We have had a 150 boats and more than 10,000 people turn up so far this year. The government needs to acknowledge that it is only the full suite of the Howard government's border protection policies that will restore integrity to the borders of Australia.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Throughout the time that I have been in this place the issue of asylum seekers has continued to be important in debate in the process. We on this side of the chamber consistently stressed, when we were both in opposition and in government, the need to look at the issue in terms of compassion and the desperation of the people who were caught up in the horror of seeking asylum. What we have had today in the original contribution by Senator Cash is a return to the kind of debate which has haunted this place consistently for this whole time, to turn it into an attack on the government, to turn it into an attack on process and to begin a contribution by using the term 'arrogance'. It is unbelievable at this time when our government has worked through an extraordinarily difficulty process looking at thousands of people in need who are seeking aid and working through the Houston inquiry report and the process that came back to this chamber. I actually stress that anyone who has read the Houston inquiry report and who has actually seen the numerous pieces of evidence gathered by the trio of people who worked on that inquiry—Air Chief Marshal Houston, Mr Aristotle and Professor L'Estrange—would know that at no time did they ever link the recommendations that they made to this government to what was known as the Pacific solution. It was not this government that said that the recommendations should not be what was put forward by the Pacific solution. It was not our government that said that. It was in fact the Houston inquiry that said that. They drew clear differentiation between what was happening in the past and what their recommendations said, and our government admitted that we would come back into this place and implement what was said in the Houston inquiry report.

Certainly, offshore processing is a key factor. It is a very difficult thing for people to accept when we have actually worked to try to look at alternatives over many years but, yes, offshore processing is where we are now. But it is not the Pacific solution. As we have heard consistently, putting through the full suite of what was in place before is not the intent or the policy of this government. The transparency that will now be put on the process was never in evidence in the Pacific solution. The process of actually stopping people looking at claims into the future and stopping looking at legal alternatives were never part of the Pacific solution. In fact, the way that the previous government operated—which we debated many times in this place—had no way of looking at the deep need of those who were seeking asylum.

There is no doubt that the core aspect must be to break the people-smuggling trade. That is the greatest challenge that we have. The desperation of the people who take to those boats is admitted across the board. I shudder to think of the way that people continue to use the loss of life through drowning as a political argument and yet it consistently comes up. In fact, in this place it has been said at times that the tremendous awful—and I use that word in its true sense—loss of life that has occurred over many years through people-smuggling did not appear suddenly when there was a change of government. To our shame, people were lost many times. We will never know the numbers of people who have been lost, but now we are looking at a way of trying—and we are really emphasising the verb 'trying'—to find ways using a range of alternatives. And again I draw people's attention to reading the whole of the Houston inquiry report to look at all the recommendations and to see the range of options that are going to be considered, one of which is the process on Manus Island and Nauru. It is only one element of the process. In fact, the commitment is to look at all the recommendations as a suite. It has been constantly stated that you cannot just choose elements of the recommendations; you need to look at all the processes and ensure that they work together.

We will continue to look at the issue of asylum seekers and to work to ensure that people are treated with respect and to ensure that they will not have an incentive to take the decision to go onto dangerous boats and to leave their place of refuge and face an unknown future. That will need the commitment of all people in this parliament. Unfortunately, even as we move and have legislation agreed, there continues to need to be this debate about what happened in the past and why we have not gone back to what happened in the past. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am amazed by the contribution we have just had. The Labor Party is constantly coming into this place saying there should not be a debate on this. Well, there is going to be a debate on this because this is about Labor's record and Labor's record goes to whether it can be trusted to deliver a solution to this crisis that is the creation of their own actions. In the previous government—well, two governments ago if we judge the previous Prime Minister's as a different government—people on that side of the chamber, members of the Labor Party, sledged former minister Ruddock, sledged the Prime Minister and accused the Liberal Party and the coalition of immorality. They accused us of policy failure and they blamed the government and attacked it for the loss of life at sea and then they came out with the current Prime Minister's infamous words of 'another boat, another policy failure'. So don't you come in here and start crying crocodile tears about political debate, because what you said, particularly about former minister Ruddock, was nothing short of a disgrace and history will judge you for it.

This debate is happening because of Labor's record. I note that members of the Labor Party seem to be running away from the term 'Pacific solution' and trying to differentiate it. There are reasons this is different but I say that the only difference for the Labor Party is that while they are sending people to the Pacific this will not provide a solution to the crisis they have created. It is difficult to define the greatest failure of this government. Some might say it would have been pink batts, houses burning down and, sadly, a few tragic deaths and billions wasted. Some might say it would be the record deficits. But I would say that the unwinding of a successful border protection policy, the unwinding of a successful refugee-processing policy and the loss of control over people seeking access to our nation is without a doubt its greatest failure, not only for that but also because of the loss of life. It is one of the most basic definitions of a state, being able to control access to and egress from one's own borders.

We had a situation under the previous government that worked. The Labor Party broke it. You were warned about the consequences and you were warned that you were creating pull factors but your hubris meant that you refused to listen. You thought you had all the answers. You had impugned the motives and actions of the previous government and you ignored the warnings that you were given. You created this crisis that this country has suffered from, as have the many people who have sought to cross the seas on dangerous boat journeys. Let us look at the consequences: 25,000 asylum seekers—more than the annual humanitarian intake for this country—including 10,000 this year and nearly 2,000 since the Labor Party announced its so-called solution. Then, of course, there is the tragedy of more than 700 known deaths at sea. Minister Evans said at the time, followed by speaker after speaker, 'Pull factors are irrelevant. These are all push factors.' We know that is not the case. You now admit that is not the case, but you are not putting in place the solutions that are necessary to prevent these dangerous journeys from occurring. You talk about incentives. You talk about providing no advantage. Yet you accuse the previous government of being morally repugnant for having a deterrent in place—as if passing the words in the modern Labor Party style somehow gives you a claim to moral superiority. This is typical of the Labor Party. The Labor Party will not admit that it got it wrong. Until it understands why it got this policy wrong, it cannot be trusted to fix the crisis that it has created.

I note that the previous speaker talked about the Houston report as requiring a suite of measures. The opposition has long said that a suite of measures is necessary. The opposition had in place a suite of measures. It had in place temporary protection visas. It had in place a policy of turning back the boats where it was safe to do so. No matter how often you come in here, or go on radio, and sledge and mislead and talk about whether or not those policies work, the numbers tell the story. There were a handful of people in detention when the previous government left office, and there are now thousands of people in detention. Thousands more have gone into the community under a regime different from that which was applied under the Howard government.

Seeking to control access to the borders of one's own country is an entirely legitimate thing for the government to do. It is not something that the Greens coalition partners are happy with, I understand, but it is the right thing to do because it allows us to sustain a high humanitarian intake and a strong immigration policy.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers as referred to by the opposition speakers who preceded me. Both of them, Senator Cash and—it temporarily escapes me—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rhino!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash described Senator Evans's contribution as 'the height of arrogance' and 'Rhino'—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Feeney, you know you will refer to senators by their correct title.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ryan talked about how unwinding this legislation was a disgrace. I think it is a fascinating thing to recall that both of those good senators were referring to legislation that they had both voted for. Both of them voted for that legislation.

I think it is worth going back through the chronology of this issue and how we have arrived at the point where we are now—and, I would contend, how the coalition has, again and again, disgraced itself by pursuing politics to the detriment of good policy. In terms of more recent history, Mr Acting Deputy President, you will recall that the decision of the High Court had a profound effect on how this debate moved forward. The High Court found that the various provisions and arrangements that were reached—the so-called Malaysia solution—were not able to be supported through the legislation and that amendments to the legislation were required in order to facilitate the Malaysia solution. Critically, that decision of the High Court also meant that previous activities undertaken by the Howard government, such as its operations on Nauru in previous years, would have been made impossible. So both the coalition and the Labor government found themselves, at that moment, in a very interesting place. They found themselves in a place where both required amendments to the legislation in order for each to make possible their own policy.

Given the state of the parliament—the fact that no one party has clear control over the House of Representatives—it was obvious that an agreement had to be reached immediately between the two parties. One would have thought that if there were one field of endeavour where agreement might be possible, even in the current stalemated conditions we are in—even with the 'no-alition' having long embedded itself in blind and stubborn oppositionalism for month after month—this might be the one where both parties could in fact reach an agreement. Each party needed such amendments in order to make their own policies possible and, of course, there was the urgent nature of the conundrums confronting us: unauthorised boat arrivals and people dying at sea. Alas, that proved to be a naive hope. Our attempts to reach out to the opposition and say, 'This is a moment when we should both be supporting amendments in the House' were rejected. Even when the government put to the opposition that amendments could be made to the legislation that would make Malaysia, Nauru and Manus Island all possible, they refused it. Of course, they did so because the coalition ultimately did not want a fix to this problem; they wanted a crisis—and the longer, the deeper and the darker that crisis, the happier they would be. Mindless arguments about push and pull factors, the fact that there are some 40 million refugees in the world at the moment, the reality that this is going to be a challenge that confronts every government for the foreseeable future—none of that mattered a jot to those opposite. What mattered to those opposite was that a feeling of crisis and angst could be manufactured in the broader community, that the broader community could come to believe that the government was unable to fix the problem, and that the only change would be a change of government. That is their mantra and that is where they have remained.

To the lasting tribute of Angus Houston and the team that he led, we were able to create a situation in public life where the position of the opposition—their absolute refusal to confront the need for bipartisanship and real policy change—was bowled over. Nonetheless, all is not well and we continue to see the opposition referring to this nonsensical policy of turning back the boats. And, of course, we continue to see this arrogance on the other side where they say on the one hand that they will not support— (Time expired)

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr, is right. You cannot have a situation where the number of unauthorised boat arrivals continues to rise in this way, and we do need to find a set of sustainable solutions. This crisis has been going on for some time. Without going into the whole history of this debate, it is true to say to the point that the previous speaker made about having a confusing debate about push and pull factors, the fact is that in 2009 the Australian Federal Police advised the government that changes to the legislation had the effect of encouraging people who might otherwise look elsewhere again to look at Australia. In other words: yes, there are push factors in the world—there are a lot of refugees in the world and we all accept that. That is why we have one of the most generous refugee and humanitarian programs in the world. But the essence of the problem was changes to legislation.

Of course, you could say it was all well meant and we were trying to find a better balance. Senator Evans tried to run this at question time, but the fact is people did not take into account the impact that would have on the attractiveness of Australia as a destination. Australia is a very attractive place for people wanting to leave their countries and we know that. We have a generous immigration program, but we lose confidence and support from the community for the program if it looks like we cannot control our borders. That is a fundamental reality.

Labor for a decade in opposition tried to think of fudges on this issue, because they believed it was just a political issue. It is a policy issue. There is a part of the Australian electorate, a very big part of the Australian electorate, which believes a core business of government is to enforce strong borders. If we are talking about evidence based policy making, that old Kevin Rudd mantra, 2009 was a time when that advice from the Australian Federal Police should have got people in government thinking, 'Maybe there's a problem and let's monitor it.' Kevin Rudd was caught unawares by what happened in late 2009, when the Oceanic Viking and others came on the horizon, as you may recall. He had to zig and zag, change policy, try and make policy on the run, enlist the support of President Yudhoyono in order to achieve some deterrents. Then we had what happened after that, once Rudd was removed and Julia Gillard tried to have the East Timor processing centre. Then we had the Malaysia solution and so on and so forth.

The reality is that if we are talking about pure political responses, what the government should have done in 2009-10 was to move immediately to neutralise the potential attacks on it by adopting a full suite of measures at that stage. If it had done that then by now we would have had field evidence of whether those measures had worked and more was needed. Instead the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into everything it did. In the end it had to outsource the actual policy making to the Houston committee to come out with a report which, nuanced as it was, essentially said we need the full suite of measures. Yes, Houston also talked about Malaysia and all the other stuff we have debated in this chamber, but essentially what the Houston committee said was we need the full suite of measures and a comprehensive approach.

I support a comprehensive approach. I supported it from day one, in the early 2000s when I was involved in this process in the Prime Minister's office. The view we took the day that the Tampa detoured from Indonesia towards Australia was that there was no way any self-respecting Australian government would survive if it just simply laid out the welcome mat to everybody who could divert a ship into Australian waters and take it from there. We had to take a stand and we took a stand then. It was a tough stand, but sometimes you have to take a tough stand up-front in order to deter activity which will cause more pain and injury down the track. What we are trying to do here is send a message. Luckily between the coalition and the government we are sending the message that we want to deter people getting on leaky boats and risking their lives.

There is more to be done. Unfortunately this is one of those sagas where over time the government will have to do more and more. That is not because the opposition has somehow been dragging its feet. We have encouraged the adoption of a full suite of policies from day one. The art of statesmanship is the capacity to grasp a problem before it becomes a crisis, so you do not look as if you are always being dragged kicking and screaming to deal with a crisis. I urge the government to do everything it can to adopt a full suite of measures sooner rather than later and come back to the opposition and say, 'We've done X, Y and Z; now help us on A, B and C.'

Question agreed to.