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

A letter has been received from Senator Fifield:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The failure of the Gillard government to stop the boats and secure Australia’s borders.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

I rise to address the coalition's MPI today in relation to the Gillard government's failure to secure our borders. Two incidents that have occurred today highlight why the coalition brought on the MPI. The first is that a standoff has developed on Nauru at a tiny Nauru courthouse where 14 asylum seekers are due to appear on rioting charges. As a result of the standoff, the appearance of the 14 men has now had to be delayed. All of the men due to appear at the courthouse are facing three charges which carry potential jail sentences of two to seven years. This is what has now happened under the government's current border protection policies.

The second incident which highlights the importance of the coalition's MPI is the following. Earlier today I addressed the Senate on the two appropriation bills that the Senate was debating. We were appropriating a further $1.67 billion, because the government has run out of money since the May budget due to its failed border protection policies. In my speech I referred to some statistics. Well, lo and behold, between the time I gave my speech this morning, at 10 am, and now, at 4 pm, when I am addressing the coalition's MPI, guess what? Quite ashamedly another boat has been intercepted, this time on Cocos Island and this time carrying 72 people.

So I now have to update the Senate again on the number of people who have arrived under the current Gillard Labor government—bearing in mind that at 10 am today, when I was addressing the issue of border protection, these figures were different. The total number of boat arrivals since November 2007, under successive Labor governments, is now 29,940. It has gone up by 72 since 10 am today. The total number of boats that have arrived under the Rudd-Gillard Labor government is now 513. The number of boats that have arrived this financial year is now 178.

Bear in mind that the government have only budgeted for 3,000 arrivals. So the government have taken from the taxpayer the money to pay for 3,000 boat arrivals this financial year. Guess how many have actually arrived—because, ladies and gentlemen; you get to pay for this. The government budgeted for 3,000 and, in the first five months of this financial year, 10,029 have arrived. So what is the bet—and the Australian taxpayer should be very aware of this—that come February 2013 we are back in this place and the Labor Party will be putting their hands further into the pockets of taxpayers, because they have so grossly underestimated the failure of their border protection policies.

Over 7,000 people have arrived since the government announced that it would commence offshore processing on Nauru. In that time, what the Australian people have witnessed is but a trickle of people who have been transferred to Nauru for offshore processing.

This is leading to heightened tensions in our immigration detention centres.

The bad news for Australians is this: this has been done before; we know exactly how this script is going to end. If you recall, because of putting increased tension on our detention centres, this time last year we had riots on Christmas Island.

This is a government that refuses to learn from its mistakes. It has been in this situation before. Because of overcrowding on Christmas Island, because of overcrowding at various detention centres throughout Australia, we have seen the result: riots. And when riots occur, things go very wrong: people get hurt; buildings are burnt down. And, in the end, what happens? The Australian taxpayer is yet again asked to pay to rectify a problem that is the direct result of the Gillard Labor government's failed border protection policies.

Asylum seekers—for those who may not be aware—are currently housed in tents on Christmas Island. They are housed in tents for one reason only: there are no more beds available for them on Christmas Island. Such is the extent of the number of people who are coming here, Christmas Island is once again full, so the department of immigration has had to get out tents to put people in. Again, what happened on Christmas Island the last time the government had people staying in tents? History now records that there were massive riots and the Australian taxpayer had to cough up the money to pay for the damage that was caused as a result of the riots, and these costs can be put squarely back at the fault of this government's border protection policies.

This is not the only problem associated with the government's failure to control its borders. Look at Customs and border protection. It is no longer just the coalition that has issues with the government's border protection policy. The Community and Public Sector Union have now gone on the record confirming that the damage the Labor staffing cuts are doing to Australia's national security is real. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service is being forced by Labor to cut a further 20 frontline staff from Sydney Airport and another 38 staff from the intelligence division, and this is all part of the 190 staff to be cut from Customs so that the Labor Party has some hope of perhaps delivering a very small budget surplus next year.

Again, this is not the coalition speaking; this is Nadine Flood, the National Secretary of the CPSU. Nadine Flood said that 'the work that these Customs staff do is absolutely crucial' and 'the CPSU does not think that that particular portfolio can handle those cuts'. When you have a union that comes out and criticises its mates on the other side—the majority of them former unionists back in the good old days—you need to start worrying. It is not just the coalition that is now criticising the way the Gillard government is handling our borders. The unions are now coming out and saying, seriously, you can only compromise Australia's security so far, which is exactly what the Labor Party have done, and then there are real issues to be tried. That is exactly where we find ourselves at the moment.

If you want to talk about cuts to border protection, and in particular Customs, in the 2009-10 budget, Labor cut the budget for cargo screening by $58.1 million. Labor cut aerial surveillance by $20.8 million and 2,215 aerial surveillance hours or more than 90 days. Labor cut boat interception funding by $48.1 million over the forward estimates. In the 2012-13 budget, Customs was forced to cut one in five senior executive service officers. Labor have cut $9.3 million in 2014-15 from Customs, and in the latest MYEFO it has been estimated that a further $35 million will be cut from Customs over the forward estimates.

This is a government that has left our front line of border protection, our Customs and border protection agencies, so ill-equipped that it is little wonder that illegal weapons, drugs and other contraband are now coming into Australia and making their way onto our streets. This is a direct result of Labor's failed border protection policies. The fact that they do not learn from their mistakes and, therefore, the Australian taxpayer gets to keep—and I notice Senator Collins actually mimicking me as I speak—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't do a thing!

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

That is fine, Senator Collins, I am big enough and ugly enough to take that. But I can tell you the Australian people do not take kindly to the fact that $6 billion of their money has been spent on Labor's failed— (Time expired)

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to contribute to this matter of public importance on the alleged failure to stop the boats and secure Australian borders. I think we should take the politics out of this debate. We should sit down and have a sensible debate over this issue. Partisan politics should be removed. We should be working in bipartisanship on this matter to get some sort of resolution around it. But, no, all we hear from those opposite is this view that there is some issue about stopping the boats. We know what their policy is when it comes to stopping the boats—and that is turning the boats around, towing them back into international waters. That won't work. I am surprised that Senator Cash comes into this chamber and proclaims that this sort of policy—for once we have an opposition that has some sort of policy—will work, because she is one of the key opposition spokespeople on the migration portfolio that she and I sit on each estimates, and we hear time and time again evidence from key specialised people in this area why it will not work. Let's have a look at that.

Let us reflect on some of that evidence that was provided at estimates. I go back to Mr Metcalfe, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, in answer to questions from me. In respect to the key opposition policy on tow-backs, he said:

… I do not believe that tow-backs are operationally feasible. Indonesia has made it very clear that they do not welcome tow-backs. There is no agreement with Indonesia.

This is quite clear. We know categorically that Indonesia will not agree to this policy. Mr Deputy President, why would you question it? Why does the opposition keep peddling this line that it will work? Mr Metcalfe went on to indicate the concerns about safety. I have spoken quite often in this chamber about safety. Mr Deputy President, you know very well that I have been up at Border Protection Command on defence programs. I have gone out on the water with our brave men and women and seen the particular issues that they work with and have heard firsthand from them why it is not feasible to consider any example or opportunity for tow-back. Mr Metcalfe went on to say:

Operational discussions with operational agencies also indicate that they think it is extremely likely that a tow-back would not be operationally possible because of the great risk of harm either to Australian crew—Australian sailors: Navy or Customs—or the passengers of the vessels themselves.

Once again, here is expert evidence provided before Senate estimates that tow-backs, which is the key policy of the opposition, will not work and that they will put our sailors—the men and women who work on our Customs boats—at risk. Mr Metcalfe, in his expert evidence, went on to say:

… we have seen numerous efforts—some successful—to sabotage or to sink vessels and we have seen an explosion on a vessel that killed five people. So the collective view of the senior departmental officials—not just in my department—who advise on this issue is that it would be extremely unlikely that an Australian patrol boat captain would be able to safely secure a vessel, bring the people onto his vessel, sail it back to the waters adjacent to Indonesia and for there not to be a major diplomatic incident in the absence of an express agreement with Indonesia, which is not present.

This is also an issue. It is fine having a belief or a policy on towing boats back but trying to get a diplomatic position or agreement on it with the Indonesian government is impossible. Mr Tony Abbott went to Indonesia recently and he was reluctant, unable or frightened—I do not know what the case was but he did not have the intestinal fortitude—to ask the Indonesian President whether he could sit down and have a discussion with him about a tow-back policy with his country. The only reason behind that would be that he knows for a fact, as we all know here, that it is not an area on which we will reach agreement with the Indonesians.

Furthermore, Mr Metcalfe has said on record that the Malaysian solution would be effective. That is the solution that we are still able and still willing to put up, but those belligerents on the other side are not willing to even consider it. Mr Metcalfe indicated that the Malaysian agreement was effectively a virtual tow-back. It effectively has the means of taking people back to a country but one in which arrangements are in place for asylum seekers to access UNHCR processes.

Once again, we have a situation where we have heard evidence on this opposition policy, we know that it will not work and we know that we need to look at some sort of arrangement like the one that we have suggested and that has been supported. It is a matter that we worked through in the Houston report. As we work through each of the policies and principles in the package of recommendations in the report we will meet each of its recommendations and arrive at solutions to the issues. A particular recommendation was the consideration of the Malaysian solution. As I indicated recently, it is supported by government officials. It is on the Hansard record, through the estimates process, that we should look at a Malaysian solution, hand-in-hand with the Nauru and the Manus Island centres that were proposed and are working.

I want to spend a little bit of time going through some of the numbers showing why we need to stop this terrible trade. This is the trade of the people-smugglers. They should be considered as murders for what they do to the innocent people who have come from terrible places and who board their craft. If we go back to 2001, there was the SIEVX incident in which 353 men, women and children were lost. Also in 2001, there were several elderly asylum seekers who died near Ashmore Reef when their boat sank. In 2009, an on-board explosion on SIEV36 resulted in five men dying, seven other asylum seekers suffering serious burns and several Australian personnel also receiving serious injuries. They narrowly avoided death. Hence, my suggestion that we cannot have a tow-back policy which puts our men and women, whether they are from the Australian Navy or Customs, at risk. Also in 2009, 12 Sri Lankans died in the Indian Ocean when their boat sank. In 2010, five men died north of the Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean when they left their stricken vessel. In December 2010, there was the horrendous accident involving SIEV221, which we all know about. We saw the crashing of this boat off Christmas Island, with 30 men, women and children, along with a possible 20 more, killed. More recently, on 21 June 2012, up to 90 people lost their lives when their boat capsized, and then there were a further four lives lost the other day.

We heard during estimates that approximately 1,000 people have lost their lives in our surrounding waters. Recent reports indicate that about 400 people have drowned in the last 11 months. We cannot afford to allow this horrendous trade to continue. This is why we need to have some consideration from those opposite. They need to sit down and look at the possibility of the Malaysian solution and the other initiatives that we are putting in place, which have been endorsed by the Houston report and put together by expert witnesses for consideration in order to stop this terrible trade.

The opposition felt that consideration should be given to the Nauru solution, which we did. We capitulated in that regard and allowed that to be put forward. Fortunately, it passed through both houses, but now we are reaching a point where we need to look at further initiatives, as have been endorsed by the Houston report. We need to look at solutions like the Malaysian solution, which no doubt will have a reasonable objective being a distant centre from which people launch themselves on those terrible leaky craft to come to our shores.

We want to work together but, once again, there are some people in the Liberal Party who do not seem to want to get involved and assist. They would rather keep fighting and keep playing politics, and that is not the position we in the government take. We want to work through a solution whereby we stop this terrible trade and make sure we see an end is put to those mass-murderers, people-smugglers who put people on those terrible leaky boats to make their way to our shores and our waters. We do not want that situation to continue. We need to make sure that the opposition comes good and is willing to sit down to reach a solution to this terrible trade. (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak in this discussion today, it feels as though this debate just continues on and on. All sides, as we have heard from the government, throw away all values that they once held in relation to standing up for the rights of refugees, protecting vulnerable asylum seekers, and standing by the rule of law and our obligations under the refugee convention. We hear the coalition continuing to say that the only way to stop the boats is to turn them back, put in awful temporary protection visas and continue to lock people up indefinitely.

The fact is that both the government and the opposition colluded to put in place the policy that we have. Dumping people on Nauru and Manus Island indefinitely, taking away people's rights under family reunion, being as mean and nasty as possible, making the conditions as inhumane and as uncomfortable as possible—that is the policy that both the Labor Party and the coalition agreed to only two months ago. It was only the Greens in this place who stood here and said, 'This will not stop people from coming here.' The reality is that the fear, the terror, the conditions that people are fleeing from are so horrendous that these people will continue to flee in hope of safety and protection. Unless we give them another option, unless we give people a safer pathway—a different avenue by which to seek protection and safety—then they will continue to come.

All the Greens senators stood here during the debates on the offshore processing bill and said that this was exactly what would happen. These deterrent policies may sound nice for the media—that nice, quick grab on the six o'clock news that says you are being so nasty that people will not come here any more, notwithstanding our obligations under international law, the refugee convention, the rights of the child and the basic understanding that Australia should play by the rules that we have signed up to and that you cannot have an on-off button for when we would like to be nice and when we would not, for when we would like to play by the rules and when we do not. Every single Greens senator in this place said that this was not the way to stop people taking these dangerous boat journeys.

We were howled down in this chamber for not caring about people, yet the policy that we have before us is sending brave, courageous individuals who have had to flee some of the worst atrocities in our region—the brutality of the Taliban—to such desperate acts that they attempt to take their own life. Such was the gall of people in this place to suggest that it was the Greens who did not care about what happened to refugees. The submission that the Leader of the Greens in this place, Christine Milne, and I put to the Houston expert panel in relation to these issues outlined what all the international experts have said: if you want people to not have to take dangerous boat journeys, you have to give them a safer option.

We know that there are thousands of refugees in Malaysia and Indonesia who cannot get their cases assessed, or who are unable once they finally, if they are lucky enough, do have their cases assessed, to be resettled in a safe third country. They cannot stay in Malaysia, because it is not safe; they cannot stay in Indonesia, because they are considered to be illegal in that country. So, people-smugglers come along, pick them up, offer them a deal and they get on a boat.

Not one of the people to whom I spoke when I travelled to Indonesia to talk to refugees who were contemplating coming to Australia by boat actually wanted to take that option. They are afraid of that option—understandably: it is a dangerous journey—but they also need to be able to put their lives back together. They cannot go home because of the torture and persecution that they would face in their homeland. They take the only option that they see is available to them and, at the moment, that is coming by boat to Australia. Locking people up indefinitely on Nauru is not stopping people from having to flee war and persecution. People continue to run. They will do so until there is a safer option or another option for them to take.

Australia cannot just wipe our hands of our responsibility to these people in our region. We are amongst the wealthiest countries in our region. We have the most robust legal protection system. We have a proud history of being of one of the key nations who drafted the refugee convention when it was first established. Yet we see today the Labor Party and Tony Abbott's coalition getting together to reinstate the horrors of John Howard's Nauru and Manus Island polices. Despite the collusion, and both the major parties agreeing that that was the policy they wanted, now we see that the policy is not working and they continue to argue. This is the exact debate that we were having in this place six months ago.

And where has it got the Labor Party? They have sold out their values; they have locked up hundreds, thousands, of refugees, including children, indefinitely and in dangerous conditions. They have sent the poor souls who have been dumped in Nauru to madness. They have incited condemnation of the policy from some of the world's most eminent experts on this, including the UNHCR, including the UN Human Rights Commissioner. Where has it got the Labor Party? Nowhere, because we are back to where we were six months ago, having the coalition tell them that their polices were a failure. All for what? And it is costing the Australian taxpayer billions of dollars. They are wasting billions of dollars on a policy that does not even work.

We hear from the coalition that they do not want to take any responsibility for this policy anymore. They voted with the government, they did a deal, they colluded, they stitched it up and they pushed it through the parliament. Now it is not working and we are back to the same debate we were having only six months ago. No-one is safer. On the high seas, no-one's lives are safer. Children are terrified. We are inflicting long-term indefinite detention on young refugees and their families, creating a whole new generation of institutionalised abuse of these children—and all for what? So that the Labor Party can say that they are as tough and as mean as the coalition.

Now we have Senator Cash saying that they have to go even further, rather than taking the advice of the convention and what it actually says: implement proper policies to not force people to take those dangerous boat journeys in the first place; give them a safer pathway, an alternative. Rather than putting all of the energy into that, we have this continued spat about who can be the nastiest, the toughest and the meanest to refugees for the sake of some quick votes—cheap, dirty, grubby votes—at the next election.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to talk about one of the most incompetent governments and one of the most incompetent ministers on this subject that I think Australian history has ever had the misfortune to have to endure. When I heard my very learned and able colleague Senator Cash talk, I realised that my figures were up to last Thursday. They are completely redundant. They have been overwhelmed. I had in my notes that I had been researching for this speech that halfway through November there were 23 boats with 1,250 people. I now know it is closer to 30 with 1,500 people. I had 9,600 people for this financial year. I now know it is more than 10,000. This is in three days. The 7,000 since the announcement of Nauru is now 7½ thousand. The 86 boats in the last two weeks is closer to 90, and we have had in that fortnight 1,500 people, as opposed to the 1,200 that I had as at last Thursday. The 170 arrivals at Christmas Island in the previous 24 hours to last Thursday is now about 200. We have had 29,000 people arrive into Australia by boat illegally since 2007—29,000 people! This is just an outrage. This is incompetence on steroids. This is incompetence at an Olympic standard.

I want to talk about SEIV36. The coroner of the Northern Territory named the three people who blew that boat up. They poured petrol into the bilge and set it alight. As a result of them so deliberately causing that explosion, nine Navy personnel were put into the water. The whole event was captured on video and the coroner named the three people responsible. What, Mr Acting Deputy President, do you think happened to those three people, those three asylum seekers? They have been released into the community, notwithstanding the coroner named them as causing that explosion. You would think the minister would have said, 'Well, look, hang on. They don't pass the character test. I've got the capacity and a discretion to rule these people out'—but, no, they have been released into the community. I want to remember that there were nine hardworking ADF personnel, who suffered injuries and burns, who were put into the water. Notwithstanding their injuries, they rescued other people who were blown up in that boat; there were some 40 on board.

I want you to remember that, Mr Acting Deputy President, because I want to now talk about interpreters in Afghanistan who are fighting and helping alongside our soldiers. They may not be combatants but they are right there, providing assistance as we go through villages and towns, providing some security and a communication basis for our soldiers to do their work. They are risking their own lives. Indeed, if I remember rightly, Corporal Donaldson actually rescued one during the course of being awarded his Victoria Cross.

Not only do they put their own lives in jeopardy by helping Australian soldiers; they put their families lives at risk to advance our honourable and righteous mission in Afghanistan. You would think that the Australian government would want to protect those interpreters. You would think that as we draw down the Australian government would want to provide an easy route for them to get a visa to come to Australia. You would think that we would want to look after their families because they have served us so very loyally and very well in Afghanistan. But the answer is no—'We are going to leave them in Afghanistan; we are going to leave them out there.' But, if you come to Australia on a boat and blow it up, and you injure nine Australian service personnel, nine brave Navy people, you get straight in—you just waltz in.

In 2010-11, the number of visas for Afghanis going through the proper process of applying offshore has fallen from 1,027 to just 495. At the same time this government made provision for 16,000 places for family reunion for people arriving by boat. Here you have it: people who arrive by boat are welcomed with open arms by this government, notwithstanding they commit offences and crimes, and try to blow us up on the way through, but our interpreters in Afghanistan, who are standing toe to toe with our soldiers and fighting with them, and providing assistance and communications, are treated like dirt. They are given no avenue to come to Australia for their own protection or for the protection of their families.

This government is making it hard for good people, as they always do. Australia knows this. This government makes it hard for people in small business, miners and people trying to get ahead. We have here the classic example of what has been going on. This government cannot stop people who come by boat. The government has no policy initiatives. This government is completely at sea on this subject—it is a $5 billion to $6 billion running sore, putting thousands of people on Manus Island, Nauru and Christmas Island, and then those who blow the boat up are released into the community in Adelaide and Darwin. This is a scandal. People who are helping our soldiers in Afghanistan cannot get in, cannot get a visa, cannot get assistance and cannot get priority.

I want to talk about those Navy personnel. From memory, there were five or six who received direct commendations for bravery as a result of the vessel that was blown up. I want to tell the Navy personnel that on this side of the parliament we have great empathy for the work they do. We support them during their nine-day turnaround from Darwin out to Christmas Island. We empathise with what they are doing. We understand the difficulty of their task—the fact that they have to dive into the water and rescue people when they scuttle their boats. When the weather turns bad, these little rickety boats do not survive.

This is a massive policy failure that is nothing more or less than a national scandal, particularly in the face of people who are helping our soldiers and doing the right thing who are given every barrier, every hurdle, every resistance and every obstacle by this government to prevent them from protecting themselves and their families. My call is for the government wake up and let them come in quickly as we draw down. Let's look after some people who have helped us and looked after us, and let's not keep bringing in the ones who have blown up boats, who take action unilaterally to put lives at risk and who put our Navy personnel at risk. This government needs to do the right thing for the first time on this subject matter in this area. It has been doing the wrong thing day in, day out.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an afternoon of an MPI where we stand in this chamber and debate the issue of asylum seekers and immigration policy in this country, and we hear endlessly, minute after minute, relentless and reckless negativity from those opposite. They throw about figures and numbers endlessly. Their negativity is endless. They never have a policy, a solution or a suggestion about how they are going to deal with this in any measured way.

The opposition are not about people; they are about the politics of this situation. So here we have another MPI that talks about stopping the boats. It suits those opposite this afternoon if the boats are not stopped. It suits their politics to ensure that they are not part of a solution when it comes to people seeking asylum in this country. We heard clearly this afternoon in the contributions of the people opposite that they are not about any humanitarian concern for the people who may be seeking asylum. They are not about any concern for people who lose their lives as they get on those boats and cross those horrific waters. They are not about any concern for people like my constituents on Christmas Island who have to manage the tragedies—as the boats smash into the rocks before their eyes and they are helpless to do anything about it.

What we have done on our side of politics, and what the Labor Party have done, is sought to find a solution to the problem. We are concerned about the people who continue to get on these boats in a desperate attempt to get a better life for themselves but who also risk their lives trying to get this country. We want to work to find a solution. We had a solution and that was to prefer the Malaysia agreement. Our preference was to actually go for the Malaysia agreement. The opposition had a preference, we thought, of Nauru.

In trying to broker a compromise in the last 12 months, we actually put aside our politics to find a solution. The way we did that was to gather together three eminent people in this country, including the former head of the Defence Force and Paris Aristotle. Three people put together the report which has now become known as the Houston report. Angus Houston chaired that panel, the former head of our Defence Force.

In a way, to compromise a solution, we went out there and got three eminent people to put together a review to get around the country and have a look at all of the options—our ideas and the coalition's ideas—and come up with a report.

Senator Polley interjecting—

What we find at the end of the day is that that is exactly right, Senator Polley; they are not happy. They are still not happy because they want to play politics. They do not want to find a solution to the problem of people getting on a boat, risking their lives and dying in an attempt to get to this country. We want to put aside the politics and work together; the opposition wants to continue to reject that idea. The opposition started with Nauru and we wanted to start with Malaysia. We have put aside our idea of Malaysia and we have started with Nauru in an effort to compromise. That is the only thing at the time that the opposition would support.

Liberal Party policy has three arms to it: they want Nauru and this offshore processing to occur, they want TPVs brought back in and they want to turn back the boats. The Houston report examined the proposals in the opposition's policy forum and supported only one of those, which was to open the Nauru processing centre and to go back to offshore processing starting with Nauru, as we have compromised on.

There were 22 recommendations all up, and we as a government have said we have to support those 22 recommendations. If we are going to be serious about finding a solution, about putting in place a workable definition to stop people risking their lives in getting to this country, we need to accept the advice of those three eminent Australians and put in place all of the 22 recommendations. I have not heard anybody from the opposition suggest for one minute that they would support all of the 22 recommendations and accept that package as it is. Those opposite want to continue to play politics, picking the eyes out of certain bits and pieces of it because it suits them politically as they head to the polls in next year's election. It suits them to not have a humanitarian solution. It suits them not to care or have any concern about the people who are risking their lives in trying to get here.

The proof was revealed in David Marr's quarterly essay on Tony Abbott. On page 36 David Marr had this to say:

WikiLeaks told us how keen the Coalition is to exploit the boats. In late 2009, in the dying days of Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the Opposition, a "key Liberal party strategist" popped in to the US embassy in Canberra to say how pleased the party was that refugee boats were, once again, making their way to Christmas Island. The issue was 'fantastic', he said. And, 'the more boats that come the better'. But he admitted they had yet to find a way to make the issue work in their favour: his research indicated only a 'slight trend' towards the Coalition.

This is living proof, in black and white, of political strategists walking into the US embassy in Canberra in late 2009 and admitting that this is an issue the coalition wants to play politics with, not resolve. It is a very dark side of the debate, but it is an obvious side for those opposite and the lack of policies they have for finding this solution themselves.

We know that in 2009 they were opposed to Nauru. Sharman Stone, the former shadow minister for immigration, said on Lateline back in April:

We don't need the Pacific Solution now, that's Nauru Island and Manos Island, because we have the Christmas Island centre completed. … So we don't need alternatives to Nauru and Manos island …

On Insiders in October 2009 she went on to say:

No we don't need the Pacific Solution with Nauru, Manus Island now because of course we built Christmas Island as an offshore detention facility.

One minute those opposite want Nauru; the next minute they do not. Now, suddenly, in 2012, they want Nauru again. It used to be Labor Party policy. We are not quite sure what the Labor Party policy is now—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't know either!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, we are not sure what the Liberal Party Policy is now; we are very sure what the Labor Party policy is, and that is because we have a definite plan. We are waiting for the Liberal Party and the coalition work together with us to resolve this issue, to get on board and so we finally have an end to the politics and the division that is happening here.

The Liberal Party argument is very simple. It wants to do three things: Nauru, TPVs and turning back the boats. The Houston report looked at all three of those issues and they only supported one. They rejected the TPVs and they rejected the issue of turning back the boats. It was interesting to hear Senator Johnston talk a minute ago about the role of the Defence Force in turning back the boats. We know quite clearly that the Defence Force has said that to turn back the boats would be an extremely dangerous thing for the Defence Force or the Customs and Border Protection Service to be involved in. If those opposite were really concerned about the role of the Defence Force and about the welfare of our men and women in all of those services they would drop the notion of turning back the boats. If they had read the Houston report they would know that it has categorically ruled that out as not a viable policy option—not at all.

In the Houston report we have picked up the key principle that no advantage would be gained in circumventing the regular migration agreements. Let us get really clear as to what that is about. That means that if you arrive in this country by boat there is no fast track, no fast lane, no express lane. Under the Houston report, there would be no advantage to be gained in trying to get around the regular migration arrangements.

I have not heard the coalition support that principle. I have not heard the coalition stand up and say that the way to solve this matter is to treat those people arriving by boat like every other person in the world who is seeking to get to this country as a refugee. I have not heard any of the speakers from the opposition this afternoon say that the very least they could do is support the underlying principle of the Houston report. I have not heard them say that whatsoever. And we will not hear them say it because it is about politics for them; it is not about people. If it were about people, then they would be ensuring that there is no advantage in getting here by boat and in circumventing the regular migration arrival pathway to this country. But we cannot even get the people opposite saying that at least they support the main underlying principle of the Houston report. We cannot even get them to say that. The message is very clear. The Labor Party's policy is that, if you come to Australia by boat, you are subject to being transferred to Nauru or PNG. There is no advantage in coming to Australia by being put on a boat by people smugglers. But I have not heard the people opposite even endorse, espouse or support that underlying principle.

Labor has signed the legislative instrument designating Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country under the Migration Act, which means we have put in place recommendations 8 and 9 from the Houston report. We have increased our humanitarian intake to 20,000 people, which is recommendation 2, and we have strengthened cooperation with Indonesia on search and rescue operations, which is recommendation 20.

We endorse all 22 recommendations and we are going to ensure that, as a package, that report is put in place. We have not heard at all what the Liberal Party plan to do in relation to their response to the Houston report. The report made it very clear that embarking on a policy of towing back the boats, stopping the boats—that reckless, endless negativity we hear from Mr Abbott and those opposite—creates a risk to the lives of ADF personnel and would only ever work with the agreement of other countries, something that Indonesia has categorically said would not happen. I am not sure why the opposition continue to peddle the line. Where would you tow the boats back to, where would you turn the boats back to, when even the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marty Natalegawa, has said that it is 'not on' and that they will not agree to it and they will not do it? I am not sure where that takes your policy and I am not sure why you peddle that myth.

The report also examines TPVs, temporary protection visas, a measure that in the past saw 68 per cent of refugees permanently remain in Australia because they knew that, once they got a TPV, they were here permanently. So it did not stop the boats. If you have a look at the figures that have been presented time and time again to the Senate's legal and constitutional committee during estimates you will see that immediately TPVs were introduced the number of boats coming to this country increased. Not only did it mean a genuine guarantee of permanency in this country but it also meant that people could reunite with their families, which saw more women and children get on a boat to join a partner who was here in this country under a TPV.

In the spirit of compromise Labor offered to actually examine TPVs and to look at the issue, to have a cross-party group, a committee—even a parliamentary committee—to look at the fors and againsts, the positives and the negatives, of TPVs. But even that was ruled out by the coalition because they did not want to accept that, somewhere along the line, their policy was a failure, that it would not work. Time and time again, we have MPIs here about TPVs, about turning back the boats. Time and time again, we have evidence that neither of those policies would work. Both of those policies are dangerous. (Time expired)

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support my colleague Senators Cash and Johnston in this most important matter for the public—that is, the failure of the Gillard government to stop the boats and secure Australia's borders. Senator Crossin, I know that you are a good person but, somewhere along the line, you must have done something wrong to have caught that ball today. You did not really need 15 minutes to talk about the coalition's three-pronged border protection policy because it is well known.

But I would congratulate you, Senator Crossin, because at about the nine-minute mark of your 15-minute dissertation you did admit what we already know—and I will quote you—'We now no longer know what the Labor Party policy is.'

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a good quote!

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was good and I must say that you caught everybody's attention here in the chamber. Not one of us did not look up and say: 'Finally, they have come to grips with this whole issue of managing their borders.' It indicates the vortex of nothingness that is going on over on the other side. It is a 'come ye, come all' policy. That is what we see at our borders under the Labor government.

As Senator Birmingham reminded me earlier, we have our second test cricket match coming up in Adelaide on Thursday. If only the Australian cricket team could score at the rate of illegal boats arriving in this country, the second test would be over before it begins. It was reported in Australia's national daily today that two new boats have arrived, bringing another 195 illegal asylum seekers. I am sure it is a score that Michael Clarke would be proud of but, of course, it is one that embarrasses the Gillard government. As we have heard from my colleagues, 7½ thousand illegal asylum seekers have arrived since Labor announced the solution of Nauru and Manus Island.

Somebody better do the maths for me, because Nauru and Manus Island can take 2,100 people. Since they announced this breakthrough policy, what has happened is that all those people in Indonesia that have set up this vile business of people smuggling have now sent nearly three times the amount that these two islands can cope with. The Australian population has to continue to watch as illegal boats flood onto our shores.

What are the Gillard government doing to fix this? Nothing. In fact, they are making it easier. Senator Cash pointed out that Labor have cut $20.8 million in aerial surveillance. Boat interception funding was cut by $48.1 million over the forward estimates. In this MYEFO, $35 million will be cut from Customs. She did list the rest of the cuts, but I will not burden the chamber with double information. While Labor will not admit it, this is becoming a business—and it is a big business at that. People smugglers are laughing at this government and their shoddy efforts to protect the borders and our nation. The traffickers have seen an opportunity opened up by the Gillard government's lack of attention to detail, and they are using this opportunity to grow their empires, with lining their pockets as their number one concern and no regard for anything else.

If there was a deterrent, if the Gillard Labor government was strong and took control of this situation, the people smugglers would go out of business and the boats would not come. Unfortunately—and I listened to Senator Hanson-Young give her contribution in this chamber—I am afraid that what people from the other side fail to point out is that for many years this country has been taking legitimate migrants under various programs, and in 2012, there will be 190,000 people admitted to this country through legal channels. On average, over the years, 12,000 to 13,500 of that will be for humanitarian visas. There is a suggestion about this policy, and I quote Sarah Hanson-Young, that it is 'mean and nasty policy' and we want to adhere to the rule of law. Actually, we just want some order. There are 22 million refugees around the world, and what is the suggestion from the Greens—that we just let everybody in? There are 23 million people in Australia now, and there are 22 million refugees.

We have to have an ordered migration system, one in which our country folk can have confidence throughout its policy and throughout its tenure under every government. Since Labor dismantled the coalition's border protection policy in 2008, 358 boats and 22,519 suspected asylum seekers have arrived in Australian waters. I heard Senator Furner, in his contribution to the debate, say: 'We are not playing fair. We are not doing the right thing by the government and we all should settle down and have a chill pill.' They cried foul and they changed the rules in 2007, and implemented them in 2008, which has seen this change. This industry—the people-smuggling industry—was not present in 2007. It is omnipresent now. Another boat turning up to our shores is just a fact of life. I can only suggest, with the indulgence of all of the people on the other side of the chamber, that they come to their senses and do something about it. (Time expired)