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 answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senators Cash and Scullion today relating to asylum seekers.

When it comes to border protection failure in this country, the policy failure of those on the other side, those currently in government, knows no bounds. Nor does their continual hypocrisy. In 2010, the former minister for immigration made a big announcement—that they were going to take women and children out of formal detention. Why? Because women and children should not be locked up in formal detention. Jump forward 2½ years and what are we faced with today? We are faced with the alarming statistic that under this government, under the government that bleats to Australians that it is the party that holds the moral high ground in Australia, we are now faced with a situation where 1,600 children are now in formal detention in Australia. This is coming from a party which, in 2010, said, 'We're going to make sure that our policies will see no women and children in formal detention.' One can only say that, without a doubt, that is a gross failure of policy. Compare that, the 1,600 children who are in formal detention, with the fact that when those on the other side assumed office in November 2007 there were but four people in immigration detention—that is right, just four people who had arrived illegally by boat to this country were in immigration detention and none of those were children.

The hypocrisy of the other side continues. In one week Australia will celebrate a first in this country, a first which none of us should be proud of—the political execution by the Labor Party of a sitting Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister Mr Rudd. When Mr Rudd, on 24 June 2010, was politically executed, what was the reason given by the current Prime Minister, Ms Gillard? This is the reason: she stood before the Australian people and proclaimed that, unlike Mr Rudd, she would fix the problem of asylum seeker arrivals that he, Mr Rudd, had created. In fact, so sure was Ms Gillard that with a click of her fingers she could do that, she went on to say this:

… I can understand that Australians are disturbed when they see boats arrive on our shores unannounced. I can understand that Australians are disturbed by that. I can understand that sense of anxiety. This country is a sanctuary, it’s our home so we’ve got a responsibility to manage our borders and manage the question of asylum seekers in the best possible way.

By that stage the Prime Minister was on a roll, and she went on to say this:

… I am full of understanding of the perspective of the Australian people that they want strong management of our borders and I will provide it.

Quite frankly, she was either delusional at the time—maybe because of the amount of Mr Rudd's blood that she had consumed—or she was blatantly misleading the Australian people, or—the third alternative—she was never going to be able to do it because she is politically incompetent. The facts would support all three of those propositions because, under the current Prime Minister—who said, 'I will stop the boats that Mr Rudd could not stop'—these are the facts: since 24 June 2010, under Ms Gillard, 584 boats have arrived carrying 37,667 people. That is under the watch of Ms Gillard, the same person who said, on 24 June 2010, when she politically executed the former Prime Minister, that he had failed to stop the boats.

If Mr Rudd failed to stop the boats, I can only ask: what has Ms Gillard done? When she was the shadow minister for immigration, under the former Howard government, when we had but a trickle of boats arrive under our watch compared to what the current government have had under their watch, her famous pronouncement was:

Another boat … Another policy failure

Based on that reasoning, we are now looking at 584 policy failures carrying 37,667 people, at a cost to the Australian people of what is now in excess of $10 billion. If that is not bad enough, Australia is currently trending at the rate of 100 arrivals per day under Ms Gillard. So much for Mr Rudd's political execution! (Time expired)

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

What a performance from Senator Cash! This question time has highlighted the complete lack of credibility of the opposition's policies on asylum seekers. Why? Because they have nothing but shallow rhetoric to guide them on this question. They put forward policies that are, in effect, non-policies—policies that are completely un-implementable, as our speakers have highlighted.

Labor has put forward policies. This government has put forward policies which those opposite have refused to implement. They have refused to implement them. Why? Because it is politically convenient for them not to do so. It is politically convenient to those opposite to allow boats to continue to arrive. We have confidence in our border protection policies, but the simple fact is that you have refused to let us implement them. You have refused to allow this parliament to sign up to the Malaysia agreement, which means that this country continues to be subjected to the arrival of the flow of asylum seekers. You have refused to let us implement the recommendations of the Houston panel. You have refused to allow Australia to do a people swap with Malaysia, to take away the incentives for people to get on boats.

We have a credible suite of policies which you have refused to help us implement, which is exactly the opposite approach to that which, for example, Kim Beazley took as opposition leader. You have never, ever allowed this parliament, this government, to govern on this question. And why? Because the fear mongering that you perpetuate about the arrival of boats of what you call illegals suits you politically. It suits your political dramatisation of these issues. You can see it in the coalition's language on these questions, day after day. Your alternative policies are, however, dangerous. Every credible analyst says so. Credible analysts say: we will see a lot more sinking of boats if the coalition get their way.

As question time highlighted this afternoon, this is filthy, dirty work. We have been in this place before. We have seen this before. We have seen boats sabotaged so that even more lives are at risk. We have seen people drown when boats have been sabotaged. And we know that this is a likely outcome of a boat turn-back policy. There is a reason that credible analysts say this. Why? Because we have seen it before. This is what happens when you turn back boats: there are desperate acts undertaken by people desperate not to be turned back. Then there is no choice but to pluck people from the water from sinking boats under very dangerous circumstances, placing our own personnel at risk. What is more, Indonesia has consistently said it wants no part of this policy.

Let us have a look at one of the other alternative policies that the coalition has put on the table: temporary protection visas. I know that Senator Cash has put forward policies in this parliament, but, if you look at the success of temporary protection visas, a total of around 11,200 TPVs were granted between the period of the introduction of visa subclasses and their abolition. How many people departed in that time? Three hundred and seventy-nine. It was not a credible policy. It is not an effective policy. Why? The facts speak for themselves; the statistics speak for themselves. We know that the vast majority—95 per cent—of people on TPVs were ultimately granted a permanent visa. As a device to return asylum seekers, that policy was a complete failure. In the year they were introduced by the Howard government, there were 3,722 unauthorised arrivals— (Time expired)

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

The only way you could categorise what we would have to clean up if we win the next election is: 'filthy, dirty work'. There will be filthy, dirty work across the economy, across all aspects of public policy, across border protection and across defence. It is going to be filthy, dirty work, because the mess that these people have delivered upon ordinary, hardworking Australians is going to require a lot of cleaning up. We are on track for 25,000 people coming to Australia on board boats. That is more people than you find in Kalgoorliein Western Australia or Albany in Western Australia. We are getting 3,000 people a month. We have had 12,000 people so far this year. We had 11 boats last week. Labor's response was to actually take $14 million from the operating budget of Border Protection Command in the last budget.

Where on earth do these people get their ideas from? We have had 45,000 people on 730 boats since Labor has been in charge of our borders. We find out today, thanks to Senator Cash, that there are 1,600 children in detention. This policy failure, the hypocrisy of this government and the absolutely hopeless capacity in public policy administration has no bounds—it has no bounds. We have had boats sailing into Broome harbour; we have had boats at Croker Island and Vashon Head. We have had a boat sail right opposite the Dome Cafe in Geraldton. I have had to look at boats on the Swan River several times, just to make sure that they are not asylum seeker boats—because that is what is next.

Yet they say, 'It is your fault, because 800 people—in a people-swap with Malaysia—has not been allowed to go ahead.' That is two weeks' worth of people. They stand there, look you in the eye and say, 'It is all the opposition's fault.' My goodness, we are really plumbing the depths of credibility with these people. Their public policy capacity is less than zero. What they have done—in their fabulously unskilled, heavy-handed, stupid and incompetent way—is completely alienate our most important neighbour. They have completely alienated them.

There we have a minister for agriculture—who has never been into an agricultural district in his life—saying to Indonesia: 'Your primary source of meat and your primary source protein has stopped, and I am not even going to tell you about. We will issue a press release; you can read it about it somewhere and somehow. But you cannot get any more live cattle from Australia.' I think Indonesia would be pretty upset by that and I am right. Can I say that 12,000 people this year bear it out. This problem requires diplomacy, understanding and respect—all the things that this government do not bring to the game and do not bring to the table. They have given Indonesia two fingers on live export. That is what they have done.

So we have now got 12,000 people—11 or 13 boats a week—and the government says, 'It's all the opposition's fault, because you would not allow us to do a swap of 800 people with Malaysia.' Give me a break! Your credibility is pathetic. You are an incompetent government and you will be destined for the dustbin of history at the next election. (Time expired)

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can just imagine the scenario this morning at whatever hour the strategy committee—I presume it is called the 'strategy committee' over the other side—got together and decided: 'We've got question time. We've got taking note. We've got MPIs and we've got all these opportunities to really, hammer the government. We are going to really knuckle them. We are going to get them every way, coming and going. What will we start with? Will we start with getting them on the economy? Yes, let's do that. Hang on; we can't do that. This is the country that has got one of the best economies in the world; this is the country that has survived the GST; and this is the country that has got the highest ratings through Standard & Poor'sand other ratings agencies throughout the world. We are doing very, very well; so we better not hammer them on that, because that will make us look foolish.'

'I know. We'll have a go about education. That's a really important issue. Let's have a go at education. No, we can't do that, because this is the government that is introducing some of the biggest revolutionary reforms into education that this country has seen.'

This is a government that is recognising that, for our future to be secure, we need to make sure that every child in our community has a decent start in life. One of the surest ways you can do that is to make sure that you have equity when it comes to receiving an education. Everybody with half a brain knows that there are groups in the community who are disadvantaged—whether it is because they come from a family that has a language other than English spoken at home; whether it is because they have a child living with a disability; whether it is because they are Aboriginal, which can have an effect; whether it is because socioeconomic status; or whether it is because they live in a remote area. What do the Gonski reforms brought in by this government do? They address that. 'So we better not have a go at the government about that.'

'What else could we have a go at? I know: disability funding. Hang on a minute; we can't do that either, because this is the government that is introducing that National Disability Insurance Scheme—DisabilityCare—and this is the country that, through its government, is finally going to have one of the best systems available to make sure that all of our citizens, regardless of the disability that they have, have a good shake at life.'

Having been a teacher of teenagers, particularly those who have some difficulties, I know how invaluable the launch in Tasmania will be for 15- to 25-year-olds. This is going to make a difference to lives that is beyond our comprehension, unless we have personally been there. NDIS will mean that when a young man is hurt—

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

Senator Thorp, I do not like to interrupt but I have given you over half your time and you have not really addressed the issue of what taking note is about. I know it is a long lead-up into it, but I will just ask you to move into it now.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I was trying to get to, Mr Deputy President—and I did note that the comments of some of the senators opposite ranged fairly wide and free, talking about the demise of this government and all sorts of other issues—is the fact that, given the opportunity, the only thing that those on the other side seem to be able to come up with is: 'boat people'. We keep hearing this dreadful language—'illegal boats'; please tell me, Mr Deputy President, if you are able: what is an 'illegal boat'? A boat is a boat; it is not legal or otherwise. That is like saying a car is illegal. These people are refugees; they have the right to come to this country whichever way they will.

I find it absolutely appalling that in the last couple of weeks in this place before we go to an election, when those opposite have an opportunity to really have a go at the government in any one of several important areas—and I did not get around to talking about some of the others, like additions to pensions and support for families, and other good things you could have a go at—can't those opposite up and use that opportunity to say what they would do, should they ever have the privilege of being in government? Don't insult Australians by saying, 'How can we spook the life out of them and frighten them? We will talk about all these Muslims coming in illegal boats and frighten the life out of people.' It is absolutely disgraceful. Is that the best they can do? I would like to finish with a little quote from Robert Macklin, in Opinion:

That’s summed up this week in a memorable phrase from New York Times columnist Frank Bruni: ‘The sideshow swallows the substance'.—

And that is what we have going on here: the sideshow swallowing the substance—

Policies are ignored. Instead, the ‘news’ all about fripperies, trivia and the seven-second grab. If you doubt it, aside from the gold-plated parental leave scheme – and slashing at least 12,000 public servant jobs – try to think of a single Abbott plan for Australia.

Oh, that’s right: “Stop the boats”.

(Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We just heard briefly from Senator Thorp, from Tasmania, about sideshows over substance, but I think we have seen very clearly that the Labor Party cannot even bring itself to conduct a decent sideshow, let alone bring about decent policy initiatives in the important area of border protection. We heard from my Senate Labor colleague from Western Australia, Senator Louise Pratt, who talked about the poor performance of previous speakers, and we heard from her about the shallow rhetoric of the coalition. We heard a very strong and articulate performance by my fellow Liberal senators from Western Australia, Senator Cash and Senator Johnston. From Senator Cash, we clearly heard a clear plan that had courage at its core to address this very important issue affecting our nation. We heard accusations of poor performance and shallow policy making, which are more aptly put at the feet of this Labor government. We heard—it was surprising to hear—a defence of the Malaysian solution from one former Labor senator, when we know that that was struck down not by electors but by the High Court. What we do not have in this Labor government is any sense of a credible suite of policies to tackle what is a very critical issue.

We heard from my Western Australian Labor Senate colleague about the coalition's plans being dangerous. I know Australians will be very confident that the coalition's plans will instead be very effective and will not put at risk the lives of many people who are trying to come to this country. We also heard from Labor senators that the statistics speak for themselves. Senator Johnston was quite right to draw the Senate's attention to what those statistics really are: 724 illegal boats since this government was elected; 44,219 people arriving in Australia on those 724 illegal boats—this is just one amongst a litany of dangerous and appalling policy initiatives of this government, and one that they have clearly not been able to tackle. This is a government that continues to break records. Sadly, for Australia and its people, this is something of which we cannot be proud. On Saturday, my colleague Senator Cash and I were in Kwinana attending a Liberal Party State Council meeting in support of our excellent candidate in the federal electorate of Brand, Donna Gordin. The city of Kwinana gained its cityhood only weeks ago as a result of having reached 30,000 people, and it is a collection of communities south of Perth—but already we have almost 45,000 people arriving here illegally in Australia as the result of this government's poor policy initiatives.

In opposition, Julia Gillard said, 'another boat, another policy failure'. By her own words then, the Prime Minister is responsible for 724 policy failures. Her failures have resulted in unprecedented costs, and chaos and tragedy on our borders—billions and billions of dollars in budget blowouts. As the number grows, what is the government's solution? Put simply, it is to run up the white flag. Labor has no plans, no ideas, and clearly no strategy to stop the flow of boats. Indeed, the Labor Party would prefer to focus on its own internal squabbles rather than on the increasingly difficult issue of border protection. We see week in, week out at the moment an increasingly unedifying political death march being walked between the Prime Minister and the member for Griffith, Mr Rudd. Australia is on track to reach 25,000 people arriving illegally by boat in this financial year alone, another record of which the Labor government cannot be proud.

It is with some irony that we now recall that the Prime Minister used the flow of boat arrivals as one of her primary reasons for stabbing Kevin Rudd in the back. Remember? To knock him off, she said that Mr Rudd could not solve the problem. Here we are, almost exactly three years later and the problem has grown significantly worse. That is the Prime Minister's record and that will be her legacy when her time in office ends—whether that is today, tomorrow, next week or in 89 days' time. As we know, this government took a solution and created a problem. The Howard government had solved the problem, thanks to its tough stance on the use of temporary protection visas. Under that arrangement people had ceased risking— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.