Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

It would be a bad day to be a member of the state Labor team in Tasmania, when you're hung out to dry by the Australian Labor Party in the form of the Albanese government. Today we read in the paper that, if elected, the new Labor government would tear up Marinus Link. For those listening, I will tell you about Marinus Link. It's a project which was first envisaged by the former coalition government around the need to generate more clean energy. Of course it is this crew opposite—the government, who sometimes don't act like a government, if you judge them on their behaviour in this place—who are all about clean, green energy. Marinus Link and the Battery of the Nation are two projects which I would have thought the Australian Labor Party and the Albanese government would be backing, but they are now under threat because of moves by a group of people that want to form government in Tasmania.

I'll remind senators of what was said by Labor's energy spokesperson in Tasmania just this morning in the Hobart newspaper, the Mercury. Mr Winter, Labor member for Franklin, said, 'Tasmania would be best off getting out of the Marinus project as soon as possible'—not at a later date or at some specified date in the future after the link is fully operational, which is what the minister told us would be the case. He went on to say, 'There's no point throwing good money after bad, at a project where more than 90 per cent of the benefit flows to the mainland.' Mr Winter—this economic whiz, in touch with small business and, of course, the cost-of-living crisis thrust upon us by the Australian Labor Party—is out of touch. He doesn't understand that there are 1,400 jobs directly linked to this project. He's happy to chuck them out the window. Most of them are in regional Tasmania and not in his electorate, so he probably doesn't care. We'll find out one day.

And, of course, in terms of $1.4 billion of investment from this project alone, it is shameful that, ahead of an election, a candidate seeking to be a minister in a new government would stand up and say: 'You know what? We don't want this. We don't actually want this for Tasmania. We don't want the economic benefits. We don't want to share our clean, green energy to reduce carbon emissions with the Australian mainland.' Meanwhile, this mob over here turn the tap off on other forms of reliable energy generation. It just doesn't make sense.

But taking note of the answer given by Senator Gallagher, the minister—who I respect greatly; she is a great servant of the people of the ACT—she took issue with me asking a question about Tasmanian issues, which is kind of odd; I am a Tasmanian senator concerned about exactly what's happening down there. But the fact is that Senator Gallagher hung Ms Bec White, the Labor leader in Tasmania, and her shadow energy spokesman out to dry. Their policy is now in tatters. They can't walk away from Marinus Link.

Minister Gallagher confirmed for us today that their policy to walk away from Marinus Link, to tear up this agreement with the Commonwealth, cannot take effect until the first cable is laid and fully operational. It means that that money will have to be spent no matter who is in government—unless the Tasmanian Labor team are lying to the electorate—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't like that word, Senator Duniam. We all know that.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, are you asking me to withdraw that?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not asking you to withdraw. I'm just asking you to measure your language.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Measure my language? Okay. Well then the Tasmanian Labor team are, true to form, misleading every Tasmanian about what they actually stand for. They're still trying to figure it out, of course, because they were caught off guard with this election. They don't know what their policy is, so they've just whipped this one out of the drawer. They're going to tear up Marinus Link, which is good for our energy transition, good for jobs and good for the economy—1,400 jobs and $1.4 billion of economic activity in our state. Mr Winter and Ms White, the brains trust of the Tasmanian Labor team, want to tear it all up. But, as was proven today, they can't do that.

It begs the question: what communication is actually taking place between the Labor Party in Canberra and the Labor Party in Tasmania? I suspect diddly squat—none. Nothing is actually being done in terms of what they are asking from the Australian government. They have no capacity, no leverage, no ability to extract anything out of the Albanese Labor government. You would have thought that, if there was one strong suit that team Labor in Tasmania has, it would be to have the Labor government onside when they're going to announce policies related to federal areas of policy. They didn't. They didn't do their homework. They didn't check. Tasmanians, as I said in the question, will be worse off. They'll be paying more for electricity under Labor. There'll be fewer jobs. There'll be less economic activity. And of course the mainland will not be getting the benefit of our clean green power. Labor don't know what they're doing, and I hope to God they don't win the next election.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's start looking at the record of those on the opposite side and the issues they've been raising through their list of questions over the past week. If we want to talk about protecting Operation Sovereign Borders, let's look at the record of those opposite, at what they've actually done. We won't forget, on that fateful election day, the decision by the previous government, led by the member for Cook, when the operational protocols that protect Operation Sovereign Borders were undermined. Under the direction of the former prime minister and the former home affairs minister, they ordered a senior military officer to issue a public statement compromising a live military led operation. This disregard for Operation Sovereign Borders was not a once-off, of course; it's happened before. They have been up to this before.

The most recent comments from the Leader of the Opposition on border security have shown yet again that they put their own political games and gains ahead of the country's interests. What they're actually about is marketing to those people who are smuggling people into this country, because that is the consequence of undermining a border protection system that both parties strongly support. They've actually turned around and used a marketing campaign to be used by people smugglers in trying to undermine the exact same policy that we've been implementing. They undermined it on election day. They undermined it when they turned around and made those comments on a live military led operation when dealing with our sovereign borders. They turned around again today, in this last week, doing the exact same thing.

So the opposition isn't here asking questions about the fact they're concerned about boats. They're not here asking questions because they're concerned about protecting Operation Sovereign Borders. They're not here asking questions because they're concerned about national security. They're here asking questions because they want to create fear and division, and also open up the opportunity for those people smugglers to get more people onto boats, dying in the sea lanes all across the territories around Australia. These are the consequences of the strategy that has been adopted by those opposite.

Now, the disinformation peddled by the Leader of the Opposition rips apart, for political gain, the bipartisan support for this critical policy. They will stop at nothing, will they? They'll stop at absolutely nothing. And they should absolutely know better than to be carrying on in the way they have, because not only is it false and inaccurate information—and I'll get to that in two moments; I don't think I'm going to have enough time—because what was said by the commander of the Joint Agency Task Force, Operation Sovereign Borders, Rear Admiral Brett Sonter, made it abundantly clear about what those opposite have been up to. He said:

The mission of Operation Sovereign Borders remains the same today as it was when it was established in 2013—

exactly the same—

protect Australia's borders, combat people smuggling in our region, and importantly, prevent people from risking their lives at sea.

Any alternate narrative will be exploited by criminal people smugglers to deceive potential irregular immigrants and convince them to risk their lives and travel to Australia by boat.

That's what they're doing. That's what they're up to. And those are the consequences. People will die at sea, if you get your way by giving the sort of misinformation you have, under false pretences, with the false accusations you have made. The facts stand, as the rear admiral expressed. You are undermining our borders and you are putting people at risk. Those are the consequences of what you are doing.

That's another miscalculation, of course, because part of the marketing strategy for these people smugglers is to say that our borders are able to be broken. So what do those opposite do? They not only give misinformation and take a political opportunity to misrepresent the facts; they go further, because they also say that there's been a decrease in funding for the Australian Border Force. So now they're saying to those people smugglers: 'It's easier to come in.' Now, it's the same policy. The rear admiral made it clear—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Senator Cadell.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continuing on from where Senator Sheldon was, in taking note of similar questions I'll say I was really impressed by the indignation shown by the senator in his speeches. I was really impressed by his ability to bring up past governments and their actions and to use words. But the words of the Labor government are like a Sunday cricketer who goes out and gets bowled for a zack and comes home and hits socials and says, 'Scored a ton!' Their words don't match their actions. They don't in so many things, and they don't here. We hear the words, 'The mission stays the same,' but what about the tools to complete the mission? How are they going? What's under consideration there? And that's how we use our words cleverly in this game. The mission stays the same. But can we do it?

Let's look at what they've done here. Three times today the opportunity was given to the government to talk about how the tools will stay the same to complete the mission and how TPVs, temporary protection visas, will not change and there is no consideration given to them changing—a key element in the deterrence of people smugglers. None of those chances were taken—not one. If you want to talk about who's trying to attract and encourage the people smugglers, why not take the chance—if, as we hear, this bipartisanship on this policy is so strong—to say, 'Yes, that was a great thing that the previous governments did; that will not be changing.' They had three chances today; none of them were taken.

We've talked about the 149 noncitizens who were released by a High Court ruling—and I agree with that, and we agree with that. We've talked about these dangerous criminals—murderers, rapists and robbers. How many have you applied to be put back into custody? You were given a chance to say how many: 'We've done it for one'—or two or three or four. You would not take the chance. So you stand here being indignant. You bring up past MPs. The past MP that matters is John Howard, the past PM: 'We will determine who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' That is the core of our national policy. And what we want to see is the tools and the actions and the decisions of government that stay to support that—nothing more than that.

But what we see is a 'tough on borders' rhetoric and a 'soft on borders' action. It is like everything this government does. No matter what is happening with our borders, we're talking about people here and the tragedy of all those lives lost at sea under a Labor government: all those families, all those children lost at sea because they lowered the borders. It's the same now. Look at the illegal vape operations that are happening. They say: 'We're tough on vapes. We're cracking down.' But they are creating a business model for criminals there too—'but we are tough on it'. It is always the same: tweet tough; act soft. The Australian people deserve better than that. They need consistency in word and in action, and they are not getting it from here.

Today we asked if the same policies are involved and we get told about the mission. We ask if action has been taken. 'We don't comment.' We ask if we have taken any court responses. They don't answer the question. When you look into the microscope at the promises, when you look into the microscope at the claims and you look at the actions of what's happening, it's 'best endeavours, no care'. These are our borders. The people who come here need to be safe and they need to be people we want to have here. They need to be people that integrate with our society, that want to be Australians, that want a better life. And for everyone who does it illegally, somewhere there is a refugee in a camp that won't be taken. There are already enough problems in the world for people who want to be here and do it the right way.

'We're not confirming here'. 'We don't answer.' 'We have had at least 12 boats come.' 'We're not answering.' Have we had at least 311 people come? There is no confirmation of this because we can't scrutinise it for the Australian people to see how it's going. These criminals who bring the boat people here—they are nothing more than criminals; they are bad people—are looking for weaknesses all of the time to exploit others, to exploit their clients, to exploit the very poorest people seeking trouble. They need to know that you will stand up and say: 'TPVs will stay. Everything that supports this policy that saves lives on oceans will stay.' Today you had the chance; today you didn't take that chance. Our borders are weaker for the answers that were not given.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing you can always rely on the coalition to do is to politicise the issue of unauthorised boat arrivals. They don't show any compassion. They don't offer any solutions. They just want to play political games.

I was quite surprised when the previous speaker, Senator Cadell, mentioned former prime minister John Howard. When I hear Mr Howard's name the very first thing that comes to my mind are the untruths that were told about children overboard, the absolute untruths that were told about that. I don't think people forget that. People remember. Once again, that was political game playing by the then Prime Minister to try to win an election.

Then Senator Cadell spoke about us not talking about it. What was that line—let me think—'We don't broadcast on water activities; we don't talk about on water activities.' I heard that from the former coalition government for 10 years. They couldn't tell anybody anything. It was all very hush-hush. And on that side, they have so many people who are trying to create fear and anxiety amongst the public because they think that's what will win them the next federal election.

Senator Cadell referred to Senator Sheldon's 'alleged outrage'. That side are the world's best at confecting outrage, and there's nothing they like better than to confect it when they're talking about unauthorised boat arrivals. There's no principle involved; they're just creating fear to try to win the next election. They refused to disclose or discuss anything when they were in government and they had lines about it: 'We don't discuss on water activities. We don't discuss this. We can't encourage the boats to arrive.' All of a sudden, when they're in opposition, they do a complete turn and are happy for that to be discussed. I think 'hypocritical' is the first word that comes to mind—and the other words are probably unparliamentary, so I won't say them out loud!

You have to think about what the ulterior motive is that that side have, besides the fact they've got no policies to speak of. They feign concern about cost-of-living issues, but there was not one question today about cost-of-living issues. It just astounds me that they can come out all overexcited, trying to make people scared, trying to make out that they we're the saviours of unauthorised boat arrivals—but they weren't. We know there were boat arrivals under the previous government. We know there was an issue in Queensland very similar to what happened in Western Australia, but there is a convenient memory lapse on that side! They just like to perpetuate untruths for political pointscoring because it's their default position. They'll use all kinds of weasel words to try and create the impression that we've had some kind of departure on border security policy, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Labor remain committed to Operation Sovereign Borders; I don't know how many times we have to say it. We remain committed to the policy that people who arrive in Australia by unauthorised boat will never settle here and will have to seek third-country resettlement options. And, whatever tall tales those opposite try and tell the Australian people about the funding arrangements for border security, the fact is that we have increased funding by $470 million over the forward estimates; that has been proved. If you don't accept the government's word on any of this, you can listen to the words of the head of the Australian Border Force:

Border Force funding is currently the highest it's been since its establishment in 2015, and in the last year the ABF has received additional funding totalling hundreds of millions of dollars, to support maritime and land-based operations.

It's completely irresponsible and disingenuous of the opposition—and that includes Mr Dutton in the other place—to try and politicise this issue. If they think that this line of attack serves anyone's interests— (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government is getting a reputation at home in Australia and abroad for all the wrong reasons. Here in Australia it is getting a reputation—more than getting a reputation; it has got a reputation—for not combating the cost-of-living increases that now punish every Australian family. It is getting a reputation for being deaf, dumb and blind to the increases in the cost of doing business that are now being felt by every Australian business, with many of them being forced to pass them on to consumers in order that they may continue to keep their doors open. And, now, Labor is getting a reputation for itself internationally for its weak leadership on border security.

As a Western Australian senator, news of almost 40 illegal maritime arrivals reaching the north-west coast of Western Australia over the last few weeks unfortunately came to many Western Australians as another reminder of why this Labor government, led by Anthony Albanese—supported by Labor members of parliament like the member for Pearce, Tracey Roberts, the member for Cowan, Anne Aly, and the member for Perth, Patrick Gorman, who is the Prime Minister's right-hand man—has given up on the interests that are important to Western Australians. The fact is that an illegal vessel travelled across vast seas and reached the Australian mainland—in this case, the Western Australian mainland—and dropped passengers without detection. This, I might add, is a part of the world that I am very familiar with; I have been to Beagle Bay and to One Arm Point, and I regularly travel across from Broome to Kununurra on the road, on the single-lane highway. The fact that illegal maritime arrivals can arrive undetected is an embarrassment for this Labor government.

It's particularly bad for Western Australians because, as I said, it comes on top of a litany of other issues which are demonstrating that Western Australian priorities are the very last thing on the minds of this Labor government. Having wasted $450 million on a referendum—which didn't just fail but failed catastrophically, and which is now being criticised by some of those people who were so close to the referendum they almost owned it—means that very few Indigenous Australians living in the far north of Western Australia are getting the important services that they need.

Question agreed to.