Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question notice is to Senator Vanstone in her capacity as Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the Prime Minister has made comments that he is very patient and not hostage to any particular timetable for the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill? Was the minister also correctly quoted today as saying that there is no particular time frame for this bill? Can the minister therefore explain to the Senate why the bill has been rushed through the National Security Committee of cabinet and urgently introduced into parliament? If the government is not hostage to any particular timetable, why won’t it withdraw the bill to allow proper public debate, especially in light of the scathing Senate committee report which said the bill should be scrapped? Isn’t the only urgency in this matter because the Prime Minister and the government are hostage to the need to appease Indonesia?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. It gives me the opportunity to remind the Senate, yet again, of the remarks Mr Beazley made in 2001 in relation to the policy on border protection. As the member for Brand and the then Leader of the Opposition, as he is now, he said—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I remind you of the question.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard the question, Mr President.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, answer it!

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By my own reckoning, I am some 20 seconds into my answer.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have three and half minutes, and I remind you of the question.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the context is important in any debate.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just said that you were going to abuse the process!

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I cannot direct the minister how to answer the question; I can remind her of the question, which I have done. I would like the minister to be able to answer that question without being continually harassed across the table.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question went quite specifically to our border protection policies and our relationship with Indonesia. That is the nub of this question, and it is therefore relevant that the Leader of the Opposition said in 2001:

Australia can only stop the flood of boats by fixing our relationship with Indonesia. A real solution must be found in Jakarta.

Here is another example of something you said that you now do not want to say. It does not suit Labor now. This is the problem with Mr Beazley. The Australian public know that John Howard says what he means and sticks to what he says and that they can trust what he says. They know that, time and time again, Mr Beazley says one thing and then a few months later or a few years later says another.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Have you completed your answer, Minister?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. The specific aspect of the question is: did I understand that Mr Howard had said he was a patient man and not hostage to other agendas? Yes, that is right. Did I say there was no particular time frame? Yes, that is right as well. The question then asked was: why did we immediately respond? It is because we are elected as the government. When 43 people arrived unauthorised on our shores, we dealt with them appropriately according to our limitations and responsibilities under the UN convention. We then went on and said, because of our national interest in border protection and because of Australia’s national interest in good, strong and effective relationships with Indonesia, what are we now going to do? Are we going to sit here and allow this to happen again and again? No.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a government, we very promptly—and thank you for the acknowledgement that we did it quickly—decided on what we thought was an appropriate response and brought it before parliament. Do we want to bully the parliament into passing it more quickly than it chooses? No.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Those on my left have been complaining about the minister not answering the question. I would like to know how she is expected to answer the question when you are continually shouting across the chamber. I ask you to come to order and allow the minister to complete her answer. She has one and half minutes left.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In short, of course we responded very promptly to the unauthorised arrival of 43 people by boat on the mainland. Yes, we would like the bill dealt with promptly, but it is appropriate to have a Senate committee inquiry. We have got that. We are looking at what the Senate committee had to say. I am listening to what my colleagues had to say, and we will deal with it in the appropriate time.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As the minister does not wish to bully the parliament, can the minister now indicate to the Senate whether or not she still supports the bill in its original form? Is the minister able to advise the chamber as to whether or not the Liberal backbench will allow her to proceed with the bill this week, or are they hanging out for a new minister to be appointed over the parliamentary break?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Vanstone, I think the last part of that question may not quite be in order.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am shattered. I can hardly speak! The simple answer to that is that the government support this bill. We have had discussions with colleagues about what changes we could make to accommodate the concerns of colleagues and the concerns of the Senate. What final package we put before the House of Representatives and the Senate remains to be seen, because we are in negotiation. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand, ‘You lot don’t listen to us,’ and then, when we do listen, complain that we are listening. I think the public understands here that we are listening to concerns. We are listening to the Senate report. We are listening to the concerns of colleagues, and that is what we should be doing.