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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Sport (Senator Lundy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cash today relating to asylum seekers.

You know a government is embarrassed by its failures when the relevant minister in question time refuses to confirm what are facts that are put to her and in fact the minister actually says in relation to a question that I asked, 'I cannot confirm what Senator Cash is saying.' She then went on to say that she completely rejected the premise of my question. All I can say to that is that the minister is clearly so embarrassed by her government's failures that she wanted to 'take me to task' in relation to the undisputed fact that, under the former Howard government in the 2002-03 financial year, the number of boats that arrived was zero and the number of people who arrived was zero.

Perhaps the minister could explain, when she next answers one of my questions, why she was taking me to task in relation to that fact. This is a government that continually says to the people of Australia, 'We want to stop the boats.' I would have thought that you would actually celebrate the fact that you can, as a government, implement policies that do as this government tells the people of Australia it wants to do. It is a fact, even if Senator Lundy would not confirm it—that five years ago when the Howard government left office there were four people in detention. That is an undisputed fact. It is also a fact, even if Senator Lundy did not want to confirm it, that now more than 2,000 people attempt to enter this country—in fact, they do not attempt; they do enter this country—illegally under the current government's policies. It is also a fact—again, even if Senator Lundy is too embarrassed to confirm it—that there are now more than 12,000 people in detention; and, because there are more than 12,000 people in detention the government has had to adopt a policy of actually releasing the thousands that are still there into the community. For a government that says that it wants to stop the boats—I have to say, based on their record to date, that 30,408 people have arrived on 521 boats—there are two possible scenarios that arise. You actually do not mean what mean what you say—and there is a very good chance that that is actually true given that this government is the government that said to the people of Australia, prior to the 2010 election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'

So maybe they actually do not mean it. Alternatively—this is probably the more likely scenario—the Gillard Labor government are truly incapable of securing Australia's borders. To add insult to injury, more than half of the 30,408 people who have arrived in Australia have arrived under the Gillard Labor government. Former Prime Minister Rudd, former Minister for Foreign Affairs Rudd and nearly now backbencher Mr Kevin Rudd must quite literally choke on his Wheaties in the morning. He must choke because one of the reasons that was given by the Labor caucus at the time for having to politically execute Mr Rudd was, as stated by Ms Gillard, that 'Mr Rudd had fundamentally failed when it came to border protection in Australia', and as a result Mr Rudd had to lose his job and be sent to the backbench.

If Mr Rudd had failed in his responsibility to properly secure Australia's borders, I really do not know the turn of phrase that the Australian public would use when it comes to Ms Gillard. It is a fact that the former Howard government stopped the boats. So those on the other side cannot say that they cannot implement policies that do not stop the boats. I want to read into the Hansard record these figures: 2002-03, zero boats, zero people; 2004-05, zero boats, zero people; 2006-07, four boats, 133 people. Governments can stop the boats. The former Howard government did, but those on the other side just do not have the political backbone— (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers by Minister Lundy on the government's asylum seeker policy. I firstly need to take umbrage at the continual use of the terms 'illegal arrivals' and 'illegal immigrants' and the like. In using these terms, the opposition show their true colours in this debate. They highlight that they are interested only in perpetuating the fear of the unknown that unfortunately abounds in sections of our community. This government is committed to continuing to break the people-smuggling trade. We are committed to stopping people from getting on boats to make a very dangerous journey to Australia, and we are committed to an orderly migration program.

The government sought to implement the Malaysia agreement but this place voted it down. We then moved to seek recommendations from an expert panel chaired by former Chief of Defence Force Angus Houston. The Houston report includes numerous pieces of evidence gathered by the trio who worked on that inquiry. Air Chief Marshal Houston, Mr Aristotle and Professor L'Estrange provided clear recommendations to the parliament in their report. The government said at the time of announcing the review that to break the policy impasse it would accept the recommendations of this review in full. This has seen the government work through an extraordinarily difficult process, looking at thousands of people in need, people seeking help from a rich country like Australia—and those opposite seek to demonise these people.

The Houston inquiry report recommended action that was very different from what was put forward by the Pacific solution. The report drew clear differentiation between what happened in the past and what their recommendations said. The government committed to come back into this place and implement what was said in the Houston inquiry report. Senators need to pay close attention to the whole of the Houston inquiry report. They need to look closely at all of the recommendations as a package, as a process to achieving regional cooperation, as a process to stopping people from getting on leaky boats and risking their lives and as a process to increasing Australia's humanitarian intake of refugees. We have committed to implementing the recommendations as a suite, and we continue to do so. It has been constantly stated that you cannot just choose elements of the recommendations. You cannot pick and choose the politically expedient ones. You have got to look at all the processes, all the steps, and you have got to ensure that they work together. You cannot just explain three specific policies as being the silver bullets to this difficult policy issue.

Labor will continue to look at the issues of those who seek asylum and will work to ensure that people are treated with dignity and respect. In doing so, we want to remove the incentives for these people to take the decision to go onto these dangerous boats, to leave their place of refuge and face an unknown future—but this process will need to have the commitment of all people in this parliament. We need to appreciate the desperation of the people who are caught up in the horror of seeking asylum. What those opposite seek to do is to demonise people who are seeking asylum.

On that note, I congratulate the producers of the television series Go back to where you came from. This show had six high-profile Australians, including former coalition Minister for Defence Mr Peter Reith. The six Australians faced intense danger on the streets of some of the world's most dangerous cities. Three were taken to Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, and the other three were taken to Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. All six experienced time inside the walls of the Christmas Island detention centre. All six took part in a voyage, south from the Indonesian coastline, on a wooden fishing boat. But, most importantly, this show put these six high-profile Australians in direct contact with asylum seekers in Australia and across the world. It showed the desperation of these people, who want a better life, free from persecution. It showed that the baseless attacks from many of those opposite on these people can be combatted—combatted through conversation, through basic dialogue about humanity. The desperation of the people who take to these boats is admitted across the board.

The government is committed to a process that seeks to break the trade of the people smugglers. That is why we commissioned the Houston report. We are seeking to implement the suite of its recommendations to achieve a regional framework for assisting refugees. We need to stop the dangerous rhetoric of turning back the boats. (Time expired)

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Lundy to questions asked by Senator Cash. I have to note that, as I was looking at Senator Lundy, as I do many of those opposite as they speak about border protection—I am a great observer of people—I think I have got the answer. It has taken me a long time but I think it is one of those presentations by people who are often confronted by their own inadequacies—and that is denial. Denial is quite a well-known and well-written about presentation, and certainly the senator opposite, in terms of her answers to the questions, was presenting that.

I suppose it is something that really can be applied throughout the Labor Party and particularly to those ministers who have been responsible for this appalling failure in border protection. When they have been basically staring their failures in the face, I have often wondered why they have not moved to change their place. It is probably a little bit like Alcoholics Anonymous in this regard when people are continually in denial that they in fact have a problem with grog.

The Labor Party—and this time it concerns Senator Lundy—should simply stand and declare: 'I now know that our border control policies are a complete failure.' Unless you can declare that you have got it so badly wrong, you will not move out of denial. When you move out of denial, you can heal thyself.

You can start looking at alternative lifestyles and, in this case, alternative policies. But every time I come into this place people stand up and say, 'No, it's all okay.' We have just heard from the good senator, and she says, 'There are ebbs and flows.' That is not bad! The ebb was when we had no boats under the previous government, and now we have their flows. That is a term of denial. I have a few drinks! The flows are 512 vessels. That—unremarkably, probably—is twice the size of the Spanish Armada. Those vessels have suddenly arrived when they are saying, 'Oh, there's bit of a flow, a couple of boats—not really too much to worry about.' Sadly, I do not really think you are going to change anything unless you get over it.

Perhaps they should just consider a bit of a list. This is their policy approach and how they go. Since the Malaysian announcement—we can remember that—there have been 279 boats, and 18,000 people arrived. I am not sure how that went for you, but I do not really think you could give that a bit of a tick as working. We then had the signing of the Malaysian deal on 25 July. Since then 286 boats have arrived, carrying 18,389 people.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't support the Malaysian deal. That's why. You didn't support the Malaysian deal.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that was your answer. I will take the interjection. That was your answer, and as a consequence of that policy another 18,000 people arrived on boats. Don't be in denial. Accept it. It is the way. Accept that you have completely failed. Then you can actually get better at it.

I can tell those senators on the other side that tragically it goes on. Remember when, on 25 November 2011, you decided to make the bridging visa announcement: 'That'll fix it.' We said, 'Look, you really need a whole suite of things.' Two hundred and sixty-four boats have arrived since that announcement. It does not sound to me as if it is stopping too much. It does not sound as if it is stopping anything at all. Nothing that is associated with your policy has stopped the boats and the misery associated with them. Again, we have had another crack on: 'We've decided that we'll do the single-assessment system. We'll bring in the single-assessment system on 24 March.' How did that work for you? Another 233 vessels, with 14,496 people. I do not think that is working for me. I do not know about you, but it does not appear that that is something that is really going to change anything at all.

Sadly, to once again get the sort of response we have had from the other side is just a presentation of denial unless you change your policies significantly. I think we have been pretty open-hearted about this. We have offered policies that work. We have simply said, 'Adopt the entire suite of policies from the Howard government, who had zero people and zero boats'—not a bad thing to aim for. I think it is quite reasonable. Our claim to stop the boats and the misery, of course, is based on good policy, and I think that we will not accept that those on the other side have any idea about how to control our borders through good policy unless they first of all stand and say, 'I have failed.' (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy did reject the premise of the question put by Senator Cash, and rightly so, because the premise of that question was incredibly wrong. Temporary protection visas under the Howard government did not work. Their system of temporary protection visas did not work, so the minister, Senator Lundy, was correct in rejecting that premise. But the sad, sad thing about taking note of this issue on immigration policy is the fact that there are those opposite that simply cannot recognise that there are some things that are more important than political wins or political losses, however you want to look at it, and this is one of those issues that are more important than political wins, because it is about humanity. It is about people's lives, and therefore it is the responsibility of every member of parliament and every senator to forget about the politics and look at ways in which we can work together to ensure that we get a good outcome so that, yes, people do not drown at sea, risking their lives trying to find a safe haven to live in into their futures.

We know that in the past eight months or so something like 300 people have drowned attempting to make that dangerous voyage to Australia. So of course we do not want people to do that, because we do care for the basis of humanity: that people can live a safe life and, of course, be able to seek asylum in Australia—something that is legal, not illegal. The Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and those opposite continue to like to use that kind of absolutely appalling language, as though they are not talking about human beings. We are talking about human beings, and we are talking about humanity. That is why we have received the Houston report and accepted the recommendations provided in that report, because we know that we need to rise above claiming these kinds of political victories that have been thrown about through slogans like 'We're going to stop the boats' in the past of those opposite. We need, bluntly, to concede that the Houston report praises some aspects and rejects or criticises other aspects of both government policy and the opposition's policy. The fact is that we need to reach a compromise to stop the people that have drowned and the ongoing potential of people drowning at sea. So we recognise that, and that is why we have accepted the report and accepted that we need a broad-ranging approach to immigration policy in this country.

We are up for it, for tackling this tough policy issue, unlike those opposite, who do not want to find a solution but instead want to continue to throw politics at this issue. It is a difficult issue. It is an emotive issue because you are dealing with human beings, you are dealing with people's lives. But we do not want to demonise people, to call them 'illegals', or to use slogans to encapsulate important immigration policy for this country. We want to get into the detail, into the nitty-gritty, into the important facets needed to ensure that we have a robust, broad and all-encompassing immigration policy in this country for those who seek asylum and for those who come by other means. That is why we have accepted the Houston report. You cannot cherry-pick that report, picking one bit of their policy and leaving out the rest. We have taken it and accepted it as a whole.

We need to remember that since that report the Australian humanitarian program has been increased to 20,000, the largest increase in 30 years. I am proud of that fact. Australia is now the leading resettlement country globally per capita, which is a very good thing, and it is the first time that has happened in 30 years. It never happened under the Howard government. We now have the increase in place to ensure we are addressing some of the important issues for those risking their lives, which we do not want to continue to happen. (Time expired)

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

I was going to begin on a very positive note and share with the Senate the contribution that the Leader of the Liberal Party and of the coalition set out this morning at our regular party meeting. But, before I do that, let me make this very clear response to Senator Singh's comments: you do not do humanity or human beings any justice by encouraging them, or the people smugglers who would like to benefit from the trade in their hope or their search for a better life, with a set of policy prescriptions that only encourage them to travel dangerous distances over dangerous seas to our shores. Labor's conscience is rightly bruised by this shameful policy approach it has taken to protecting our borders—a policy approach that has failed.

On a more uplifting note to begin my contribution to this debate, it was pleasing this morning at our regular party meeting for Tony Abbott to use the last opportunity in this session for a meeting of coalition members and senators to recommit himself and our party to build a better life for the Australian people, to build a better life for the forgotten families of our country. In his very eloquent speech he committed the coalition to a positive plan to deliver a strong and prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia. Not surprisingly, and in response to the very many calls Australians have made of their coalition representatives, he committed himself to securing our borders, to stopping the boats by putting in place policies that we know can work in the future because they have worked in the past.

We have heard this afternoon that this government is 'committed' to breaking the people-smuggling trade, to slowing down illegal arrivals and to putting in place an orderly immigration program. But, I am sorry, commitment is not enough. What the community want is real, effective action. They are not seeing that from this government. What they want to see is a policy program that delivers results; a policy program that will work because it has been proven to work in the past.

We heard from Senator Lundy about the 'ebb and flow' of illegal arrivals in our country as somehow excusing this government's failure to secure Australia's borders. I think that, instead, 'ebb and flow' better describes the government's policy thinking: its indecision, its poor policy choices of the past and its constant failing when it comes to protecting our borders. Please! We also heard from one government senator that the government can defend its policy failure, defend the arrivals of thousands of illegal immigrants on hundreds of boats, by talking up a television series. The virtues of a television series are now being used to defend the government's poor policy making on border protection.

Hardly a day goes by without another boat arriving to remind Australians, as if they needed reminding, that this government has comprehensively botched the management of our borders. On Saturday we marked—I deliberately do not use the word 'celebrated' but, rather, marked—five years since Labor won office. Looked at another way, this means it is five years since Australia had in place a suite of comprehensive, effective policy measures that actually stopped the boats. The Howard government had solved the problem, thanks to its tough stance and its use of temporary protection visas. People had ceased risking their lives by making the dangerous boat journey to Australia. But, as we all know, this Labor government took a solution and created a problem.

When the Rudd government won office there were just four—the same number as there were in the Beatles; the same number as there are seasons—just one, two, three, four people in immigration detention who had arrived illegally by boat. Five years later, that number is around 12,000. We have approximately 2,000 people arriving by boat every month, and this government has no earthly idea what to do about it.

Recall the sorry history: the Prime Minister seized the leadership from Kevin Rudd because, she said, this was one of the big three issues she was going to fix. She started by launching her East Timor solution. She then moved on to the Malaysia solution. Alas, the Prime Minister failed again, that one shot down by the High Court. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.