Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon with no joy or happiness to talk on this matter. It has been said that the opposition have been gleeful in the way we have been debating this issue because of the backing down of the Gillard government. But that is not the case. How could it be? Since this unholy mess started, more than 1,000 people have perished at sea. At least 8,100 people who have been waiting offshore in desperate circumstances have been denied Australia's temporary protection and humanitarian visas over the last three years. The people smugglers have grown bolder and richer. Labor's asylum budget has blown out by $4.7 billion.

In 2007 there were four people in detention who had come to Australia by boat. There was a policy in place that was working. Yet, who pushed for change? Who pressured for change? It all started when the current Prime Minister was the shadow immigration minister. She started the campaign earlier when she said that every boat that came to this country was a sign of a policy failure.

She was the one who led the attack on the immigration minister of the time, Mr Ruddock, who, with good conscience but a conscience that at times was troubled, had to put in place the deterrence that would mean that people would not lose their lives at sea. Yet he was attacked for this. We saw his response in this chamber a few months ago when he spoke on this issue. I suggest that those who did not listen or who were not paying attention look at Mr Ruddock's comments, because he gave what I thought was an outstanding speech in dealing with the issues involved with people seeking asylum in this country.

A lot has been said about the coalition's position, but one thing has been clear: our position—offshore processing on Nauru, the restoration of temporary protection visas and turning back boats where it is safe to do so—has not wavered since 2007. For the last 4½, nearly five, years our position has been incredibly clear. It is not that we have not been opposing the Gillard government in its approach to this matter—not at all. We have stated upfront and clearly what we think will work, because it did work: in 2007 there were in detention four people who had come to Australia by boat. Why was the policy changed? I hope that those opposite did it because they thought that their policy would work. I do not know whether that was the case, because it seems that they saw political opportunism—political advantage—in changing the approach that was working. Maybe they think that this is all just some game of political football. It is not. The facts show clearly that it is not.

We have not changed our policy approach. Against this, let us highlight the flip-flopping that we have seen from those on the other side. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was against offshore processing and the Pacific solution in opposition. She said:

Labor will end the so-called Pacific solution—the processing and detaining of asylum seekers on Pacific islands—because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle.

She accused us, basically, of having no principles on this matter. Towards the end of last year she was again drawn on this. She was asked by the host of Sky News:

This previous criticism wasn’t about any legal advice, it was about principle. Your words were costly and unsustainable, wrong as a matter of principle. What I’m asking is, is that still your principled position?

In response, she said:

Look, David, I’ve just responded to how we will deal with this. I’m not going to be drawn on policy questions of this nature at this time.

So principle was jettisoned. There has not been the principle of saying: 'We as a government got this wrong and we owe those we were criticising—those we called unprincipled—an apology.' I think we would all rest easy if there was the tenacity and courage on the other side, and particularly those who drove the political campaign on this issue in the lead-up to the 2007 election, to admit that they did get it wrong, that they were being politically opportunistic and that as a matter of principle they should not have taken the tack they did. If they had taken a more principled position they would have seen that if you are to deal with the evil trade that is people smuggling you have to be cruel and take a tough position to save lives. They would have seen that you have to throw everything you can at the people smugglers to stop them. If they had done that maybe we would not have seen more than 1,000 people perish at sea and more than 8,100 people waiting offshore in camps in Africa, in the Middle East and in war-torn areas having been denied Australia's protection by humanitarian visa. We might not have seen the people smugglers get stronger, bolder and, sadly, richer. We might not be seeing the Treasurer scamping around looking for ways to fill his budget deficit, to start addressing the huge, $144 billion debt that we now find ourselves with because of the asylum budget now being $4.7 billion. Maybe all that could have been stopped if we had not had the policies that were implemented immediately after the 2007 election and that have taken so long to be redressed.

As a matter of fact, the only reason, ultimately, that those policies have been partly redressed is the outsourcing of the government's policy. If it had not been for the Houston panel I doubt we would be where we are today, once again heading in the right direction. I will say this about the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship: judging on media reports that have been leaked out of cabinet, he at least saw that the Gillard government would have to change tack on this and address its policy. At least he went to cabinet and said: 'We need to do this.' It is a shame that, when he did that, he did not get the support from the Prime Minister that he needed. It is a shame that the Prime Minister basically said to the minister in charge of this area: 'No. I don't agree with the policy that you are bringing to the cabinet table, even though you are the minister in charge of this area. Even though I have given you responsibility for addressing this issue I am not going to take up your policy proposal.'

I think that Prime Minister Gillard should think long and hard about that and maybe, in a quiet moment of reflection, she should think about taking the immigration minister aside and saying, 'There was already damage and harm which had been done but, if I had listened to you, we might have been able to lessen that.'

I do not think anyone on this side comes to this debate thinking that there is joy in rubbing it in to the government on their big backflip and turnaround on this issue and their so-called principled position that they thought they were taking in criticising the Howard government's approach to this which was, in fact, a way forward to deal with this insidious issue of people smuggling. Also, I do not think we should be in any way accused of that. What we all now need to realise is that, if we can have a consistent approach to this issue, if we can send a message to the people smugglers that we will not tolerate their trade, we can solve it.

With that in mind, I would call on the government to also look at the other policies which worked in this area. They also have to look at TPVs. They also have to look at turning back the boats where it is safe to do so. I do not think we should get into legalistic arguments on this matter, especially when it comes to turning back the boats. It has been proven to work in particular circumstances, and the current Prime Minister is on the record saying so. Let's not get into legal argy-bargy over this. Let's look at what works so that we can put in place the policies that we need to address this issue. I call on the government to look seriously once again at TPVs because they were an essential component of the whole suite of policies that were put in place by the Howard government to address this issue which saw us, once again, having only four people in detention who had come by boat to Australia in 2007.

None of these issues are easy. They cause great concern to us on this side, as they do to the government on the other side. We have seen that in the emotion in this debate. We have seen people giving heartfelt speeches in this area. They have had tears rolling from their eyes as they have spoken about how they have been dealing with it. So this is a matter which the whole parliament takes seriously and which we need to see addressed. The coalition has put forward a sensible way to do this. I would hope that the government, in reflection, will look at the whole suite of policies we are putting forward and adopt them.

See this speech in context