Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to Senator Parry’s MPI too. The only thing that all members of this chamber could agree on is that this issue is very emotive. But it does sadden me to witness what happens on that side of the chamber when they get bored during general business. We have seen it; we have seen it for the last 12 or 18 months. They bring on MPIs about the reckless spending of the Rudd government on our stimulus packages. How reckless we were! We should be condemned because we took the initiative. We should be condemned because we tried to save jobs. We should be condemned because on Treasury figures 200,000—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to that lot over there—Australian jobs were saved. Week in, week out what do the hapless, leaderless opposition do over there with the assistance of the doormats? I tell you what they do: they bring up these nonsense MPIs—an absolutely ridiculous waste of the Senate’s precious time—to talk about us.

And then you know what happened? Out came the surveys. The majority of Australians supported the Rudd government’s decisive and quick action on our stimulus spending and saving jobs. So what do they do next? They sit there and they think, ‘The former member’—I am sorry, that was a Freudian slip: she is still the member for Curtin, but is the former opposition Treasurer. Her view of the world when the global financial crisis was confronting us was, ‘Let’s sit on our hands and see what happens first.’ Great policy. What do they do on that side? Move her aside. Then they bring out the big guns: Mr Turnbull and Mr Hockey. They say we should be backing off. That has all gone quiet now because they have egg over their faces. And if I can use Senator Boswell’s terminology, they have egg over their faces from head to toe. No answer? No, that is right. Sorry I had to remind you, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President.

So the next attack comes in the form of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull, saying to the crew over there: ‘Look, we’ve really absolutely stuffed that up. Let’s talk about individual contracts. That’s it! We’ll deflect the wonderful job that the Rudd Labor government’s doing on stimulus spending and saving jobs and saving the economy. We’ll talk about Work Choices. No, we won’t call it Work Choices. Sorry. Let’s not call it Work Choices. I think I mentioned Work Choices, but I think we got away with it. Let’s just call it workplace flexibility individual contracts.’ That lasted about three or four days. What a spectacular crash that was! ‘What do we do next?’ I would love to be a fly on the wall in the opposition party room. It must be like a scene from Sesame Street. ‘What happens next? Hello, let’s tug on the next emotive issue we can raise because we have absolutely mucked up our attack on the Rudd Labor government’s stimulus spending packages. We’ve absolutely mucked up again. Oops-a-daisy, we’ve mentioned individual workplace agreements and that didn’t work, so let’s yank on the Tampa chain; let’s have a grab at that.’

I will come to the MPI, but I do want to make my contribution as a first generation Australian. My parents are from war-torn Europe. They had the opportunity to come to Australia—they did not know each other; they met over here—to give not only themselves the opportunity for a wonderful life, but to also bring their children up in what I would say is God’s greatest country on this earth. What if we had those same views back then? While I am on it, I just want to keep touching on the opposition’s claims of policies, because there is so much emotion, but there are so many untruths.

I think Australia is a fantastic country. There is room for all of us, but there must be procedures. We agree with that. But let us look at where these asylum seekers are coming from. Through 2009, 1,181 of these irregular maritime arrivals—IMAs—have arrived in 22 vessels. In 2008, there were 161 arriving in seven vessels. Let us compare that with other countries around the world. I have figures here from 2008 which say that in Greece alone there were 15,300 IMAs. In Italy, there were 36,000. Remember that this year so far we have had 1,181—I am not detracting from that. In Spain, there were 13,400. One could argue that Greece, Italy and Spain would be wonderful places to relocate, if it were possible. So would Australia. We have to start using some sensibility in this argument. Those three countries are closer to where the majority of these asylum seekers are coming from.

Let us look at where they are coming from. It has been mentioned, but I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate for those opposite. I have a list here of where they are all coming from. There are Afghans, Iranians, Sri Lankans, Afghans, Iraqis, Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, Sri Lankans—the list goes on and on. We know why these people are desperately trying to leave these war torn countries. Senator Scullion makes a good point: there are other war torn countries around the world. It is a lot easier to get to Australia by land-hopping through Asia, as we all know, than it is to jump on a rickety boat out of Africa and take your chances crossing the Indian Ocean. That must not go unchallenged.

It brings me to the opposition’s claims. Time is against me, unfortunately, because I would love the opportunity to spend most of my time on this, but I am constrained. These are the opposition’s claims. I opened the Saturday paper and read this. I could not believe it.  I thought, ‘No, I must still be in bed dreaming.’ Unfortunately, I was not; I was awake. Dr Stone, the opposition spokesperson on immigration and the member for Murray, had used some wonderful mathematics. She started doing a few calculations and thought: ‘Right, this is the latest scare tactic. This will get Australians jumping up and down. Let me throw out this ridiculous statement.’ She did. She got a run. That is fine. I think it just denigrates her position even more, but that is just my opinion. She said that Australia will be the recipient of 8,000 to 10,000 IMAs each year in coming years. She just used the figures for how many had come for a couple of months and then multiplied that by the number of months that were left and that is the figure she came to. That was on 13 September.

The opposition have no policy. I am very, very happy to have the debate. If they have a policy, I invite them to jump up and come on the attack. I will take any interjection. As I thought—silence. It is just political expediency. We must clarify where the coalition has been. I did not interrupt the other speakers. I let them go. I had the view, ‘Make sure they get it out and then I can have my turn to correct the record.’ In December 2007—I know that seems a long time ago but it was not that long ago; it was only one month after Australians decided to change their government—they did not oppose the closure of the Pacific solution. The silence is deafening. In August 2008, the opposition did not seek to disallow regulations which abolished temporary protection visas. They are on their high horse. There is nothing else to frighten the Australian public about, but the mistruths cannot go unchallenged. Dr Stone, the shadow spokesperson on immigration, supported in December 2008 the detention policy through the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. She supported Labor’s detention policy. Only now do the coalition have a problem. Despite the decisions they made in December 2007, the decisions they made in August 2008 and the detention policies they supported through the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in December 2008, all of a sudden today the coalition have a problem. Where were they two years ago? They were silent. I can understand why.

It is in their DNA. It is etched in their DNA—deflect at any opportunity. If the government is doing something that is good for Australia or good for future Australians, deflect. Bring out the fears. We have seen it all before: workplace relations, the attack on our stimulus spending and now good old-fashioned race—yank that chain. Unfortunately, the coalition are playing politics. They are not good at it, but they are playing politics by blaming Labor’s policies for the five tragic deaths resulting from the boat explosion in April. Fortunately, they were rebuked by Mr Turnbull. There is some leadership there. But here is a classic claim for my last 20-odd seconds—this is fair dinkum; I am not joshing you here. There was a claim that there was a link between asylum seekers and swine flu—asylum seekers from the Middle East and swine flu from Mexico. I do not know how that claim came about. Maybe the person on the opposition who made that claim had just eaten a worm out of the tequila bottle, I do not know. (Time expired)