Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party is the master of obfuscation. Before I address some of the issues Senator Bishop raised, I would like to address some of the issues raised by Senator Feeney in his address earlier. It was alleged that we did not want to debate the economy. If Senator Feeney wants to debate the economy, he, along with the whole government, will find the opposition front and centre talking about what debt burden this government will leave Australia and future generations with. We will talk about schools and education and how the other side of this chamber refuses to let parents know about the standards and achievements of their children. They are captured by the public sector unions. But, apparently, this is one issue we are not allowed to discuss.

Senator Feeney made some allegations about the Liberal Party, which I will not repeat but I will address. It takes a lot of gumption for the Labor Party to come in here and try to allege that the Liberal Party is running a fear campaign and dallying with One Nation, because it was not the Victorian Liberal Party at the last federal election that got One Nation Senate preferences; it was the Labor Party. It was not people on this side of the chamber who benefited from those. For the party of White Australia, for the party of Arthur Calwell, who made appalling comments when he was the then Labor leader, for the party of Gough Whitlam, who made comments—and I will dignify this chamber by not repeating them—about Vietnamese asylum seekers coming to Australia, to accuse the Liberal Party of such appalling manoeuvres requires an unprecedented amount of gumption.

The Liberal Party and the coalition have credibility on this matter. We have a track record of managing Australian borders. This government refuses to understand two things in particular. Firstly, it refuses to concede that pull factors and its policies make a difference, and that they go directly to the proposition that people smugglers—the vermin that both sides of this chamber agree about—through these areas sell the prospect of passage to Australia. I am not contending necessarily that everyone is jumping on a mobile phone and reading about the latest press release from Senator Evans; however, we do know that people smugglers are selling a product, we know that they take notice and we know that they solicit business. So to deny that pull factors—the policies of this government, the signals it has sent on weakening Australia’s border protection—have an impact on what people smugglers around these countries say is a farce. The government knows it, we know it and the Australian people know it.

The measure of success of a government policy is in its direct impact. Senator Brandis mentioned a few of the numbers, but they are worth covering again. In 2000-01, there were 54 boat arrivals, with 4,134 people. In 2001-02—including the period where the previous government brought in policies to send the right signal to these people, particularly to the people smugglers—arrivals fell to 19 vessels and 3,039 people. But, in 2002-03, it fell to zero on both counts—zero vessels, zero people. In 2003-04, there were three vessels and 84 people. Those numbers remained relatively stable up to 2007-08, when there were three vessels and 25 people. In 2008-09 the increase started: 22 vessels and 1,039 people. No-one here denies the impact of push factors. No-one here denies that the global environment has an impact. What we are saying, however, is that the policies of this government have a direct impact on propositions the people smugglers sell to people who seek passage to a country like Australia. In 2009-10, so far, we have had over 20 vessels. That is directly following this government’s changes on border protection policies that have allowed those people smugglers to sell such a message.

The obfuscation this government undertakes is extreme. It says that we have more people illegally in Australia who have arrived by plane—and that is all true; and that we have more people who arrive by plane and seek asylum—and that is true. But the difference is that those people have legally entered Australia. At airports all around the world, people coming to Australia are checked as to whether they have a valid visa. No-one is denying the right of people to apply for asylum. We are saying that policies that encourage people to take this risky trip, that give the vermin of people smugglers a better proposition to sell, are the wrong way to address this particular global problem. We are not comparing apples with apples. That is an immigration issue. It is not an issue of illegal—sorry, I correct myself: ‘unlawful entry’. I do not necessarily want to use the words of the Prime Minister.

The Labor government walks both sides of the street on this issue. Our Prime Minister goes to extraordinary lengths not to answer this question and not to answer questions about this in a way that will see him on television. The Prime Minister has gone to immense trouble to not answer questions in parliament. He does not want footage of himself in parliament answering a question on this, because he does not want to be talking about it in public. I will quote him at length, and this is a particularly long sentence; I have not managed to count the number of commas in it. For a person who is quite successful at delivering the eight-second grab, it is amazing how this Prime Minister will avoid delivering an eight-second grab on this particular issue. He does not want people watching television news to know that he is trying to walk both sides of the street on this. He talks to The 7.30 Report; he does not talk to A Current Affair. He says one thing to the Age; he does everything he can do to avoid it being in the Herald Sun. This is what the Prime Minister said in response to a question on this issue:

But you know, if you’re being serious about this, we are dealing with challenges in source countries, dealing with challenges in transit countries, dealing with challenges of course in interdicting vessels at sea, and dealing of course with the processes of mandatory detention of proper processing to ensure that you’re dealing with the physical and security questions which are part and parcel of the proper processes of Government.

Is that not diplo-babble or bureauspeak? It is an example of this government trying to avoid scrutiny, an example of the Prime Minister walking both sides of the street and an example of this government’s hypocrisy.

This government has sent the wrong signal. It has allowed people smugglers to walk around these countries and advocate that passage to Australia has become easier. That is an appalling risk for these people. I join Senator Joyce in saying that I am not attempting to besmirch people seeking asylum. However, I say to people who are truly concerned about the vulnerable: the people who can afford passage are not always the most vulnerable people in these countries. It is outrageous to assert that we should be prioritising those who have the means, the contacts and the networks to come across the Indian Ocean when resources and places will inevitably be taken by those people. We do not know about the others who are left. We do not know about those who may be in greater need of protection.

I will conclude on this: this country has a record, of which I am personally proud, of a large immigration program and a particularly large humanitarian program. But public faith in that program is dependent upon the government having control over our borders. This government is weakening border security. This government is giving the people smugglers a better product to sell. This government is not justifying its own policies; it is just trying to obfuscate by making comparisons to Europe and talking about the opposition. This government is going to undermine this very pact which both sides of politics in this country should be proud of.