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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Given yesterday marked 10,000 people having arrived on illegal boats this year alone in Australia, does the minister stand by the statement he made on Q&A last night, in response to a question about dismantling the Pacific solution, that he was 'very proud of the decisions that he made as immigration minister'? Is the minister also proud of the fact that, following his decision to dismantle the successful Pacific solution, $5 billion of taxpayers' money has been wasted, 24,697 people have arrived on 422 boats and 704 verified deaths at sea have occurred since 2009?

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides!

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

I see that, while the House of Representatives have followed Mr Turnbull's advice, the opposition in the Senate have decided to ignore it and continue with their negative use of question time. Can I say also that I got a much tougher question on Q&A than that and the senator would have been better off repeating that one, but Senator Fierravanti-Wells and I had a very secondary role in the debate. I can say that I do remain proud of the change in culture that we brought to the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I might point out that unfortunately the Liberal Party seems to be returning to the culture which seeks to dehumanise and take away the rights of asylum seekers to have their cases heard.

It is the case that in ending the Pacific solution we continue a policy that started under the Howard regime, interestingly enough, when the Howard regime actually decided not to allow the detaining of children behind barbed wire. As I pointed out the other night, at the time we closed Nauru that was exactly the same time as we opened Christmas Island. Who built the Christmas Island facility? The Howard government. Who spent $600 million on building the Christmas Island facility? Am I to believe the Liberal Party's position is that they did not build it for it to be used as a replacement for Nauru? That certainly was not what was said at the time. People may seek to take political advantage— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that following the government's announcement to reopen Nauru almost 2,000 people have continued to arrive on illegal boats, will the minister now concede that the government need to go beyond their half-hearted solution on our borders and reintroduce temporary protection visas and turn back the boats where it is safe to do so, otherwise people smugglers will still have a product to sell and the boats will keep coming?

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

Following the failure of the government to get cooperation from the opposition on some of our proposed responses, we sought to implement in full the Houston report. That report was provided to the government and we sought to get parliamentary support to implement those measures, which we got, and we appreciate that. It did involve us accepting a range of recommendations that had not been Labor policy, but we saw it as a way through the political impasse.

I might say in terms of temporary protection visas that not only did they not work but, I remind those opposite, when we came to government then Liberal ministers were busily granting exemptions from TPVs to people living in the Australian community because of the damage it was doing to them. Hundreds of people were being exempted by Liberal ministers from the conditions of TPVs because of the harshness.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement when shadow minister for immigration: 'Another boat arrival, another policy failure.' Given that one of the many reasons for the political execution of former Prime Minister Rudd was that he had failed to stop the boats, does the minister agree that 18,145 people arriving on 282 boats since Ms Gillard became Prime Minister is a gross failure by her in this important policy area?

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

The highly narky political supplementary question by the senator does her no credit. It does not advance public debate in this country at all. The opposition fail to take public debate seriously. They fail to make a contribution. One of the things I think the opposition ought to think about is whether or not they still maintain their opposition to us being able to return people to Malaysia because, given their recent decision to send people back to Sri Lanka without the benefit of having their claims assessed, clearly they have abandoned any commitment they profess to hold to the operation of the refugees convention. These are serious public policy matters. They involve really hard choices. And I am not sure the senator's contribution is at all helpful or constructive.