Mr HARDGRAVE (Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) (11:01 AM) —I want to add further to this discussion to take up some of the points made by the member for Perth. I remind him that he was part of a government—either as an adviser or, indeed, as a member in this place—that introduced this process of mandatory detention for unlawful arrivals. In fact, at the time of this process coming into being almost 10 years ago, he would have been a member in this place.

Mr Stephen Smith —1993.

Mr HARDGRAVE —No, it was in 1994, so the member for Perth was a member of the parliament. In 1994, when mandatory detention was measured, there was something in the order of 300 or more children in detention. Today there is, by the member for Perth's numbers, something in the order of 25, although I would prefer to take the minister's word that it is 13. It is important to know that the member for Perth is attempting to create the ambiguity that suits his argument. The minister, Senator Vanstone, has clarified very strongly that there are 13 in detention in Australia. They are people who came on unauthorised boats. That is the same measure that you can apply to my claim that there were 30 times as many 10 years ago under the Australian Labor Party.

This government has put a lot of work into dealing with the important question of the welfare of children. In fact, the children in detention question is not measured by our authorities alone but also by welfare authorities in each of the states where there may happen to be an immigration reception and processing centre. The South Australian Department of Family and Youth Services are the people who go and measure the circumstances for the children. It is not worth going on too long about this, but it is worth noting that those centres have access to medical, dental and psychological services that would be the envy of just about every rural community around Australia. So the Australian government has put a lot of work and commitment into the business of looking after children.

Ideally, we want children out in an alternative arrangement. Under the Labor Party, there was no mention of alternative arrangements. What the member for Perth is really subscribing to today is a very strong message that is being sent yet again, with a sense of deja vu, that the Labor Party are ready to re-establish their weakness on border protection. He talked about the pathways to permanency—add that to the lexicon of our understanding; the lexicon that also shows `coast guides', which bring people into Australia and settle them permanently onshore as quickly as possible. The pathways to permanency are about sending a signal to people smugglers that, should the Labor Party be back in office, they are back in business.

That is what this is all about. This is why the government is voting down these amendments from the Senate. We want to maintain a strong message to those who want to ply the evil trade of putting children onto boats to try and create a wedge to permanency for those people who want to put children on boats. The point is that the Labor Party are sending this message: `Put children onto a boat—bring your child, put them to the test of the seas, run the risk, take a leaky boat, go to Australia—and you will get a migration outcome.' What this government is saying instead is that we want to make sure that those who need protection first and foremost get that protection. It is not about proximity; it is about need.

There is an established system for refugees to gain access to this country. Senator Vanstone should be congratulated because she has recently announced an extension to this refugee commitment that Australia offers to the world. It is an expensive commitment because we provide torture/trauma counselling and settlement services, which I administer, that have no peer anywhere else in the world. We take on an obligation. We are not going to have our obligation and our execution of that obligation taken for granted. The Australian Labor Party should look inside their minds on this and understand that the government has, and very much so, a strength of message that we send to those who want to threaten our sovereignty and our decision-making—those who want to use children to drive some sort of wedge and to force an outcome in a migration sense. The Labor Party need to know that, by voting for these Senate amendments, they are sending a strong signal to people smugglers that they are back in business.