Mr BRIGGS (11:56 AM) —It is always a privilege to follow the remarks of the member for Braddon, who is generally one of the more thoughtful members on that side of the House. I do rise to speak in support of the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. As the Liberal Party has said through its spokesman, the member for Cook—or the member for the Shire!—we do support the measures in this bill.

However, it is of course a bill that is necessary because of Labor’s failures on this issue. While generally I enjoy the contributions of the member for Braddon, I thought that was one of his weaker ones in defending a very difficult policy issue for the Labor Party to defend. They always defend it on the basis that we on this side of the House are running some sort of fear or dirty under-the-radar campaign rather than actually arguing the real reasons why their policy has failed, which, of course, were the changes to the border protection laws in August 2008. Since that time, we have seen nearly 100 boats arrive in the northern part of Australia. The Christmas Island detention facility is so packed now that it is looking as if those seeking refugee status will need to be transferred to the mainland, a policy failure unlike any other from those on the other side, and probably up there with the insulation program.

Yesterday, the campaign that is run by those on the other side about the motives of members on this side of the House saw one of its worst episodes, with the contribution by the member for Parramatta—as so rightfully pointed out by the member for Higgins who followed her—as recorded in the Hansard:

The very clear suggestion in that contribution from the member for Parramatta was that members on this side of the House are saying in a direct statement, ‘We should just push the boats back and let them drown.’ The member for Parramatta came into the House, after the member for Higgins quite rightly pointed out this absolute disgrace, and made a personal explanation in which she said:

The Hansard quite clearly outlines exactly what the member for Parramatta said. It is a disgraceful campaign run by members of the government who are desperately trying to avoid answering the very real charge that we make on this issue, which is that their policy has meant that the people smugglers are back in business. The trade that people smugglers enter into is vile. No-one supports that type of activity. We certainly do not. We took action in government to ensure that the people smugglers were put out of business. The policy decisions made by this government have meant that they are back in business.

No-one wants to see desperate people in these situations, and for the member for Parramatta to get that low into the gutter and play this sort of politics is a disgrace. She should be brought in by the Prime Minister and thoroughly rebuked and she should apologise to the House for what are disturbing remarks. I notice the member for Braddon was far less outrageous in his claims. He made the suggestion that there was a fear campaign going on and he is right to do that—in a political debate he is able to make those points—but to suggest that people on this side of the House want to see other human beings drown and die is an absolute disgrace. The member for Parramatta should be rebuked and she should be rebuked today. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment at the table, who is a decent person, will ensure that that actually occurs.

This bill is a sensitive bill and we have very well-known splits on our side of parliament about this issue. It is a very difficult issue. People are very emotional about boat arrivals and illegal immigration. It is a sensitive issue in the community and it should be dealt with in a way and in a fashion which is above, hopefully, the low-rent stuff which from time to time does actually occur. However, we do make the charge and we make it very clearly—I think the shadow minister has articulated it very well in recent times—that the decisions of the Rudd government in August 2008 have meant that we are seeing an influx of boats in the northern waters. The Labor Party argue that is because of these additional push factors and the member for Braddon just argued then that war in our region has been the reason that there have been increased push factors. I presume the member for Braddon is talking about the recent conflict in Sri Lanka coming to an end and, certainly, that has added to the pressure. There is no doubt about that. However, to suggest that the Afghanistan conflict ended in 2002 and began again last year is simply wrong. The Afghanistan conflict—as the shadow minister for defence science and personnel at the table knows very well—has been going on since late 2001 and there have been push factors from Afghanistan since that time, as there have been from the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Mr Danby —It was very quiet over the last five years.

Mr BRIGGS —Member for Melbourne Ports, I do not think it actually was. There was quite a deal of ongoing fighting in Afghanistan during that time. It was not as though our forces experienced reduced action in that time. There have clearly been push factors over the whole period. We accept that there are push factors, but what the government fails to accept is that there are pull factors.

There has been a big pull factor, which was the change by the government in its border protection regime in 2008. The government refuse to recognise this. They know that they have made an error; however, they are not addressing the genuine mistake that they have made. That has led to an additional nearly 100 boats arriving since that time. This year we have seen a record number of arrivals. This week alone I think we have seen two boats—it is hard to keep up with how many are actually arriving on our northern shores through the wet season, which is highly unusual.

Until the government can bring themselves to recognise that they have made a fundamental error in this policy issue, we will continue to see the massive number of arrivals occurring in the northern waters of Australia. That is putting additional pressure on our Customs service and defence services and it is a big problem for our border protection regime. I note in this bill the government are seeking to address some of the concerns in relation to security and they are right to do so. We need to protect our borders. We need to have a well-looked after system and ensure that there is a solid system of entry into our country.

We are very generous in the number of people that we take into Australia and we should be. I support that. I do not support a reduction in the humanitarian intake; I think we have a very proud record as a country. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, being a son of migrants, we have a very proud record in Australia of taking in people from other parts of the world whether for economic opportunities or because they are fleeing situations which have become very difficult for them in their home countries. But we need to ensure that it is done in a well-managed fashion, and the problem with softening the border protection laws in 2008 has been that it is putting pressure on the management of this system.

When the member for Braddon said that there are these accusations about there being no queue—‘Where’s the queue?’ I think he said, and then he said there are something like 43 million people in refugee camps around the world—that is exactly right; there is a queue. There is an application process. The department of immigration goes through a very detailed assessment of people to ensure that we are keeping ourselves secure, which of course is a major responsibility of people in this place, at the same time as taking in very high numbers of refugees—I think it is the second largest humanitarian intake of any country in the world, just behind Canada. We do do our bit. There is an argument about whether we could do more, but we certainly do do our bit.

However, what we say on this side of the House is that you cannot undermine your migration intake by softening your border protection laws, because in the Australian community’s eyes it will question the value of the whole process of taking humanitarian refugees. That is a genuine problem that we have. As illegal arrivals increase, the community becomes increasingly concerned about the way that we are managing this system. I think they are right to be concerned, because the government has made a big mistake and it is high time they recognised that mistake. I think it is quite clear that we have a very proud record on this side. There was a problem in 2001 and the former government addressed that problem; the boats stopped coming. There was no problem in 2008, but the Prime Minister created a problem and the boats started coming again. That is the story of the border protection regime in Australia over the last 10 years. The coalition addressed the problem; the Labor Party created a problem. Unfortunately, until the Prime Minister is able to stop talking and start taking some action, we will continue to see the large number of boats arriving in our northern waters.

It is unfortunate that this debate descends into personal attacks and gutter politics. Unfortunately, we have seen far too much of that in this debate so far. In addition to the softening of the border protection laws in 2008, the other mistake the Labor Party have made in government was to cut some of the Customs vessel inspections. They cut $58.1 million from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service air and sea cargo inspection services in the 2009-2010 budget even though they promised in the election that they would not do so—in fact, they said they would increase it. The breakdown of the cuts is $17.1 million over four years cut from the risk based air cargo inspections, $8.6 million over four years cut from the risk based approach to first port boarding inspection program and $32.4 million cut from the risk based sea cargo inspections. The effect of the cuts is that, of Australia’s 70 major ports, 1,300 local port workers and millions of shipping containers, only five to 10 per cent are checked. The decision to cut vital funds in areas of customs will put strain on the staff. They have already been stretched, and this will inevitably lead to more illicit drugs, weapons and biosecurity threats slipping through our borders. Our front-line agency has had major cuts to its budget just at a time when it has increasing pressure put on it through measures introduced by this government’s softening of the border protection laws.

I find it interesting that the Prime Minister just a few weeks ago was talking very loudly about ensuring that our passport system was protected and secure when there were stories about the illegal use of Australian passports. We should be making sure that our passports are used appropriately, but he equally seems to be quite comfortable with a huge increase in illegal arrivals in the northern parts of our country. This is an emotive debate. It is at times a difficult debate for the parliament. However, we need to handle it in a mature fashion. We need to be able to put our different perspectives. We on this side of the House put the perspective that the Labor Party in government has softened what were very effective laws. Those on the other side argue that it was not their decision and was not because of their changes; it has been purely push factors. I think there is clearly an uncomfortable position for those on the other side who can see this increase in the number of people coming. They see the correlation with the decision, but their Prime Minister refuses to take any action on it. It is high time he reconsiders this position. It is high time some of those opposite who are engaging in the gutter politics we saw from the member for Parramatta yesterday stop doing so and have a sensible and well-thought-through debate in this parliament.