Senator HILL (Leader of the Government in the Senate) (4:33 PM) —This is a political stunt. The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats have come together again, as they so often do—it is really hard to find division between them these days—to set up a committee to achieve a certain outcome, and the outcome is obviously designed to be criticism of the government. As Senator Faulkner knows, that is generally what happens. It also happens on the first day of a sitting and they are doing it again today. Illustration that this is just a political hatchet job I think can be found clearly when you look at the terms of reference and you find that the chair of the committee under these terms that have been drawn up in collusion between the Labor Party and the Democrats must be a member of the Australian Labor Party. This committee has to be run by a nominee of Senator Faulkner. The reason for that is obviously that it is designed to achieve a political outcome rather than a real determination of the facts and something that might be useful to the Australian people.

There was a time, I might say, when select committees were automatically chaired by the government side. It was believed that that was a reasonable thing. Then we went through a phase when on occasions an Independent senator was appointed chairman to give a little more objectivity, for obvious reasons. It has now gone one step further, and the whole Senate select committee process now has really lost its substance and purpose and has simply become another political tool. The end result of that is that it is a waste of time and money and it does not achieve anything worth while in terms of Senate process at all. We are going through that farce again today. It has been predetermined. It is a great disappointment to me that the Australian Democrats do not appear to be learning their lesson: if they are to be a third party they have got to show some objectivity and independence from the Australian Labor Party. They have not done it here and it is a long time since they in fact did that.

Senator Ludwig —That's not true.

Senator HILL —You can defend the Democrats if you like, Senator. They will appreciate that. On the issue of the children overboard, the government has come clean and provided the parliament with the results of a substantial inquiry into that event—an inquiry that was ordered by the Prime Minister, I might say, because the Prime Minister is of the view that this matter should be on the public record. That has been done and so the public are now well informed in that regard, so there is little point in going through that process at all.

From the Labor Party's perspective, this is really about camouflaging their state of policy confusion on the matter of border protection. This is all about the issue of border protection: what is necessary to protect Australia's borders and what you do in relation to those who breach the borders. As we know, detention in Australia was actually introduced by the Labor Party, but they are now running 100 miles an hour in the opposite direction because they are split. The members of the frontbench say they are ashamed of the existing policy, and the current leadership of the Australian Labor Party is not prepared to require discipline from them, so they have divided. It is very embarrassing and awkward.

Then you have the issue of border protection itself: do they support the government's position on border protection or not? In the election, they said they did; now that they are back in opposition, they really do not want to acknowledge that because, again, half the party say they are opposed to it. What the Australian government says is that we will protect the borders. Those who engage in criminal conspiracy—in other words, those who engage people smugglers to breach our borders to behave illegally—will be returned to where they came from. In some circumstances, those who breach the borders will be sent to a third country where they will be processed rather than being allowed to take advantage of Australia, which has been seen as a soft touch.

Yes, it has been a firm response. It has been a fair and humane response and it is actually working. Perhaps that is what is frustrating the Labor Party more than anything. It is a response that the Australian people appreciate, and it is working. In contrast, the ALP is all over the shop—it does not know what its policy ought to be; it is divided between the left and right. I do not know whether Senator Faulkner is with his Left colleague Carmen Lawrence from Western Australia or whether he is with Mr Crean on this particular issue, and I am sure he would not be prepared to get up and tell us that.

Senator Faulkner —With the Labor Party.

Senator HILL —Where is Carmen Lawrence? Isn't she on your frontbench? Anyway, to cover this disarray, the Senate is to be subjected to what is clearly going to be a useless, time-consuming and expensive public inquiry that is unlikely to contribute anything useful at all. We will be opposed to this. In relation to Senator Brown's amendment, he wants to add another matter which is the subject of examination by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The inspector-general should carry out his task; the office is designed that way to give public confidence. There is no need to include that as a term of reference, and we will be opposed to that.

In relation to Senator Murphy's proposal to include an extra Independent senator, we will support it—for what it is worth—because anything that is going to throw a small spanner into this happy harmony between the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party is something we think might be worth while. We wish Senator Murphy well; this will actually be a test of his independence. Maybe, if this amendment happens to get up, we should move that Senator Murphy be the chair of this committee, but I bet the Labor Party would not like that because there could be just a touch of objectivity within that, which is the last thing the Australian Labor Party wants to see on this issue.

It is a matter of regret to me, on the first day back, that there is no sign that, after six years in opposition, the Labor Party has learnt its lessons. It just wants to engage in political stunts. It wants to cover up its internal disarray and its policy vacuum and, in doing so, it is going to cost a number of senators a lot of time and, what is more important, the public a lot of money.