Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (16:32): I too rise to speak in relation to this matter of public importance. There are no easy solutions in dealing with the scourge of people smuggling, and no-one in this place has a monopoly on compassion. I believe that the most compassionate—indeed the only—option is to put and keep people smugglers out of business and to worry not about future tourists in 30 years but about the 14,000 people waiting to our north who want to come here by boat, to stop them from drowning. That to me is by far and away the most compassionate course of action, preventing deaths now and not worrying about tourists in 20, 30 or 40 years time.

Often in this place we do not give enough consideration to the real-world implications of the words we use in this chamber. Those opposite often talk about the impacts of the words that others use, but very rarely do they stop to think about the implication of their own words on others that serve our nation, including the words that they have uttered in this chamber today and the wording of this motion itself.

So I want to start off by paying tribute to and acknowledging the work of our thousands of men and women who protect our borders, whether they be public servants or whether they be men and women in border protection or defence uniforms. Their service in protecting us all is crucial and invaluable, yet they are often subject to unkind, hateful and demoralising vilification by those opposite. Rarely do those opposite stop to consider the impact that their words have on the people who serve our nation.

But it is not only the words of those opposite but also their policies. If you put people smugglers back in business, the 14,000 waiting in Indonesia will start to board boats again—and some will die of horrific deaths. We must consider not only the impact of those who lose their lives and those who survive and are permanently traumatised but the impact on our personnel who have to deal with the dead bodies and with the traumatised survivors? I do not think any of you there have had to fish out of the water the dead body of someone who has drowned making that trip.

Let me share with you the personal perspectives of those who have to pick up the mess of the policies of those opposite. Mr Pezzullo, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, shared with us at estimates last month some of the implications of the loss of control of our borders on his men and women. He said this:

The immediate crisis … which involved, regrettably, an almost daily encounter with death, has passed into some historical memory, particularly for those officers of the then Customs and Border Protection Service and the Royal Australian Navy who variously had to attend some of these very gruesome scenes … there is ongoing trauma and post-traumatic stress associated with those events …

He also said:

Let me give voice to those members of my staff … They do not get to speak to you. But let me convey their sentiment. They get on with their job. They hear the claims. Some of them find those claims so traumatic that they ask to be reassigned to other roles. The majority carry on with great resilience and they go about their work with great dignity.

That is despite the often-proved unsubstantiated allegations of torture and waterboarding that our men and women are supposed to have committed, which they clearly did not. Mr Pezzullo also said:

… we reject utterly any suggestion that we are involved in organised and systemic torture, abuse, the running of concentration camps, the running of Nazi-like programs. They are rejected utterly. They get repeated all the time—

By those opposite—

sometimes by way of references to other reports. And all of those accusations and aspersions are rejected utterly.

He said that there have been reports that both he and the Commissioner of Border Force have had to deal with where part of the internal impact on their own staff translates to their families and their children at schools. Bullying comments made on Facebook postings are sometimes of a very personal and direct nature. This is as a direct result of the vilification of their staff—their men and women—by those opposite, including what we have just heard in this chamber today.

The Acting Commissioner of Australian Border Force also shared his thoughts on the consequences for his men and women in uniform:

… the men and women of the Australian Border Force, including the public servants and the officers, bring with them to work Australian values. That was a direct reference to the issue you raise. We do not recruit people on the basis of Nazism, fascism or anything else. We recruit people on the basis of their adherence to good values, integrity. They are incredibly committed. They do a very difficult job. But the mission—

That is, of serving all Australians—

is under their skin. But, yes, when you hear comments like that, of course it hurts people. But I can assure you I am very proud of our people.

Not often do we hear that or bother to talk about it in this place. Senator McKim heard those words from the acting commissioner and the secretary. I hope those opposite have had an opportunity to reflect on the power of their own words to hurt, particularly now that we have this highly inflammatory matter of public importance on the Notice Paper. Our men and women will see this. They will read this. Their children and their families will read and see this, and believe that their parents are evil. Their friends at school will continue to bully and taunt them that their parents are evil. Shame on you. (Time expired)