Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (15:12): I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Lundy to questions asked by Senator Cash. I have to note that, as I was looking at Senator Lundy, as I do many of those opposite as they speak about border protection—I am a great observer of people—I think I have got the answer. It has taken me a long time but I think it is one of those presentations by people who are often confronted by their own inadequacies—and that is denial. Denial is quite a well-known and well-written about presentation, and certainly the senator opposite, in terms of her answers to the questions, was presenting that. I suppose it is something that really can be applied throughout the Labor Party and particularly to those ministers who have been responsible for this appalling failure in border protection. When they have been basically staring their failures in the face, I have often wondered why they have not moved to change their place. It is probably a little bit like Alcoholics Anonymous in this regard when people are continually in denial that they in fact have a problem with grog. The Labor Party—and this time it concerns Senator Lundy—should simply stand and declare: 'I now know that our border control policies are a complete failure.' Unless you can declare that you have got it so badly wrong, you will not move out of denial. When you move out of denial, you can heal thyself. You can start looking at alternative lifestyles and, in this case, alternative policies. But every time I come into this place people stand up and say, 'No, it's all okay.' We have just heard from the good senator, and she says, 'There are ebbs and flows.' That is not bad! The ebb was when we had no boats under the previous government, and now we have their flows. That is a term of denial. I have a few drinks! The flows are 512 vessels. That—unremarkably, probably—is twice the size of the Spanish Armada. Those vessels have suddenly arrived when they are saying, 'Oh, there's bit of a flow, a couple of boats—not really too much to worry about.' Sadly, I do not really think you are going to change anything unless you get over it. Perhaps they should just consider a bit of a list. This is their policy approach and how they go. Since the Malaysian announcement—we can remember that—there have been 279 boats, and 18,000 people arrived. I am not sure how that went for you, but I do not really think you could give that a bit of a tick as working. We then had the signing of the Malaysian deal on 25 July. Since then 286 boats have arrived, carrying 18,389 people. Senator McLucas: You didn't support the Malaysian deal. That's why. You didn't support the Malaysian deal. Senator SCULLION: No, that was your answer. I will take the interjection. That was your answer, and as a consequence of that policy another 18,000 people arrived on boats. Don't be in denial. Accept it. It is the way. Accept that you have completely failed. Then you can actually get better at it. I can tell those senators on the other side that tragically it goes on. Remember when, on 25 November 2011, you decided to make the bridging visa announcement: 'That'll fix it.' We said, 'Look, you really need a whole suite of things.' Two hundred and sixty-four boats have arrived since that announcement. It does not sound to me as if it is stopping too much. It does not sound as if it is stopping anything at all. Nothing that is associated with your policy has stopped the boats and the misery associated with them. Again, we have had another crack on: 'We've decided that we'll do the single-assessment system. We'll bring in the single-assessment system on 24 March.' How did that work for you? Another 233 vessels, with 14,496 people. I do not think that is working for me. I do not know about you, but it does not appear that that is something that is really going to change anything at all. Sadly, to once again get the sort of response we have had from the other side is just a presentation of denial unless you change your policies significantly. I think we have been pretty open-hearted about this. We have offered policies that work. We have simply said, 'Adopt the entire suite of policies from the Howard government, who had zero people and zero boats'—not a bad thing to aim for. I think it is quite reasonable. Our claim to stop the boats and the misery, of course, is based on good policy, and I think that we will not accept that those on the other side have any idea about how to control our borders through good policy unless they first of all stand and say, 'I have failed.' (Time expired)