Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Rudd Labor government has comprehensively failed to provide a clear, definitive policy on border protection by whatever criteria or analysis one wishes to use. The Prime Minister can repeat as many times as he likes that his approach is a tough but humane one, but no amount of repetitive hype will conceal the ineptitude of his government and the disastrous consequences of this border protection policy. As we heard in the speech by Senator Cash, since August last year we are now up to 50 unlawful boat arrivals with over 2,200 refugees seeking asylum. The approach taken has been, in effect, to provide a gilt-edged invitation to asylum seekers to subvert the processes and to pay many thousands of dollars, amounting to a lifetime of savings, to a human trafficker—the people smugglers who, in my thinking, are the scourge of the earth.

These poor people then take huge risks in vessels of questionable seaworthiness. So I ask Prime Minister Rudd: does this qualify as humane? Is it humane to have a policy that actively encourages people in stricken circumstances, perhaps life-threatening ones, to take their chances with crooks with leaky boats who seek to offer people hope for thousands of dollars? They pilot boats into Indonesian and Australian territory and, as we now know, some bail, leaving the people literally adrift while they wait for a conspirator to pick them up so that they are not subject to the lawful consequences. So the refugees are literally at sea without captain or pilot.

I refer to a Fairfax newspaper report, which clearly demonstrated what New Zealand thinks about Australia’s approach in an interview with the New Zealand immigration minister, Jonathan Coleman, who had talks with Australia and advised that New Zealand rejected all plans and requests to rehouse them in their country. I will quote some comments that the immigration minister, Jonathan Coleman, made. He said:

The New Zealand government does not believe that an ad hoc approach to dealing with individual cases like the Oceanic Viking will send the right message …

The broader issues aren’t going to go away. There are literally thousands of displaced people across the Asia-Pacific region.

We’re wary of rewarding actions that seek to jump the queue for entry to New Zealand.

For these reasons the New Zealand government would be unlikely to offer settlement to asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking.

I have conveyed this to my Australian counterpart.

There is no-one in this chamber, I would suggest, who is not concerned or moved by the difficulties faced by displaced persons in the world, whether they be from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan or Africa. But it is in the interests of all displaced people that proper asylum is provided in refugee camps, that appropriate assessment is made by the UNHCR to ascertain the validity of the refugee applications and that the people-smugglers who seek to subvert this process are appropriately dealt with. To do this, though, Australia must have a strong, unequivocal position—one that says to those considering hopping on a boat that there will be no advantage in their doing so.

But a clear and unequivocal position requires a Prime Minister to use plain language, to be upfront and transparent about the discussions and negotiations that have taken place. The Oceanic Viking is just one case in point. The Prime Minister must come clean on what he has offered the 78 asylum seekers who have called it home for over four weeks, what special incentives were offered to induce them off the boat. He must confirm whether they were offered a special deal in reducing the time of the application process. Senator Feeney talked earlier about the government’s priority for process and order. Well, those who have watched the news night after night, watching these people onboard the Oceanic Viking, would hardly describe that as ‘process and order’. It beggars belief that the government does not realise that it has essentially flagged to the world that, if you hold out and refuse to cooperate, you are in a better bargaining position.

How fair is that to the many displaced people in refugee camps, waiting for the processing of their applications? How fair is it to the many immigrant families who have made Australia their home and sought a future here, through the appropriate channels, and have contributed—and continue to contribute—in such a huge and meaningful way to all our lives? It is no coincidence that the fiercest critics of the Rudd government’s soft and failed policies are those who have resettled through the lawful immigration process and will, I am sure, continue to make a wonderful contribution to our great country.

Mr Rudd’s soft approach to border protection continues to create more problems than it solves. It is costing the taxpayer a fortune. And, despite Mr Rudd’s rhetoric, the Australian people know it. They also know that, contrary to what Senator Wortley has just said, TPVs do work— (Time expired)