Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

The fact in relation to these matters is that over a period of time those who are engaged in organising these matters ensure that, when one venue is closed off, the next venue is accessed. That is why we sought to move to excise further islands, and that is why we have sought to make this further decision in relation to unauthorised boat arrivals.

That is consistent with our sovereignty. It is consistent with the promise that we made to the Australian people, particularly in 2001, when we made it clear that we would take all reasonable steps to ensure that unauthorised boats did not land on our shores. Our proactive measures have been very effective because, mercifully, we have been spared the loss of life and we have been spared the spectre of unauthorised arrivals until recently.

I have to say that I find these matters very difficult. I do not think the Labor Party have many policies in relation to these matters—and when they do, you find that their policies are often contradictory. One of the policies of the Labor Party—and they trot it out every time there is a boat arrival or something of that nature—is that they would establish a coastguard. In fact, in April the Leader of the Opposition was saying that a coastguard would have stopped the 43 West Papuan asylum seekers from coming in the first place. He said that a coastguard would be doing ‘joint patrolling’—presumably with Indonesia—and that ‘good fences make good neighbours’. Yet it was only on the following Sunday that the shadow minister for immigration told Laurie Oakes that our coastguard would be intercepting boats to bring them to Australia for processing. You cannot have it both ways. This is a case of the Labor Party wanting to walk both sides of the street. The shadow minister is saying—

See this speech in context