Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance today because I think we might have found another recruit for this side of the House in the member for Chifley. He indeed strikes me as a fine, upstanding moral citizen. I am a little worried that some of his strategies to achieve a given outcome are odd, perhaps even way out. But his intent of stopping people getting onto leaky boats at high monetary cost and at potentially the cost of their lives and the lives of their families is exactly the intention we have on this side of the House. The proof of our ability to achieve that, of course, is now recent history. When the Rudd government took over in this place there were four detainees in Australia—just four detainees. Years prior to that there was a great influx of illegal people-smuggling vessels. And we, through effective policy, stopped those boats arriving. Through the member's own admission, that is exactly what he wishes to achieve as an individual, he says. For goodness sake, why does he not say to his current leader, 'Simply put in place policies that will reverse those policies put in place in August 2008 and go back to a working system as introduced by the Howard government that stopped people declaring themselves as refugees, paying people smugglers to engage in their horrendous, often treacherous trade resulting in death at sea'? It is so simple.

Over a number of years the Howard government put in place policies that stopped the boats. Those policies, of course, included offshore processing of refugees and they included the issuing of temporary protection visas. Temporary protection visas, to the satisfaction of the UNHCR, gave refuge to those persons who were persecuted in other countries until such time as those conflicts had been put to rest. Those policies—very simple, humane, effective and sympathetic policies—put an end to the flood of boats arriving on our shores with people seeking refugee status. These people had put their lives and the lives of their families at risk to get onto those boats. Families paid their hard-earned dollars to a people smuggler. It stopped. The member for Chifley ought to come across and join us, because our endeavours are exactly the same.

The point that we make, however, is that the processes that are being proposed presently have very, very little chance of success. We believe they will have no more success than the policies that have been put in place since the Rudd government came to power. Of course, all those policies did was effectively to say to the potential arrivals on our shore that would pay people smugglers: 'Come on down; the gates are open. The welcoming committee is here for you.' No-one, no rational person in the government today, can stand up, hand on heart and say to the Australian people, 'We have policies that secure our borders and are effective in stopping the flood of illegal persons to these shores.' You cannot do it and therefore your credibility is shot—shot as in so many other areas. The Prime Minister herself, Ms Julia Gillard, back on 27 June last year was explaining to Laurie Oakes why she had knifed Kevin Rudd for the leadership. She said:

… I took control to get the government back on track.

It is interesting to reflect on that statement, given today's polls. She said also:

I'm obviously concerned about asylum seekers, about boats. I've indicated that concern, and I think the Australian community feels it.

Well, I can assure her on that point she was dead right. The Australian community feel it, all right. They want the flow of boats stopped and I believe they want a government that will do just that, and they have no faith in the current Gillard government to stop that flow of boats. She said also:

I believe in doing the effective things to manage our borders.

By that the people of Australia thought she would manage the borders to make them secure, to make them non-porous, to create a barrier between those that would come to this country illegally, unannounced and often unwelcome and those that would come instead as refugees through the formal process. What the Prime Minister in fact meant was: 'I will manage our borders in a way where I will conduct the traffic, I will regulate the traffic and I will direct the traffic. I will not slow the traffic. I will direct the expenditure of Australian taxpayers' dollars. I will do it in a way to increase the budget from $1 million to $1 billion of Australian taxpayers' money per annum to look after refugees that come here through a process that risks their lives.' It ought to be through a process which is condoned by the UNHCR and which is done in a regulated manner so those persons are checked, have their credentials verified and come to our shores in a regulated manner. Why on earth would somebody be on that side of the House as part of a government with failed policies when they express a point of view in this place that they sincerely desire a satisfactory outcome where people smuggling stops and people are not tempted to take to the sea in leaky boats? It is frankly beyond me.

We call for transparency of process. More importantly, of course, we would like the cessation of the arrival of the boats. But we have asked today for you to explain why there is transparency lacking in your process, specifically in relation to the deal you are trying to cook up with Malaysia. That is a very interesting thing. I understand that the Malaysian proposition has been formulated on the basis that the easy approach to this problem—accommodating refugees and processing them in Nauru—was unacceptable to the Prime Minister because Nauru was not a signatory to the UN convention. It may be of interest to anyone that ever hears or reads my comments to find out that Malaysia is not a signatory to that convention either. Is it not interesting that Nauru was unacceptable, even though readily available and almost instantaneous, but Malaysia—in the same category of not agreeing with the UN convention—is acceptable? It beggars belief. I recall the member for Chifley mentioned something about our MPI surprising him. I suggest that it is beyond belief that the Prime Minister can find cooking a deal with Malaysia to be satisfactory, Malaysia not being a signatory, but doing an easy, instant deal with Nauru is not considered because they are not signatories. As a matter of interest, in regard to signing that convention, the Nauruan government has signed an instrument of accession to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, formally beginning the process of its ratification of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. If the past is any indication of the time it will take in the future, by the time the Prime Minister is in a position to actually announce a signed deal with Malaysia, I suggest that Nauru would possibly be a signatory. She ought to phone Nauru now and get the deal going that will make them part of the process that will stop those boats coming here, which after all is what the Australian people expect of a government. (Time expired)

See this speech in context