David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this matter of public importance debate and begin by referring to some comments that the Leader of the Opposition made in a press conference yesterday. In the press conference the Leader of the Opposition said:

For at least a decade the Coalition's position has been crystal clear.

The Coalition’s position for at least a decade has been—

to use the memorable words of former Prime Minister Howard—

'we will determine who comes to our country and the circumstances in which they come'.

When Prime Minister Howard used those words— (Quorum formed)At least when those words were uttered by the former Prime Minister they were said with some authenticity. When they were uttered yesterday I was left to reflect upon what a fake and a phoney the current Leader of the Opposition is. When he utters the words 'we determine who comes to our country and the circumstances under which they come' the 'we' is not the Australian government or the Australian people; the 'we' is the Liberal Party of Australia.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party have taken it upon themselves to try and determine the circumstances in which executive government is to exercise the power and the authority that has previously been understood to be very firmly in the hands of the executive. That has been under challenge because of the decision the High Court has taken, and the amendments that are before this House will give each member of this place the opportunity to restore that position. I understand there is some speculation that some on the other side intend to not restore that position. In fact, I understand they intend to move an amendment that seeks to introduce a requirement that offshore processing only occur in a country that is a signatory to the UN refugee convention. That is a new and high bar that has been introduced, and I make the point that had that requirement been in place back when the Pacific solution was first introduced then we, the Australian people and the Australian government, would not have had the capacity to send anyone to Nauru back in 2001, because Nauru was not a signatory to the UN refugee convention.

In fact, whilst it has taken steps in recent times, as recently as earlier this year, Nauru still has not signed the convention. Indeed, when the opposition went to the last election, committed to using Nauru as the venue for offshore processing, Nauru was not at that time a signatory to the convention. It is also worth reflecting upon the somewhat arbitrary nature of using whether or not a country is signatory to the convention as the perceived benchmark against which humanitarian protections can be gleaned, because it is interesting to see that around the world there are many countries that are signatories to the UN refugee convention that you would not necessarily think were countries where the Australian government could secure the safety of anyone that they were to send there. I am talking about countries like Afghanistan, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, Zimbabwe, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Somalia.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

See this speech in context