Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

There is one relatively clear question which marks the divide between people in this chamber today. It is this: when we have a choice between a solution which involves the protection, as far as we can achieve it, of human rights and a solution which does not provide protection, as far as we can achieve it, of human rights, what should we do? That is the simple, unadorned question that stands between the two sides of the debate in this place. If the answer to that question was not known before the High Court made its decision about the Malaysian solution, then surely it is known today.

The High Court is the supreme judicial authority in this country, unadorned by the political debate that takes place in this place and elsewhere around the country. The High Court said that protections of human rights should be afforded to people who come to this country in the circumstances which we are discussing today. That, colleagues, is the proposition that stands before this chamber today. It can be solved by the amendment which has been moved by the member for Cook. That amendment assures everybody in this country that, if a person is to be removed from this country through the processes being discussed, the only country that person will go to is a country which is a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. There are 148 such countries around the world, and we have the choice of whether or not we are prepared, as 150 people in this chamber representing 22 or 23 million Australians, to say that when there is a choice we can stand for human rights and we will make that choice. That is the question we all face.

I do not question the sincerity of anybody in this debate is this place. But people's reaction should not simply be emotional. This debate should be above politicking on the day. As the member for Wentworth pointed out, even if this bill of the member for Lyne passes today in the terms in which the Prime Minister has brought it on, it is unlikely to pass in the other place. So the question is: is this bill simply a result of political expediency on the day for political purposes rather than a result of this nation coming together as we on both sides of this chamber have been employed to do in a way in which we can stand for the dignity, freedom, liberty and the human rights of people all around the world?

We debate matters in this place day in and day out—matters of detail about taxation and a myriad things. It is very rare that we have the opportunity in this place to shine a light on the rights of individuals, especially the most unfortunate in the most vulnerable situation. If a law cannot protect the most vulnerable of our fellow human beings, then I say it is quite simply a bad law. We have a choice today of making a better law. Yes, it is a solution being proposed by the member for Lyne and the government. Yes, it is a solution. But we can make a better solution. We can stand up for human rights. We can stand up in difficult circumstances to respect the dignity of human beings in the most vulnerable and unfortunate of situations and say to them, 'There are 148 places around this world where you can be protected; there are a few in which you can't; and we are prepared on this occasion, whatever cost may be involved, to say that you deserve that protection.'

See this speech in context