Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Both the shadow immigration minister and the shadow foreign minister have articulated a new policy of sending asylum seekers from Sri Lanka back to their country of origin before assessing their claims. What those opposite are advocating is a rejection of the refugee convention and a rejection of our international obligations by not reviewing and determining asylum seeker claims on a case-by-case basis. By indicating that they will ignore the refugee convention and return boats to their country of origin without assessing these individual claims, these statements have shown that some in this place will adhere to the refugee convention only when it is politically convenient.

The member for Canning is getting very uptight, but this recent position advanced by those opposite has exposed their hypocrisy. When we look at their speeches on the migration legislation, speaker after speaker from those opposite got up and claimed that there was no way they could support a regional agreement with Malaysia because Malaysia was not a signatory to the refugee convention. It is a disingenuous and hypocritical play, but we have come to expect nothing less from those opposite. They are not willing to support the Malaysia agreement because Malaysia is not a signatory to the refugee convention, but they are willing to return asylum seekers to Indonesia and Sri Lanka, both countries that have not signed the refugee convention and, in the case of Sri Lankan asylum seekers, do it without assessing their claims at all. As the minister for immigration has stated, Australia has returned and will return failed asylum seekers to Sri Lanka, but we do not return asylum seekers to their country of origin without fully assessing any claims for protection. Under the convention, Australia cannot return people found to be genuine refugees to a country from which they are fleeing persecution.

I ask the shadow ministers this: what would they do if a boat of asylum seekers came to Australia from Malaysia? Would they return that boat to Malaysia? What country of origin is next to be deemed a source of purely economic refugees by those opposite for whom the refugee convention will be suspended? Afghanistan? Iran? I ask them that.

I will end by saying in the time allotted to me that those opposite are of the extremely misguided view that all Sri Lankan refugees are economic refugees and have no legitimate claim for asylum. By making this blanket claim that they should be returned to Sri Lanka before their claims are checked, the coalition is partaking in a dangerous and extremely concerning approach to asylum seeker policy in this country.

See this speech in context