Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the following amendment:

That this House:

(1)

notes that:

(a)

the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugees Convention) states that ‘contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin’;

(b)

the Government suspended the processing of asylum seeker applications from Afghanistan on 9 April 2010; and

(c)

there are more than 5000 persons currently being detained by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the mainland and Christmas Island; and

(2)

condemns the Rudd Gillard Government for their imposition of a discriminatory freeze of the assessment of asylum applications for persons from Afghanistan arriving in Australia; and

(3)

calls for the introduction of proven policies proposed by the Coalition to address unprecedented irregular maritime arrivals to Australia, including:

(a)

the application of temporary visas for all persons who have arrived illegally in Australia;

(b)

the reopening of a third country processing centre in Nauru for irregular maritime arrivals to Australia;

(c)

being prepared to turn around boats where the circumstances permit;

(d)

streamline the appeals process by removing the panel system and replace with a review by a single case officer as practiced by the UNHCR;

(e)

presuming against refugee status determination for persons who are reasonably believed to have destroyed or discarded their identity documentation; and

(c)

return unsuccessful claimants for refugee status to their country of origin—

The asylum freeze was a discriminatory election fix when it was announced on 9 April by the then Rudd government. It was a fix designed and produced by a panic within the government, and there was an absence of policy and a bankruptcy of position when it came to their handling of this issue. Instead of understanding that there were other measures to deal with the fact that people’s refugee status can be affected by changing conditions in their home country, and adopting the policy that was put forward and practised by the coalition where a person was given a temporary visa recognising that their refugee status could change over time, this government as a matter of political convenience decided not to embrace that policy but, instead, imposed a discriminatory and harsh policy that separated not only Afghans but Sri Lankans from having their claims assessed.

We had a policy in this country that discriminated against a person who had come to this country and who subsequently sought asylum. We said that because you were Afghan we will not assess your application. Those on the other side and others who participate in this debate may wish to moralise over their position on this issue and criticise the coalition for our consistent stand on this issue all they like. But when it comes to the decision to impose a discriminatory policy of freezing applications for people who had come—believed to be from Afghanistan—it is beyond defence. This is an indefensible policy borne of panic and a political motive to try and put a fix in before the election. So unconvincing was the announcement of this policy back in April that the then minister, Senator Evans, was so incapable of delivering the political message that his Prime Minister wanted delivered that the Prime Minister himself had to go out later that afternoon and deliver a press conference to try and sheet the message home.

This was an election fix. It was a fix borne of the absence of any view by those on the other side of how to deal with this issue. They cannot agree necessarily with the Greens—we will see in due course how much they agree with the Greens on this matter—who at least have had a consistent position on this matter. They believe everyone should come, that there should be no controls and that people should be able to move directly into the community, which of course would produce the result we all know. The government cannot embrace that and the government will not embrace the proven policies of the coalition. They stand in this bankrupt middle ground that has produced the farce that we see today.

Let us assess the freeze through its outcomes. During the freeze of some 25 weeks, 58 boats illegally arrived in Australia bringing 2,872 people—more than 100 a week—so it certainly did not stop the boats. The number of people detained increased from 2½ thousand at the end of March to almost 5,000 at the end of September—4,991—with a few more at sea at the time that the freeze was introduced. The number of Afghans in our detention network increased by around 1,200 over the course of the freeze with more than 750 now being detained in the re-opened Curtin Detention Centre. The appropriated cost to date is $136 million with an annual operating budget each year of $98 million.

The percentage of people held in detention for more than three months as a result of this freeze increased from 30 per cent of the detention population to 71.3 per cent at the end of September. That figure probably more than any other—except one I am about to mention—is probably the greatest condemnation of this government. It is a government that said they were going to keep people in detention longer and that increased the percentage of people in detention for more than three months from 30 per cent to more than 70 per cent over the course of this discriminatory and ridiculous policy.

The number of children in detention over this time rose from 245 at the end of March to 677 by the end of September. As we know from reports in the last few days, the number of children in detention today has risen to over 700. Let us be clear about the reason there are children in detention today. There were only 21 children who had been detained at the time the coalition lost office in November 2007 and none of those had arrived illegally by boat, so there were no children being detained. As at November 2007 and since the middle of 2005 children, were not detained in detention centres as a result of changes that the coalition introduced. There are more than 700 children being detained today by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship because more than 700 children have got on boats.

Until this government gets serious about introducing proven policies to discourage the practice of people arriving illegally in this country by boat and then seeking asylum—which is legal—or arriving in Australia without a visa —which is not a legal mode of entry—and for as long as it refuses to deal with the issue, children will continue to get on boats and our detention centres will continue to fill up. I make the point that sections 197AB and 197AC of the Migration Act currently permit the minister to make a residence determination to remove children from places covered by the definition of immigration detention. That power exists in the hands of the minister today, and if he has proposals to go and act on that then he should come clean with the Australian people about what they are. And he should also explain today what discussions the government held with charitable groups and other organisations in relation to its mooted policy—it was suggested in the weekend press—that it was preparing to abandon the system of mandatory detention across all of these groups.

I also make this point on the proposals that we have put forward relating to East Timor. This is a never-never solution that will never, ever happen. Amazingly, this government cannot take a hint. The government of East Timor has deferred this matter for discussion by the Bali process. So not only does the government have to convince the East Timorese who have already passed a motion in their parliament saying they had rejected it but also now it has to convince up to 50 other countries before East Timor will even consider giving it a green light. Not only does it have to convince the East Timorese but it has to convince its own Minister for Foreign Affairs because the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this country has run a mile from this proposal and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has been left as the person at the end of the line who has to carry yet another can for this government of failed policy when it comes to these issues.

We had the abominable policy of an Afghan asylum freeze, introduced because this government did not have the mettle to deal with what essentially is often the temporary nature of someone’s refugee status. Now we have, instead of embracing the coalition’s policy of reopening the Nauru processing centre—a place where there is no razor wire, a place where children can be accommodated with their families and a place where people can move around the island freely and openly without the need for other forms of restraint that are imposed on children and families that are detained under the arrangements here in Australia—the government abolishing that policy, walking away from it, because it is a political inconvenience to embrace it. The government goes off with this nonsense notion of a processing centre in East Timor that we will never see happen in this parliament. There is no timetable for action, there is no timetable for this centre opening; there is only a timetable for more talk. As long as this government keeps talking, it will not be acting when it comes to this issue. Those who have come and have had their asylum claims rejected should also be returned home. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call for a seconder to the motion, under the arrangements of the House there has to be leave given for the amendment, given that the mover of the amendment, the honourable member for Cook, was seeking to amend his own motion. Is leave granted.

Leave granted.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad you recognise that spirit of bipartisanship in which I assented to the amendment to the motion on asylum seekers. However, in rising to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Cook, it would have been nice to have had a copy of the amendment. I am sure one is coming over, but unfortunately I am a bit hamstrung in speaking to the amendment because I do not have a copy of it. None has been provided to me. However, I do have a copy of the original motion of the member for Cook. In speaking to that, I welcome the lifting of the suspension of processing Afghan asylum seekers at the end of last month. As I have said, I do not actually have a copy of the amendment, but in a way it does not really matter because this is not about the substantive motion that the member for Cook articulated but about mischief. There is no vision that we need to explore or policy that we need to explore. This is about the mischief that comes from those opposite when it comes to immigration. I am sure he is facilitating the handing over of a copy of the amendment to this side of the chamber.

As the government explained at the time of the suspension—when it was put in place during a fluid situation in Afghanistan last year—things have changed a little bit. Why did we do that? Let us go back to the facts and look at the Sri Lankan and Afghani situation. The overriding basis is to ensure that every claim for asylum is processed fairly and to do that we had to make sure that we knew all of the facts in Afghanistan. As the member for Cook would know, Afghanistan is a country that has been experiencing some difficulties of late and without up-to-date country information it was not possible to make a fair assessment of the claims that were put forward. I am not as familiar with Afghanistan as the Leader of the Opposition. He spent a significant amount of time there recently—on the firing range. I did not get to do that, but I am sure he would admit in his discussions with Alan Jones and others that Afghanistan has some particular challenges. That is why the Department of Immigration and Citizenship needed time to look at the circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

The department now has a much clearer picture from the Australian Embassy and from other governments around the world that are involved in Afghanistan and the government has therefore been able to lift the suspension of the processing. Each individual claim will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances—certain legal criteria, the relevant policy considerations and the comprehensive and up-to-date country information. This is the case with all immigration matters.

In accordance with our international obligations and humanitarian spirit, we will not return asylum seekers to a place where they are likely to be persecuted. I say that in particular because many of my community are Hazara. They have particular concerns about being returned to Afghanistan. In fact, there are some suggestions from Amnesty International that up to 60 per cent of the Hazara community are being persecuted in Afghanistan. That is why I put that on the record. I have a strong relationship with the Hazara community in my electorate and I just wanted to assure them of that.

Four minutes into my speech I still do not have a copy of the amendment. In responding to the original motion put forward by the member for Cook, he quotes the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It is great to see that the opposition immigration spokesperson has finally found a copy of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. He quoted it accurately. Unfortunately, for the last 20 years the one copy which the coalition have has been gathering dust somewhere over at coalition headquarters. Thankfully, the member for Cook found it and even read it, and he is able to articulate some of the things in the convention. He well knows the progression from a convention, to a treaty and legislation, to practice on the ground. There is a progression there, which he seems to be ignoring. I thank the former member for Kooyong for sending him a copy of the United Nations convention. Either way, it seems the member for Cook has had a close read of it. Of course it does not mean that they will change their policy because, as we heard in his speech, the coalition are still committed to processing asylum seekers on Nauru, a country which is not a signatory to the refugee convention.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is that relevant? You don’t know, do you. It’s not in the notes.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members of the opposition will contain themselves.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even though he went over there to try to facilitate the signing, we still have a country that is not a signatory to the refugee convention. It makes the member for Cook’s sudden fondness for the UN refugee convention seem a little bit insincere. It is a far cry from the days of ‘turn back the boats’. As I said to many of my constituents, especially those from the Hazara community who spent years languishing in detention centres under the Howard regime—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’ve just spent six months because you froze the process.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the attention of the honourable member for Cook to standing order 66A, if he wishes to make an intervention during another member’s contribution.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

too many genuine asylum seekers, including children, spent years behind razor wire, waiting, waiting, waiting. These people are now good, honest citizens and taxpayers. I have in my hand a reference which I wrote for one of them, someone who spent three years in detention, who had almost no English when he arrived, who ended up at Milperra, a facility formerly in the ward of the member for Ryan—I am sure she would know the Milperra State High School, which does great work for students with limited language facility. He went on to Yeronga State High School, a great school which also takes a lot of kids who do not have strong English. He was able to obtain a scholarship to attend university. I will not name him because I was not able to get him on the phone this morning when I found out that I was talking on this matter. He graduated with a degree, a Bachelor of Applied Science, and currently works as a laboratory technician for the Australian Laboratory Services.

These are the sorts of people who arrive on boats. They are good, hard-working, tax-paying citizens. Therefore, I find a little disingenuous the member for Cook demanding that asylum seekers be processed immediately, as in his amended motion. The Gillard Labor government is committed to protecting our borders, but we will not shirk our international obligations or our humanitarian obligations to asylum seekers. We are committed to a regional solution to issues of people smuggling and irregular migration in the region.

A regional problem demands a regional solution and that is why, through a regional protection framework, we will remove the incentive for people to risk their lives at sea. That is what we are trying to avoid. A regional processing centre will remove the incentive which people smugglers use to sell a ticket to Australia. It will destroy the market. The Gillard government will continue to develop a regional protection framework through the Bali process and through bilateral negotiations with our neighbours.

Apart from our Indigenous brothers and sisters, Australia is a country built by immigrants. Some 6.6 million people, including 700,000 refugee and humanitarian arrivals, have come to Australia since World War II. Australia has a proud record of welcoming those who come across the seas. It is even in our national anthem in the second verse—not a lot of people sing the second verse—that ‘For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share’, but I am sure the member for Cook would like that excised from the national anthem.

There is something in the Australian character that makes us terrified of small wooden vessels filled with people who come with hope. Is it because we are a nation formed by people from vessels which ran up a flag saying to the Aboriginal people, ‘This is now our land’? Maybe that is why it is a big part of the Australian psyche. If you go back through history, you see it. Initially when Captain Phillip landed in Botany Bay, six days before the French, he was able to say, ‘We just beat them.’ A few years later it was the Russians, then the Chinese and the Japanese and now it is Afghans and Tamils. For some reason politicians are able to latch onto this fear and cultivate it as much as possible. As every Christian person and every humanitarian would know, these boats are filled with people who are full of hope and aspirations for a decent life for their kids. Unfortunately, on their arrival we still have politicians who use fear to define the national response. It is a shameful aspect of the debate and hopefully will be changed. (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that the member for Moreton arrived in his office this morning to be told by the Prime Minister’s office that he had to come into the Main Committee to defend the indefensible. I really could not take any points out of his speech that would constitute a legitimate defence or a policy rationale for why this Labor government froze asylum claims by people from particular countries in this most discriminatory way. The motion today is about doing something completely indefensible. If the member for Moreton’s defence is any guide, then we will not hear much from the government by way of anything sensible about what needs to be done to address this issue. I am very pleased to support the motion by my good friend the member for Cook. Labor’s failure to protect our borders is, without doubt, one of their most significant failures since coming to office. I say that because there are areas in which they have changed policy and done things which have turned out to be absolute disasters.

When they came to office in 2007 all they needed to do to maintain a robust system of border protection was just to leave well enough alone and leave in place the system of border protection they inherited from the previous government. If they had done that, if they had not made any changes to that system, then Australia would not subsequently have had this conversation. We would not subsequently have spent a billion dollars of taxpayers’ funds. We would not subsequently have had mainland detention centres overflowing with people and we would not have been discussing here today why the government felt the need in the pre-election climate to freeze the asylum claims of particular nationalities in this most discriminatory way.

When Labor came to power they pretended that they cared about border protection but they could not leave it alone. They had to pander to the left wing within their own party and they made changes that weakened the robust system that the Howard government had put in place. Subsequent to that, the changes gave a big green light to people smugglers to go back into business. We have seen borders become incredibly porous, where people smugglers decide who comes to Australia and the circumstances in which they come.

In the years leading up to the change of government, from 2002 to 2007, this problem was essentially solved. We had an average of three boat arrivals per year. The then opposition, led by its then immigration spokesman, the now Prime Minister Julia Gillard, used to go into a fit every time a boat arrived, which happened on average about once every four months. She used to put out press releases saying ‘another boat, another policy failure’. That was when there were three boats in a year. We can now have three boats arrive illegally in Australia on one weekend. The government’s response is that they do not know how to respond. The only answer they had was a political stunt in the pre-election climate and that was to do this most shameful of things—pick out particular nationalities and freeze their asylum claims rather than dealing in a non-discriminatory way with people who come to Australia and ask for our protection.

Labor’s asylum freeze was nothing but a very cynical ploy to pretend that they cared about this issue. They do not have a policy response to this issue; the only thing they could manage was a political response. When it happened, the member for Cook rightly warned that the result would be overflowing mainland detention centres, and that is, of course, exactly what has happened. I think the Australian summed it up very well in a cartoon when the government announced it was going to lift this freeze, and that was, ‘Look, we have had this test for six months,’ and the cartoon said something along the lines of, ‘Now we have worked out that the result is that you get a lot more people in detention.’ That is exactly what has happened. We have had these overflowing detention centres as a direct a result of the government’s failure to have a comprehensive policy and instead to deal with it in its way of a quick political fix prior to an election.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is actually an answer to this. The idea that Australia is going to be subject to the whims of people smugglers controlling our immigration system and that that is forever going to be the case is complete nonsense. If the government had the resolve—the courage—it would implement the coalition’s program as contained within the amendments to this motion and drive those people smugglers from business.

The coalition’s policy is simple. We know that it works because it has worked in the past to tame the people smugglers. We would reintroduce temporary protection visas, or a form of temporary protection visa; we would go to third country processing, actually in a country that is prepared to host such a facility; and we would turn the boats around. If we were to follow that prescription, we would not need to have this ongoing conversation because the people smugglers would know that the government in Canberra was serious and they would turn their attention to another soft target. (Time expired)

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about asylum seekers through the motion presented today by the member for Cook. First of all, it is important to record that on 30 September this year, as announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the government lifted the suspension on processing of Afghan asylum seekers.

Since the 2007 federal election, the Labor government has honoured pre-election commitments, including closing the offshore processing centre at Nauru; putting an end to the condemned temporary protection visa system; abolishing the 45-day rule bar on asylum seekers access to work rights and basic health care; abolishing the cost of detention charged to immigration detainees; made legislative changes to increase the penalties for those people convicted of people smuggling and providing material aid; as well as increasing the total refugee and humanitarian program from 13,000 places in 2007 to 13,750 places.

These are examples of major changes the Labor government have made to the coalition’s immigration policy that we inherited in the first term of government. With respect to my friend the member for Cook, I remind coalition members that their approach to asylum seekers was labelled by a member of their own party as ‘cruel’. Further, the Leader of the Opposition stated that he would simply turn the boats around, which was reminiscent of the former Howard government’s policies that are known as the ‘dark years’.

In stark contrast, the Gillard government are investing in a long-term approach to this very serious issue where the lives of men, women and children are at stake. We must take a holistic approach to processing and assisting displaced persons. We recognise that asylum seeker claims are not only an issue for our region to work through together but also a global issue that many other countries, particularly in Europe, are also working to improve. Through our humanitarian program Australia has assisted some of the worst-affected people from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The government have already stated that refugees from these regions will remain our resettlement focus.

Australia does not shy away from its international obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention. However we also recognise that it is extremely important to rigorously assess refugee claims to ensure we continue to provide the appropriate protection to those who need it most and adhere to our international obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention. It must be emphasised that the suspension of the processing of new applications from asylum seekers from Afghanistan did not include those already held on Christmas Island or those who were en route to Christmas Island, having been intercepted by the Royal Australian Navy. Further, the minister clearly stated that all irregular maritime arrivals would continue to be treated fairly and humanely. The decision was made in light of changing circumstances in Afghanistan which could have had an effect on the outcome of assessments.

It is important to record that the government believes it is now better positioned to assess asylum claims from Afghans seeking asylum in Australia. Assessments of each individual’s claim will be made by independent decision makers on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the announcement of the lifting of the suspension was welcomed by stakeholders, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Refugee Council of Australia, GetUp!, the Migration Institute of Australia and the Edmund Rice Centre.

The Labor government continues to work towards a holistic approach, not the sort of piecemeal, politically expedient approach many refugees suffered under the former coalition government. Indeed the Labor government is seeking a regional approach to reviewing and addressing the challenges posed by the continual displacement of millions of people around the world. Last week it was widely reported that the Minister for Immigration, the Hon. Chris Bowen, travelled to East Timor to continue discussions with President Jose Ramos Horta on this very important issue. I commend the minister for his recent efforts in furthering discussions with our regional neighbours on this issue. I welcome the announcement on the lifting of the suspension and so does the Afghan community that I represent in my electorate of Reid—they are very appreciative of that initiative.

I conclude by confirming that I believe that all asylum seekers should be treated with dignity, respect and compassion and know that the government will continue to ensure that we adhere to our international obligations under the refugee convention.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also support this motion by my colleague the member for Cook that criticises the six-month freeze and demands that the coalition’s long-known responses, which have been taken to an election and were actually proven to work back in 2003-04, be implemented again today by this government. Already covered are the measures that we introduced: temporary protection visas, that we move to using Nauru rather than the never-never East Timor solution, that we turn boats around where feasible, that we streamline review by using case officers as the UNHCR does rather than panels, that we return unsuccessful applicants and, particularly, that we deem individuals who destroy their materials intentionally not to be refugees.

It has been an issue of great pride that Australia is a nation based on immigration, but that actually has no part in this discussion today. It is always interesting when government members start to pull out references they have written for fine Hazara individuals—it means that they are getting close to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to looking for solutions to international people movements. Of course we acknowledge that there are great people who arrive here irregularly and that has never ever been questioned on this side of the debate. This is fundamentally about the fairest way to identify refugees from among those who move for other reasons, including the economic.

As we know, the situation in parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka is extremely complex, but this government has failed to prove that any explicit factors arose over the last six months to make it easier to assess Afghanistan. What has happened in the last six months that you could not assess given that, since our forces are deployed in Oruzgan province, we are intimately connected to all the conditions in Afghanistan? And how has that changed in six months? The only thing that changed was that there was a federal election.

The Orwellianly named ‘tough and humane’ strategy was actually the weak and perversely inhumane idea of locking these people up without any form of processing. It simply led to massive queues in processing which will now, of course, have to be dealt with when this freeze is lifted. There is no evidence that this government could not have processed people in that six-month timeframe. There is no argument why a genuine refugee could not have been recognised almost immediately under standard UNHCR processing. Let us be honest—there are individuals who fled having had immediate relatives assassinated in front of them in their own household—we are talking horrible, horrible stories. To simply sweep them up in one large group and say we will not process them for six months is utterly inhumane. It is way more inhumane than the conditions that the former government imposed in 2000 and 2001, when there were large numbers of arrivals.

One of the reasons we are extremely strong on this issue is that those on this side of the chamber sat through the previous Prime Minister smugly responding to every question about this issue by simply reading out numbers from the Howard era, stating that the arrivals were greater then. Only slowly was that smugness wiped off the face of the Prime Minister who had unpicked all these laws, when the numbers arriving were finally even larger than for that period under the Howard government. I agree that there are a large number of arrivals now, as there were in 2000-01, but the difference is that the former Howard government came up with solutions. Not only is this government not coming up with solutions, they are patently turning a blind eye to solutions that worked and absolutely avoiding implementing them for no reason other than that they were our solutions.

Poor old Nauru has a completely constructed place for processing to occur and the only reason Nauru is not used is because the government need to find another nation to avoid actually going back and using something that worked, using something that was used by the previous government. That is bloody-mindedness, as is them saying, ‘We need a regional framework’ to avoid using the solution available to us—the one that worked—because it came from the previous government. This notion that we need a regional framework which involves a whole host of countries simply virtually guarantees that we will never see East Timor as a valid solution, and it is terribly unfair that that nation was singled out. It will now appear to many that East Timor’s leadership are heartless if they do not accept this current Prime Minister’s solution. Where was the negotiation? It was a glass of wine with the ceremonial president, with none of the hard and adaptive work that would have taken weeks. No, this government needed to go to an election and they needed a get-out-of-jail-free card.

It is tragic that the excuse that East Timor is a signatory to the convention and the protocols from 1951 and 1967 means that the government cannot consider Nauru, but will consider any other nation. It is wrong that Australia does not take the lead—as the former Indonesian president said: we provide the sugar. We should be doing way more than talking about vague solutions with a whole host of countries. We should be getting on and doing what the coalition did effectively after 2001, and that was TPVs, using a nation that was already set up for processing refugees, turning boats around where applicable and, of course, returning unsuccessful claimants for asylum promptly. (Time expired)

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of us who are rational are pleased that the issue of Afghan asylum seekers is being addressed by the government, and I certainly support the processing of those asylum seekers who were previously under suspension. We are considering today a motion from the opposition which I must say I find unbelievably hypocritical, given the opposition’s stance during the election. I never thought I would see the day when I would rise to speak on a motion moved by the coalition which noted Australia’s obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It surprises my colleagues and I to suddenly learn the coalition is concerned about Australia contravening UN conventions—after all, they were so concerned during their 12 years of government that they locked children behind barbed wire and held them in detention indefinitely.

I would have been more surprised had it not been for the fact that the member for Cook and the coalition had been using the complex asylum seeker issue as a political football to score points with the electorate. This motion shows faux concern for the Afghan refugees from a coalition that, during the last election season, used these poor people as their football. Now they come in here and pretend to be concerned—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Melbourne is reflecting on my motives and the motives of other members of this chamber in moving this motion, suggesting they are somehow politically based. I ask the member to withdraw.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was talking about the opposition’s faux concerns about the treatment of Afghan asylum seekers after what they had said about these people during previous months.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member for Melbourne Ports has the call.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cook was at the forefront of coalition fear mongering during the election, when the Leader of the Opposition said that Australia was experiencing a passive invasion of boats.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. On this occasion the member has accused me of fear mongering—directly, as being at the forefront of fear mongering. I ask that you ask him to withdraw that comment, as it is offensive to me.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not a point of order. He can rise to ask a question, if the member cares to take it, but let us not make up standing orders as we go.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Melbourne Ports.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Cook’s concerns about my remarks reveal that I have got to the heart of the matter—the faux concern revealed in this motion versus what they actually did during the election period. It is clear to anybody who examines the record that this is a motion invented solely for the purpose of trying to score a small political point.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 11.40 am, the time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.