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

I take this opportunity in the House to point out the opposition's humbug on the proposed asylum seeker agreement with Malaysia. Let us remember that the shadow minister for immigration told 2SM on 1 December 2008:

The closure of Nauru and Manus Island ... of course they had basically—what shall we say—outlived their need ... I don't think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we've got of course Christmas Island.

That is what the opposition was saying then—what is the difference now? The member for Curtin, who is now so exercised with these issues, in a media release on 27 July 2011, said:

… the Coalition does not consider that being a signatory to the Refugee Convention is a precondition for hosting the processing centre …

That was just before the government started talking about these proposed changes in arrangements. Everyone knows that I am no fan of the Malaysian government, but I ask members opposite, who are now so agitated about Malaysia, where were they before? Malaysia has been under international pressure to exhibit a higher standard of democratic behaviour. One of the positive unintended consequences of our proposed Malaysia agreement, were it to come to pass, would be that the Australian media and the UNHCR would be keeping a strong eye on it. It has already had a beneficial effect on the human rights situation in Malaysia. The UNHCR has said, although the opposition pay no attention to it: 'The arrangement will in time deliver further protection dividends to the two countries, as well as to the region.'

The UNHCR further explained:

The Arrangement and its implementing guidelines contain important protection safeguards, including respect for the principle of non-refoulement; the right to asylum; the principle of family unity and best interests of the child; humane reception conditions including protection against arbitrary detention; lawful status to remain in Malaysia until a durable solution is found; and the ability to receive education, access to health care, and a right to employment.

That certainly does not exist in Nauru, and that is one reason that thoughtful people know that to propose Nauru is cloud cuckoo land—there is no employment for all these people and they will be living at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. That is, apart from the fact that these so-called economically responsible people want us to spend another billion dollars on reconstituting the whole place.

As the member for Goldstein pointed out, I speak out frequently on human rights. I thank him for advertising the Freedom House report that I circulated to all MPs. This authoritative survey points out that Malaysia is not a fully-fledged democracy; it only rates four on the Freedom House scale of civil liberties and political rights but it is much better than Iran, at six, and Pakistan, five, where the member for Cook wants us to deport people seeking asylum here in Australia. Since when have the Liberal Party become devotees of UN conventions, or indeed of the UN itself? As a human rights advocate, I have some real doubts about the UN and the dedication of many of its members to actual human rights. Sadly, the UN Human Rights Council is a joke. The UN conventions, ignored by evil and duplicitous regimes such as Iran and Pakistan, are used only as legalistic cover. These conventions are garbage. They are not worth the paper they are written on if they are signed by Iran or Pakistan.

We now have the Liberal Party in high dudgeon, adulating these conventions in all their hypocrisy, over a less-than-perfect arrangement with a country such as Malaysia. What explains this? I have searched the parliamentary records of all the people who now talk about UN conventions, caning and human rights in Malaysia. Not one of them, before this arrangement with Malaysia was raised, ever spoke on these things—conventions on refugees or human rights in Malaysia—while I was talking about it. The only person was the member for Wentworth. There was deafening silence. Weren't the Liberal Party always the party that supported the democratic principle that parliament has the primacy over the judiciary and that the parliament should determine our foreign and migration policy? Of course they were. But, with their lust for power, they have put aside their principles.

Let us also remember that great conservative exhortation: 'We will determine who comes to this country.' We will determine who comes to this country—except when the Labor Party proposes it. That is their hypocrisy, that is their humbug; that is their cant. When I was working with the then government when the terrorist legislation came up in the early 2000s, we cooperated with them. On many occasions, oppositions have to work with government in the national interest of Australia. Humbug, cant and hypocrisy is all we get from the opposition over the Malaysian arrangement. (Time expired)