Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Coonan. Can the minister outline what discussions were held with Indonesia prior to the decision to change Australia’s immigration policy through the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill? Does the minister accept the advice of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee that the bill is ‘an inappropriate response to what is essentially a foreign policy issue’? Isn’t this legislation really just an act of appeasement to Indonesia in the wake of the decision to grant temporary protection visas to 42 Papuans earlier this year?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, of course it is not an act of appeasement. It is partly an acknowledgment of the fact that Indonesia does play a significant role in relation to our border protection policy. It is entirely appropriate that the government takes into account some views of Indonesia in relation to how they would propose to go about assisting us to implement an absolutely core policy of ours.

The legislation design is a border security issue. It is aimed squarely at strengthening border control measures in relation to unauthorised boat arrivals. The changes will apply to unauthorised boat arrivals regardless of their nationality. The legislation is consistent with the government’s strong ongoing commitment to upholding Australia’s international protection obligations, including the refugee convention. The UNHCR has not been entirely happy with the proposed legislation, nor was the Senate report. We acknowledge that. But certainly those criticisms have not specifically proven or concluded that the amendments would be in breach of the refugee convention. That is Australia’s obligation.

We have a long and distinguished record—and I think it is important to point this out in this debate—of responding to refugee needs. The government has a strong commitment to upholding our obligations under the refugee convention. This will continue to be the case under the strengthened border control measures. Any claims to refugee status by unauthorised boat arrivals will continue to be properly assessed in accordance with Australia’s international obligations. Refugee applicants will be provided with proper care during the assessment process—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and will be protected against return to their homeland while their claims are assessed. A person found not to be a refugee will be able to obtain a fresh merits review of their case. Resettlement to a third country will be arranged for persons found to be refugees. The premise of Senator Conroy’s question is simply not made out. Australia’s obligations are well and truly understood. The arrangements in relation to these amendments are core to this government’s policy on border protection.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Ludwig.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can appreciate that feelings run high in this debate, but the constant shouting and screaming at me as I am trying to answer this question hardly enlightens the debate.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I would point out that the minister totally avoided the first part of the question. I repeat the question: can the minister outline what discussions were held with the Indonesian government prior to the decision to change the policy? Will the government be consulting the Indonesian government over the backbench amendments that you are going to agree to? Can the minister explain why the government is more interested in appeasing Indonesian politicians than listening to its own backbench? Does this mean that Indonesia now decides who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Out of those six questions I am not sure, in one minute, which one I am expected to elect to answer. What I will say is that this government will maintain its policy on border protection. These arrangements are core to maintaining this government’s policy on border protection. We will not be dictated to or shouted at by the opposition.