Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

In taking note of the answers given by Senator Carr and reflecting on the comments Senator Scullion has just contributed to this debate, I cannot help but pause and reflect on this 'virtual policy' characterisation, because it is a very selective policy characterisation. I would like to remind senators, and indeed Australians, of who made the most significant change with respect to asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. Of course, that was Mr John Howard, in caretaker mode in the lead-up to the election on which Senator Scullion reflects.

The coalition had several policy changes after that period, but let us remember the circumstances of the first. The first was a deliberate decision by this coalition to demonise and politicise this debate and demonise asylum seekers. I will, in a moment, reflect on several other examples. But I want to remind the Senate that the most important point here is that it is very clear that the government's intention is to act consistently with our refugee convention obligations—unlike the former coalition government. It is very difficult to characterise what occurred on Nauru as consistent at all. The coalition claims that it delivered effective border protection, but let us remember another issue as we hear all this moralising. This is the principle that you cannot try and achieve deterrence, or deal with people-smugglers, without mistreating people or persecuting people. There are serious moral issues with that approach. This is the issue that dogged a former coalition minister when the coalition introduced this approach to try and deal with deterrence. I should run through the aspects of that approach quickly. Temporary protection visas: what that was really about was harming and mistreating the people who were stuck in Australia under those visas. I remember many examples during those years of people highlighting the persecution and the effect of TPVs. That is why we abolished them. I remember people drowning when left in the water or disembarking boats that had been turned back to Indonesia. I remember a Human Rights Watch report that highlighted that safety was not necessarily being adhered to in those arrangements.

But Nauru is possibly the best example. I am proud that this government released those people who had been left on Nauru for many, many years, rotting. We know the mental health effects of the coalition's approach in Nauru. But what we also know is that our arrangements in Malaysia are very different to what the former government set up in Nauru. The Malaysia agreement is about promoting regional processing of asylum claims and resettlement whilst treating people with dignity. It is about avoiding incarceration. This did not apply in Nauru. It is about providing access to appropriate housing, health care, education and employment. This did not happen in Nauru. It is about the participation of the UNHCR. This did not happen in Nauru. Instead, we have the coalition denigrating Malaysia.

I came across a young boy last week who is studying in Australia. He was deeply troubled with the way this debate is demonising his home country. He is concerned that this coalition is using Malaysia as a scapegoat, as it tries to continue to politicise the issue and demonise asylum seekers. The Malaysian government has made it clear that it is addressing its standing on human rights issues. I spent about a year and a half in my youth living in Malaysia. I did not see evidence of the sorts of things that Senator Cash was raising in question time today. No doubt there are circumstances where some inappropriate behaviour occurs. That can sometimes occur in any country, including Australia—we heard in question time today the example of Cornelia Rau. So I do not think we have the luxury of the approach the coalition is taking in this debate. (Time expired)