Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

They would have the boat phone at Kirribilli House. 'Turn back that boat,' Prime Minister Abbott would say. 'Turn it around. Send it back to Indonesia.' Turning back the boats means that they would be sent to Indonesia when Indonesia have said they will not accept them. The Indonesian government said, 'We will not accept boats that are returned from Australia,' when the opposition made that policy. The shadow minister said, 'No, that was in response to your policy announce­ment.' When the opposition announced in the election campaign that they would turn back the boats, the foreign minister of Indonesia said, 'We won't take them.' That was not in response to anything the government said. It was in response to a policy announcement from the Leader of the Opposition that he would have a phone on which he would take control of the Navy and personally order the return of the boats. That is their policy—turn back the boats to Indonesia.

Here is a question for the shadow minister for immigration. If you are going to turn back the boats to Indonesia, what protections are you going to have in place for the people returned to Indonesia? When you drop them off at the jetty in Indonesia are the kids going to be able to go to school? If they need to go to hospital, where are they going to go? What protections are going to be in place? How long will they be there? All the questions that the shadow minister asked about Malaysia he cannot answer about Indonesia, which is where they would return the boats to—putting aside the fact that Indonesia have said they will not take the boats and that it would risk the lives of asylum seekers and our naval personnel.

The position of the opposition is that it is not okay to take people to Malaysia under an agreement which ensures that their status is protected, which ensures that they can have their claims for protection considered by the UNHCR, which ensures that they will not be returned to a country from which they are fleeing danger, which ensures that they have those protections in place and which also increases our humanitarian intake to its highest level since this side of the parliament was last in office in 1996. That is not okay and it is unfair, according to the opposition, but it is okay on the high seas to turn the boats around, risk the lives of sailors and asylum seekers and drop them off at a jetty in Jakarta and say, 'See you later,' with no protections in place whatsoever. That is the hypocrisy of the opposition.

Then we have what is, I must confess, my personal favourite from the member for Cook—the old Iran solution. We saw the member for Cook last night again on Lateline. He said that Iran are a signatory to the refugee convention. Oh, the government of Iran are a great human rights champion! They are champions of human rights over in Iran! We love them. The member for Cook loves them more. Last night we saw him with his shovel out on Lateline, digging away, digging himself out of the hole. He said:

It wouldn't be a bilateral deal involving Australia or even one that Australia would advance.

I thought that was interesting. Then the member for Cook said, 'Read the speech.' I will do better. I will read it to the House. This is what the member for Cook said in November:

In my view, Australia’s participation in a regional solution for Afghanistan should seek to trade off Australia taking more refugees out of the camps in countries of first asylum in that region in return for the ability to return those who have sought to advantage their asylum claims through illegal entry to Australia, to those same camps or other safe places established for that purpose, as part of the regional solution.

Sounds like something which involves Australia to me. The member for Cook's solution was proposed last November. He said, 'I've got this great idea: a real international solution that will involve Australia returning people to Iran,' because they are strong on human rights in Iran! Perhaps the member for Cook is about to announce a fact-finding mission to Tehran where he can outline the protections that are in place under his agreement. I would be interested to see it. I am not going to Iran because I have no interest in doing a transfer agreement with Iran. You do, and you can go to Iran.

Then we have the member for Cook saying he is off to Malaysia on the weekend to satisfy himself about the conditions there. He has appointed himself ombudsman for asylum seekers in the region. Our old friend the ombudsman, as the member for Chifley likes to call him, has appointed himself ombudsman to ensure their conditions are protected because he cares so much about asylum seekers. This is a man and a party who would send people to Nauru, a country that would not grant visas to people who wanted to monitor the situation when we had over 1,000 asylum seekers, who were Australia's responsibility, in Nauru. If a journalist wanted a visa—denied. If a lawyer wanted a visa—denied. Nobody else could go to Nauru but, while the member for Cook thinks it is so important that he goes to Malaysia, he was willing to send people to a country which would not issue visas to people interested in pursuing and monitoring the situation in Nauru. That is the hypocrisy of the opposition.

Then we hear them say that it is more humane to send people to Nauru than to Malaysia. That is something which really takes the cake. The opposition go around taking any opportunity to criticise the support and care that is given to people who are asylum seekers in Australia. They take any opportunity to say they are getting too much—their pillows are too fluffy, they get Foxtel, they get telephones so they can ring their family members. How outrageous that this happens!

Then we see the opposition crying crocodile tears about the human rights of asylum seekers. They say that Nauru would be more humane. The only way the Nauru option provides any disincentives to come to Australia is the fact it left people on Nauru for an inordinately long period of time. We saw the effects of that. People were assessed by psychiatrists appointed by the previous government as suffering great psychological harm.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

See this speech in context