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

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I refer the minister to his statement in 2006:

… asylum-seekers should be treated the same regardless of how they land … they should be dealt with … on Australian soil.

and his statement in 2010:

… from our point of view we’ve said that the regional processing centre would need to be for the sake of decency, in a country which is a signatory to the refugee convention.

Given that the minister now wants to send asylum seekers to Malaysia, a country not a signatory to the United Nations convention on refugees, how can he be trusted with a blank cheque from this parliament as he proposed in his legislation this morning?

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

I thank 'Scoop' for his question. Yes, the government has developed its thinking on this issue over time and we have changed our position. We have said, in the light of advice, that we should work with countries in our region—like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand—to improve protection outcomes. But we will do so in a way where we negotiate with them commitments for them to abide by fundamental human rights principles, and this is particularly in relation to our arrangement with Malaysia. It is one thing for a political party to change its position, as the opposition has done. It was only last year when the Leader of the Opposition said that refugee signatory countries in relation to offshore processing was a furphy. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said 12 months ago. Apparently it is okay for the Leader of the Opposition to do that.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked why he could be trusted. The Australian people know that we can be trusted.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cook will resume his seat.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Order! That applies to the member for Cook. Again, the point of order went well beyond the way in which points of order should be put. The member for Sturt should feel aggrieved, but the member for Cook is warned. I will allow him to have his point of order but I will not allow him to argue a point. Likewise, in giving the call to the minister, the minister will now—having incidentally mentioned others and argued—come back to the question.

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

I point out that it is one thing for a political party to change its position and develop its thinking; it is another thing for a political party to have two positions at the same time—for a political party to say, 'You can't send asylum seekers to a country that is not a refugee convention signatory,' at the same time as arguing with a straight face that they will turn the boats around and point them towards Indonesia, with no commitments negotiated, which is not a signatory to the refugee convention. The opposition seem to think they can run two positions at once and walk different sides of the street on this issue. They say we are too tough, and then we are too soft. They say that the refugee convention is not important, and then that it is fundamental. The opposition think they can run two positions at once. I think the Australian people see through the hypocrisy of the opposition.