My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Carr. Is it not true that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship advised caucus that four per cent of asylum seekers who get on a boat die at sea? Given that there have been over 11,000 asylum seekers lured to Australia in the last three years, since the government dismantled the tough border protection policies of the Howard government, what responsibility do members of the government take for the approximately 440 men, women and children who were encouraged to get onto a boat and who subsequently drowned?

I thank the senator for her question. She would be asking too much of me to reveal the details of caucus discussions. I would, however, make the following observation.

You might play a very neat hand when it comes to stabbing people in the back, Senator, but listen: this is not—

Senator Carr, just address your comments to me as the chair. Ignore the interjections. If they persist, I will call the chamber to order and give you the opportunity to speak in silence.

The proposition that should surely go without question is that travelling on the voyage to Australia by way of refugee boats as a result of people-smuggling activity is incredibly dangerous, and we have far too many examples of people losing their lives on those journeys. No-one, surely, could argue with that proposition. Hence I say it is morally reprehensible to argue that we should be turning boats around at sea. It is morally reprehensible to suggest that people should be turned back in these unseaworthy vessels when we know what the incredible risks are, when we know what the extraordinary dangers are and we have the historic experience of the children overboard affair. For that policy to be pursued by those opposite is morally reprehensible. I think it is beyond belief that we have a question like this that suggests anything other than the facts. It is incredibly dangerous. It is a policy position we reject and we want to stop it. We want to stop people getting on those boats, we want to stop people risking their lives and we will do all we can to see that that happens.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain why both yesterday and in his answer just given today he condemned the coalition for a policy of turning the boats back by towing them out to sea while he supported the very same policy when it was announced by Mr Kevin Rudd in November 2007? Is there no limit to this minister's hypocrisy and moral ambivalence?

What I can assure the Senate is that the government accepts the advice of the Australian Navy about how incredibly dan­gerous such a policy position is. Further­more, this government acts on the advice of the inquiry that this Senate ran into a certain maritime incident. I further draw the attention of the Senate to the suggestion that somehow or another this government is not concerned about human rights, coming from senators who support the policy of the previous government—

Which worked!

Did it work? So the Mohamed Haneef affair worked, did it? Perhaps we could get some advice on how the Cornelia Rau affair worked or how the Vivian Alvarez Solon affair worked. Your treatment of human rights was a disgrace. Your attitude to the treatment of people in detention centres was a disgrace. (Time expired)

I don't think they were boat arrivals.

On a point of order, Mr President: as I said yesterday, I am not opposed to robust debate, but I think Senator Brandis ought to withdraw that remark—and I think he knows he should.

Senator Brandis—

Under your direction, I withdraw.

I refer the minister to the statement by the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, on 23 November 2007, when he said:

Labor would take asylum-seekers who had been rescued from leaky boats to Christmas Island, would turn back seaworthy vessels containing such people on the high seas …

"You'd turn them back," he said of boats approaching Australia, emphasising that Labor believed in an "orderly immigration system" …

Again I ask the minister: are you a hypocrite or are you not, by your answer both yesterday—

No, that has to be withdrawn.

Mr President, is the statement that the minister made to the Senate hypocritical?

The proposition that this government is anything other than committed to the upholding of our international human rights obligations is one that I would reject. This is a government committed to ensuring that we meet our obligations to human rights under our international treaty obligations. We are in the business of stopping the people smuggling syndicates. We are in the business of ensuring that, on the other hand, people get the proper—

I remind you the time to debate this is in 10 more minutes. That is all you have to wait—10 more minutes and you can debate the issue.

If Mr Abbott was really in the business of wanting to stop the flow of boats, if he were genuinely interested in human rights, he would ensure that the policy position that we have offered to him was actually seriously supported. All we have heard from the opposition is that your clear intention is to not support that position. (Time expired)