Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. My question is in relation to the legislation the government plans to ram through the parliament this week to give the government the power to continue detaining people on Nauru and Manus Island. Given the government's urgency for this legislation, will the minister admit that this means Australia has been illegally detaining men, women and children in squalid detention camps for the last three years?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is incorrect, Senator. The government is of the view that the offshore processing arrangements are lawful. That is the view of the government. Some legislation was introduced, I understand, into the House of Representatives this morning. It will be debated in the House of Representatives today and I believe it will be introduced into the Senate either later today or tomorrow. But the answer to your question is that the government believes—and I understand the former Labor government also believed—that the offshore processing arrangements were lawful.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the recent Philip Moss review and the current Senate inquiry into the conditions in Nauru has heard women and children have suffered rape, sexual abuse and conditions that are akin to torture, why on earth would this parliament give the government a blank cheque to keep children detained in these squalid conditions?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, without accepting any of the absurd assertions you make and the false premises of your question, perhaps that is a point you may care to make in the parliamentary debate. But we are of the view that the measures this government has implemented to stop the flood of illegal immigrants, to stop the drownings at sea—more than 1,100 people who lost their lives as a result of policies that you—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock! Point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I wanted to draw attention to the word 'illegal'. It is not illegal to seek asylum.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not a point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson, that is a debating point.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, that is not the legal advice of the Australian government. Senator Hanson-Young, as I said to you a moment ago, under policies that you supported, nearly 50,000 people came to Australia illegally. Eight hundred and twelve asylum-seeker vessels came to Australia illegally. More than 1,100 men, women and children drowned at sea. And we stopped it.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Could the Attorney-General explain to the chamber why it has taken this long? Why wait until the last two days of the sitting period to introduce this legislation, considering the case before the High Court was lodged in May?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is of the view that this legislation is beneficial to strengthen—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it's been illegal for the last three years!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, you interject that it has been illegal for the last three years. I have already told you that the legal advice to the government and to the previous Labor government was that the scheme was within the law, so there is not an issue about its legality. But I understand that it is being challenged in some proceedings in the High Court. There is this difference. The policies of this government—over your strenuous objection—stopped the boats, stopped the drownings and put the people smugglers out of business. That is the relevant difference.