Mr ANDREN (1:00 PM) —The Migration Legislation Amendment (Further Border Protection Measures) Bill 2002 is a re-run of the Tampa legislation introduced in such haste on 29 August last year—only this time there is no Tampa; there is only a virtual boat, a mystery boat that was supposed to have left Indonesia with asylum seekers. This legislation, following as it does the rejection of regulations including those regarding offshore places in the migration exclusion zone, is about wedge politics. It is not about border security and our international obligations. For heaven's sake, according to my advice, an asylum application can be made from anywhere inside Australia's 12-nautical mile limit, on terra firma or not. Does each excised island now have a 12-mile zone? What about the bits of sea between? Also, according to my advice, a phone call to a lawyer can get an application lodgment under way. This legislation does not solve any immigration dilemma, but it certainly serves a political imperative to keep the refugee issue bubbling along so an election trigger is in the draw.

Why again, as with the flawed and ultimately doomed Tampa bill, are we not having a proper debate on this? Why the rush? Why do I have to plead for a spot on the speaking list when there are only 13 speakers, including me, on this piece of legislation? Why isn't it opened up for a full and robust debate on this whole issue? If this issue is so important to the Australian electorate, let us have that full and thorough debate. There is no imminent flood of boat people. The minister and Prime Minister declare the measures introduced last year have deterred the people smugglers. Why the haste? I will tell you why. The government realises it has hit a nerve in the electorate, a nerve of insecurity. Instead of reassuring the nation and taking reasonable steps to protect our security, the government is saying the asylum seekers are the threat to our security.

This is a further demonising of these people, most of whom have fled their countries because of the very tyrannical forces we are so ready to join the US in fighting. Let us fight those forces and at the same time analyse who helped those tyrants reach their positions of power and whether US foreign policy over the years may have helped create that climate of hate and those tyrants. Let us fight the tyranny of Saddam and his butchering treatment of the Kurds, some of whom have escaped through Turkey to Greece and other nations and some of whom have come by boat to Australia. Incidentally, Greece has not excised 10,000 islands for immigration purposes, as far as I am aware, though they are so close to the tyranny that breeds the refugee exodus.

Let us not take the high moral ground as the US deputy sheriff on the one hand and then treat the victims of these tyrants as potential terrorists. This bill is not only about further demonising asylum seekers; it is about creating a trigger for a double dissolution. Budget bills and border bills make a tempting cocktail for a government to attempt to sweep the Senate clean of those irritating minor parties and Independents. Such a dissolution, of course, would open the way for the re-emergence of extreme political fringe groups. We have already seen the outrageous campaign perpetrated in the Young district by the Australia First Party, which has pilloried and smeared Afghan abattoir workers on temporary protection visas who have been strongly welcomed into the community. I have a copy of the letterbox drop. It is not dissimilar to some of the things put about in Calare during the recent election campaign. It is headed `Contract Labour at Burrangong Meat Works. Refugees Hired! Australians Fired?' It says:

That sort of thing is being inflamed by this case of wedge politics, which I believe is exploiting those ignorant and quite dangerous undertones, particularly in rural areas.

This bill is not only morally repugnant; it is most probably seriously flawed. We are using domestic legislation to get around our international obligations that exist under treaties we have ratified. We are forcing asylum seekers back to Indonesia, which is not a party to the 1950 refugee convention. Nor are other countries between the Middle East and Australia signatories to the 1967 refugee protocol, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out. Why don't we as a nation put our cards on the table and remove our signature from the 1950 convention? That would be the truthful path. We are foisting this problem onto another country that is not a signatory, and we are asking the UNHCR to do our processing for us on Nauru and Manus and in other places.

The UNHCR is not a party to the UN convention; we are. This bill continues to treat asylum seekers as criminals. They are not the criminals; the smugglers are. Of course some people can pay, as the minister says, `considerably large amounts of money' to get here. Is that a crime? Most migrants need considerable means to migrate here. The so-called queue jumping is a myth, because in recent times there have been no queues, especially in Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. Of course people will make spurious claims to seek asylum. Those can be weeded out in the proper processing which we, not the UNHCR, are obligated to undertake on our shores. We are also obligated morally, if not legally, to absolutely ensure the safety of boatloads of people who may be in danger. The tragic loss of 353 lives on SIEV10 in October last year, just before the Tampa election and when the boat was most likely in international waters, must redouble our efforts to ensure the lives of innocent people are not presumed to be someone else's problem.

This bill is also a smokescreen for the upcoming forcible removal of asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected. This week the Justice for Asylum Seekers Alliance has been in Parliament House and presented its alternative approach to reception and transitional processing of these people. Given the documented cases of self-harm, psychological damage to children, inordinate lengths of detention, in particular, and the cases of physical and psychological abuse that I have been made aware of by nurses in detention centres, there has to be a better way. The comprehensive paper from the JAS Alliance includes contributions from the Catholic Commission for Justice Development and Peace, Caritas, Jesuit Refugee Service, Baptist Union, Oxfam and a host of other organisations of, I would suggest, credibility and commitment. It also includes a section on how to increase voluntary repatriation when one's claim is unsuccessful.

This is a moral approach to the treatment of asylum seekers, not the social hellhole we have created in our detention process. Initial detention is obviously necessary. Protracted detention is imprisonment for the crime of seeking a life free of persecution or in some cases—and I grant it—a more affluent life. When was that made such a crime as to warrant the sort of incarceration that has been so soundly condemned both domestically and internationally? Indeed, my grandfather came to Australia on a ship at the turn of the century before last.

Mr Abbott —Mr Deputy Speaker Barresi, on a point of order: to assist the House and to expedite this debate, my understanding is that there was an agreement that the member for Calare would have five minutes. He has now gone for eight. I just think that the agreement ought to be honoured.

Mr ANDREN —I spoke to the minister at the desk, Mr Ruddock, and he indicated that I had 10 minutes. That was just a moment before I started speaking. If I could continue only very briefly; I have a couple of paragraphs that I want to conclude with. As I said, my grandfather came here on a boat at the turn of the last century, and he was returned to Sweden. Twelve months later, he came again. He jumped ship and disappeared into the country seeking a better life, which he found. I would suggest that thousands of people around the world are doing just that, and they should not be treated as criminals.

The opposition has, I believe, made a very constructive suggestion that this legislation be withdrawn so that a bipartisan input can be made into a constructive solution to the people-smuggling issue, by engaging those countries to our north that are not party to proper refugee processing procedures. There is no urgency for this legislation to be in the Senate this afternoon, to my mind. And to the minds of those with greater legal expertise, there is no need for this legislation. It is not the further border protection bill, it is the further demonising bill, and I am sure I can explain my position to my electorate, because it is founded on ethical, not political, considerations.