Mr PERRETT (11:11 AM) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad you recognise that spirit of bipartisanship in which I assented to the amendment to the motion on asylum seekers. However, in rising to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Cook, it would have been nice to have had a copy of the amendment. I am sure one is coming over, but unfortunately I am a bit hamstrung in speaking to the amendment because I do not have a copy of it. None has been provided to me. However, I do have a copy of the original motion of the member for Cook. In speaking to that, I welcome the lifting of the suspension of processing Afghan asylum seekers at the end of last month. As I have said, I do not actually have a copy of the amendment, but in a way it does not really matter because this is not about the substantive motion that the member for Cook articulated but about mischief. There is no vision that we need to explore or policy that we need to explore. This is about the mischief that comes from those opposite when it comes to immigration. I am sure he is facilitating the handing over of a copy of the amendment to this side of the chamber.

As the government explained at the time of the suspension—when it was put in place during a fluid situation in Afghanistan last year—things have changed a little bit. Why did we do that? Let us go back to the facts and look at the Sri Lankan and Afghani situation. The overriding basis is to ensure that every claim for asylum is processed fairly and to do that we had to make sure that we knew all of the facts in Afghanistan. As the member for Cook would know, Afghanistan is a country that has been experiencing some difficulties of late and without up-to-date country information it was not possible to make a fair assessment of the claims that were put forward. I am not as familiar with Afghanistan as the Leader of the Opposition. He spent a significant amount of time there recently—on the firing range. I did not get to do that, but I am sure he would admit in his discussions with Alan Jones and others that Afghanistan has some particular challenges. That is why the Department of Immigration and Citizenship needed time to look at the circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

The department now has a much clearer picture from the Australian Embassy and from other governments around the world that are involved in Afghanistan and the government has therefore been able to lift the suspension of the processing. Each individual claim will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances—certain legal criteria, the relevant policy considerations and the comprehensive and up-to-date country information. This is the case with all immigration matters.

In accordance with our international obligations and humanitarian spirit, we will not return asylum seekers to a place where they are likely to be persecuted. I say that in particular because many of my community are Hazara. They have particular concerns about being returned to Afghanistan. In fact, there are some suggestions from Amnesty International that up to 60 per cent of the Hazara community are being persecuted in Afghanistan. That is why I put that on the record. I have a strong relationship with the Hazara community in my electorate and I just wanted to assure them of that.

Four minutes into my speech I still do not have a copy of the amendment. In responding to the original motion put forward by the member for Cook, he quotes the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It is great to see that the opposition immigration spokesperson has finally found a copy of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. He quoted it accurately. Unfortunately, for the last 20 years the one copy which the coalition have has been gathering dust somewhere over at coalition headquarters. Thankfully, the member for Cook found it and even read it, and he is able to articulate some of the things in the convention. He well knows the progression from a convention, to a treaty and legislation, to practice on the ground. There is a progression there, which he seems to be ignoring. I thank the former member for Kooyong for sending him a copy of the United Nations convention. Either way, it seems the member for Cook has had a close read of it. Of course it does not mean that they will change their policy because, as we heard in his speech, the coalition are still committed to processing asylum seekers on Nauru, a country which is not a signatory to the refugee convention.

Mr Morrison —Why is that relevant? You don’t know, do you? It’s not in the notes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! Members of the opposition will contain themselves.

Mr PERRETT —Even though he went over there to try to facilitate the signing, we still have a country that is not a signatory to the refugee convention. It makes the member for Cook’s sudden fondness for the UN refugee convention seem a little bit insincere. It is a far cry from the days of ‘turn back the boats’. As I said to many of my constituents, especially those from the Hazara community who spent years languishing in detention centres under the Howard regime—

Mr Morrison —They’ve just spent six months because you froze the process.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I draw the attention of the honourable member for Cook to standing order 66A, if he wishes to make an intervention during another member’s contribution.

Mr PERRETT —too many genuine asylum seekers, including children, spent years behind razor wire, waiting, waiting, waiting. These people are now good, honest citizens and taxpayers. I have in my hand a reference which I wrote for one of them, someone who spent three years in detention, who had almost no English when he arrived, who ended up at Milperra, a facility formerly in the ward of the member for Ryan—I am sure she would know the Milperra State High School, which does great work for students with limited language facility. He went on to Yeronga State High School, a great school which also takes a lot of kids who do not have strong English. He was able to obtain a scholarship to attend university. I will not name him because I was not able to get him on the phone this morning when I found out that I was talking on this matter. He graduated with a degree, a Bachelor of Applied Science, and currently works as a laboratory technician for the Australian Laboratory Services.

These are the sorts of people who arrive on boats. They are good, hard-working, tax-paying citizens. Therefore, I find a little disingenuous the member for Cook demanding that asylum seekers be processed immediately, as in his amended motion. The Gillard Labor government is committed to protecting our borders, but we will not shirk our international obligations or our humanitarian obligations to asylum seekers. We are committed to a regional solution to issues of people smuggling and irregular migration in the region.

A regional problem demands a regional solution and that is why, through a regional protection framework, we will remove the incentive for people to risk their lives at sea. That is what we are trying to avoid. A regional processing centre will remove the incentive which people smugglers use to sell a ticket to Australia. It will destroy the market. The Gillard government will continue to develop a regional protection framework through the Bali process and through bilateral negotiations with our neighbours.

Apart from our Indigenous brothers and sisters, Australia is a country built by immigrants. Some 6.6 million people, including 700,000 refugee and humanitarian arrivals, have come to Australia since World War II. Australia has a proud record of welcoming those who come across the seas. It is even in our national anthem in the second verse—not a lot of people sing the second verse—that ‘For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share’, but I am sure the member for Cook would like that excised from the national anthem.

There is something in the Australian character that makes us terrified of small wooden vessels filled with people who come with hope. Is it because we are a nation formed by people from vessels which ran up a flag saying to the Aboriginal people, ‘This is now our land’? Maybe that is why it is a big part of the Australian psyche. If you go back through history, you see it. Initially when Captain Phillip landed in Botany Bay, six days before the French, he was able to say, ‘We just beat them.’ A few years later it was the Russians, then the Chinese and the Japanese and now it is Afghans and Tamils. For some reason politicians are able to latch onto this fear and cultivate it as much as possible. As every Christian person and every humanitarian would know, these boats are filled with people who are full of hope and aspirations for a decent life for their kids. Unfortunately, on their arrival we still have politicians who use fear to define the national response. It is a shameful aspect of the debate and hopefully will be changed. (Time expired)