Mr STEPHEN JONES (1:14 PM) —I come to this debate with some background in what it is like to grow up in a community which has been, over many generations, the beneficiary of people who have come to our country with a suitcase full of photos and a heart full of hope in search of refuge from wars and persecution. They have come to a community which has, on the whole, received them with open arms and benefited from the great contribution they have made to our community in the Illawarra and the greater Throsby region.

I agree with some of the comments that were made by members opposite that there is a need for a debate on immigration in this country, that there is a need for a debate around refugees in this country, but that debate should be based on facts. It is a debate which should be cognisant of the fact that we live in a region which is beset by international turmoil, by wars and by dislocated populations. It should be cognisant of the fact that, as the UNHCR has reported, there has been an overall increase in the number of displaced persons in the world, in our region—by over 12 per cent between the years 2007 and 2008 alone. Indeed, over 35 million people are believed to be displaced. We have an obligation as a community to deal, in a responsible way and with regional solutions, with the plight of unfortunate people who are being displaced in our region. We do need a debate on how, in this country and this region, we deal with those problems. We need a debate which is cognisant of the fact that the majority of people who are in our detention centres at the moment did not come by boat. You could be forgiven, if you listened to the rhetoric and the debate of those opposite, for thinking that the majority of people have come to us by boat. They have not come by boat; they have come by plane, with valid visas. After arriving in a plane, with a valid visa, they have sought asylum or refuge. That is what led them into a detention centre. The motion we are debating is yet more of the politics of fear from the member for Mayo and the coalition.

Prior to the election campaign, the Prime Minister proposed seeking a long-term solution, a bipartisan solution, to deal with asylum seekers and to end the politics of fear and division that the coalition has been practising.

Mr Briggs —Is this related to the motion?

Mr STEPHEN JONES —The member for Mayo asks me how it is related. I sat through and listened to the speech by the shadow immigration spokesperson, the member for Cook, and I am sure other members in this chamber would be forgiven for being confused as to whether this was a debate about a particular site in Inverbrackie or whether it was a debate about immigration policy.

Mr Danby —It was all red faced. He had a red face.

Mr STEPHEN JONES —It was red-faced rhetoric; that is right. It was a debate which was an opportunity for him to spread more of the politics of fear and confusion. We are seeing that as a result of this motion. The coalition has to come clean on whether it opposes the housing of families and children in community based accommodation or whether it wants these families to remain in detention centres. And that goes to the nub of the proposition. Do the opposition want these people to remain in detention centres or do they want them to be in community based facilities? There was a bipartisan position from 2005 that it would be better for women and children not to be in long-term detention centres but to be in more community based facilities. But we see through this episode perhaps a reversal of that bipartisan position.

Mr Danby interjecting—

Mr STEPHEN JONES —That is right. Having received a full briefing from the department, it is reprehensible for the member for Mayo to continue to spread fear and misinformation in his community and to seek to exploit the fears for some political advantage. Holding an inquiry, as the member is proposing, would simply be another stunt to stir up community concerns. Any genuine concerns that the community may have are being dealt with systematically by the department and by the minister, and that is indeed the appropriate way for those concerns to be dealt with. (Time expired)