Download Fragment

Monday, 19 September 2011
Page: 10496

Asylum Seekers

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:19): My question is to the Prime Minister. What consequences would Malaysia face under the government's agreement if someone transferred from Australia under that arrangement was arrested, detained or even caned?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:19): I refer the shadow minister to the obligations and agreement between Australia and Malaysia. I particularly refer him to the fact that there will be an oversight body that will include representatives of the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration as well as Australian and Malaysian officials. I also say to him: on what evidence does he suggest that Malaysia will not honour the obligations that it has freely entered into? On what evidence does he suggest that?

We are talking about the government of a nation in our region that was under no obligation to enter into this arrangement with Australia. No-one made Malaysia enter this agreement; it freely chose to do so. The fact that it freely chose to do so should, I think, be taken as indicative of its intentions. Why would it have entered into an agreement if it did not intend to abide by the clauses in it? There was no pressure on it to enter into this arrangement, other than wanting to assist with arrangements in our region. I would also say to the shadow minister: why does he believe UNHCR is willing to implement this arrangement? Why does he believe that—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I refer to page 55 of the Practice, dealing with the question of the amount of power that you have to require the Prime Minister to answer. This is a most salient point which Australians would really like to hear the answer to. You have the power to cause her to give that answer, and I ask you to do so.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

The SPEAKER: Order! The gallery will come to order. The Prime Minister has the call.

Ms GILLARD: To the shadow minister who asked the question—he may need to explain this to the Australian parliament and to the Australian people—the United Nations agency charged with upholding the convention, the United Nations agency that works around the world to assist asylum seekers and refugees, has said that it is prepared to work to implement this arrangement with Malaysia. That is obviously the United Nations agency charged with the welfare of refugees and the refugee convention saying that they can see that there is some merit in this arrangement and that they are prepared to be involved in implementing it. Clearly, they have not come to an adverse conclusion about the Malaysian government freely honouring the obligations it has taken unto itself. If the UNHCR has not come to that adverse conclusion, why has the shadow minister?

Why does the shadow minister come into this place and say he is motivated by concern for refugees, and yet he advocates a solution that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the body charged with upholding the convention, will not involve itself in—that is, he advocates Nauru.

The UNHCR has been very clear that they will not be involved in Nauru. I would suggest that the shadow minister should take a step back from the politics and look at this arrangement, look at what UNHCR is saying and actually examine his conscience as to whether he has any reason in the world to be asserting, as he does in this place and publically, that the Malaysian government will not honour its obligations. But once again, at the end of the day—even if the shadow minister has gone through that process of reflection and he is able to rationalise the fact that UNHCR is going to be involved in implementing the Malaysia agreement, and he is able to rationalise the fact that he has no reason to assume the Malaysian government will not honour its obligations, and if he is able to rationalise the fact that under the Howard government they took asylum seekers to non-refugee countries, and if he is able to rationalise the fact that that happened without a legislative foundation stone; that is, the agreement with Nauru was through an MOU and boats were taken back to Indonesia with no arrangements about the convention and no arrangements about protection—if he is able to rationalise all of those conundrums and contradictions and still publically go out and say, 'I argue for Nauru', well, that is a question for him; this is about amending the legislation. (Time expired)