Download Fragment

Wednesday, 14 September 2011
Page: 6072

Asylum Seekers

Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:33): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Carr. Is the minister aware of statistics published by the Malay­sian ministry of justice that in the five years between 2005 and 2010 some 29,000 unlaw­ful entrants to Malaysia were subjected to the punishment of caning—an average of 16 floggings per day every day—and that this is the routine penalty, under section 6(3) of the Malaysian Immigration Act, for asylum seekers entering that country? Is the minister also aware that that was one of the consider­ations which the High Court took into account in striking down the so-called Malaysian solution?

Senator CARR (Victoria—Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) (14:34): I thank the senator for her question. As I have indicated several times this week, the government's arrangements with Malay­sia are such that people who would be trans­ferred to Malaysia would not be caned. They will be treated with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards, and that clearly means no caning. It is impor­tant to note—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: I remind senators that if you wish to debate it, you debate it at 3 pm.

Senator CARR: It is important to note that transferees will have legal authority to remain in Malaysia and will be able to work.

I think it is appropriate, given this new-found interest in human rights, that we contrast the policy the government has with that of the opposition, who have a policy of returning people on the high seas, of towing people back. At the last election Mr Abbott was on the public record as saying he would be picking up a phone if he was sitting in Kirribilli, ringing up our gunboats and telling them to tow people back to Indonesia. What sort of human rights approach is that? What is the human rights approach of the oppo­sition when it comes to Nauru? You used Nauru, which of course was not a party to any human rights arrangements whatsoever. What is the approach that you have suddenly discovered, in terms of your interest in human rights, given your long history of abuse of people who actually are seeking to exercise their rights both onshore and offshore? I find it remarkable, Senator Cash, that you could suddenly cry these crocodile tears in terms of human rights. We have seen the long history of opposition to human rights by those opposite.

Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:37): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the people swap deal with Malaysia is of no binding legal force and unenforceable by Australia, does the government accept that its policy places men, women and possibly children at the risk of brutal physical punishment in direct contravention of Australia's obligations under the UN Convention against Torture?

Senator CARR (Victoria—Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) (14:37): It really is extraordinary—the croc­odile tears we are hearing on these issues! In the case of Malaysia the facts are very clear: the asylum seekers will be there with the permission and the agreement of the Malay­sian government; they will have legal author­ity to remain in Malaysia. There are agree­ments to ensure opportunities for asylum seekers' claims to be considered and Malay­sia will not be sending any refugees back to persecution in their countries of origin.

This contrasts with the position of the opposition, which was to send people back. There was a great risk of drowning as a consequence of their deliberate policy to ensure that unseaworthy boats be pursued—

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order on both sides! Senator Carr has 19 seconds remaining.

Senator CARR: It is a remarkable feat that you think that drowning people at sea is a question of respecting human rights.

Senator Cash: Mr President, my point of order is in relation to relevance. The question I asked was a very narrow question: does the government accept that its policy places men, women and children at risk of brutal physical punishment in direct contravention of Australia's obligations under the UN Con­vention against Torture? It demands a relevant answer.

Senator Ludwig: Mr President, on a point of order: What the opposition have descended to is using points of order as opportunities to restate their questions. There is no point of order. The minister has been—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ludwig, sit down. Senator Macdonald, I have just sat Senator Ludwig down because I could not hear what Senator Ludwig was saying. I am entitled to hear what he is saying. I can see that you are anxious to get to your feet, but I should at least be allowed to hear what Senator Ludwig is saying before I take what I presume is your point of order.

Senator Ludwig: As I was saying on the point of order, there are two parts to it. The first part is the opposition have simply used that as an opportunity of restating the quest­ion. The second part is that the minister was answering the question that was asked. It is not an opportunity for those opposite to simply restate the question again, even if it is not in quite the same form. On that basis there is no point of order. The minister has been answering the question directly.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, on a further point of order: you ruled that my saying to Senator Conroy that Goebbels would be proud was unparliamentary and yet the minister in his answer accuses the oppo­sition of wanting to drown children, which is a far more heinous accusation than 'Goebbels would be proud'. Mr President, in fairness I ask you to require the minister to withdraw the comment that the coalition wants to drown children.

The PRESIDENT: If that is what was said, it needs to be withdrawn.

Senator CARR: Mr President, it is not what was said. What was said was that the coalition policy—

The PRESIDENT: Just wait a minute. I have points of order before me which I will deal with.

Senator Bob Brown: Mr President, on a point of order: you previously ruled that if you did not hear a comment you could not rule on it. I ask you to reflect on that and say if there is a different interpretation here.

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order, Senator Brown; that is a point of argument and debate. On the point of order that was taken, I believe the minister is ans­wering the question. I do draw the minister's attention to the question. The minister has 12 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Senator CARR: Mr President, what I have said—

Honourable senators interjecting—

A government senator: He said he didn't say it.

The PRESIDENT: I did ask if that was what was said and I was assured that that was not what was said. I can only go on that, Senator Macdonald.

Senator CARR: What I have said is the opposition is crying crocodile tears on human rights standards, given their policy was to tow boats back to sea, the conse­quence of which was that they risked people drowning at sea. What we have is an opposition— (Time expired)

Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:43): Mr President, I ask a further supple­mentary question. Does the government consider exposing innocent people to the risk of brutal torture is a humane asylum seeker policy? Senator Cameron, this part of the question is for you and the Left of the Labor Party: when will the Australian Labor Party ever live down the shame?

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: When there is silence we will proceed.

Senator CARR (Victoria—Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) (14:44): Is it seriously being suggested by those opposite that the party of children overboard are going to lecture us on human rights? That is a remarkable proposition. The people who supported children overboard—those who pursued that as a matter of policy—are now claiming that they are suddenly interested in human rights? What a preposterous suggestion. Senator Cash's question is offensive. It is offensive to suggest that that is what the government is about, given the history of that party and given its appalling involvement in the abuse of human rights throughout this whole issue.