Senator CROSSIN (2:24 PM) —My question is directed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister explain how the government’s new detention policy reflects the position announced by the Prime Minister on 17 June last year to humanise detention practices? Didn’t the Prime Minister back down last year and agree to release the families with children in detention into the community, the finalisation of applications within 90 days, the provision of improved mental health services and the review of long-term detainee cases by the Ombudsman? How will those commitments be honoured if all asylum seekers are removed to Nauru and Manus Island? Wasn’t this latest tough stance on asylum seekers a direct response to concerns raised by the Indonesian government, following the granting of visas to 42 West Papuan asylum seekers? Hasn’t the government now cynically walked away from its commitments of June last year in an effort to appease the Indonesian government?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) —I thank the senator for the question. Senator, you know full well that the arrangements made last year related to people in detention in Australia. You should also know, on the basis of plenty of media reporting, that the announced changes relate to unauthorised boat arrivals. They do not relate to all asylum seekers in Australia. I think the vast majority of asylum seekers in Australia will be people who have overstayed, got caught and thought: ‘Uh-oh! Put in a protection visa claim.’ The changes relate particularly to people coming unauthorised by boat, seeking asylum. They are not properly claimed as being refugees until their claim has been heard. Yes, we have decided that future unauthorised boat arrivals will have their claims, should they wish to make asylum claims, processed in Nauru and that we will seek to provide protection for them in other countries.

Senator Conroy —Shame!

Senator VANSTONE —I note that the senator says, ‘Shame.’ But, Senator, we have a number of obligations as a government and we intend to live up to all of them. One of them, as Australia is a signatory to the UN convention, is to make sure that if someone coming to Australia puts in an asylum claim they have their claim heard and that protection is offered. But you would know, Senator, that the UN convention does not say they have a right to indicate where the claim is heard and where the protection is offered.

We have that obligation. We also have border protection obligations and we have an obligation as a government to keep good relations with our strong and friendly neighbours—namely, Indonesia. Of course we do. So, yes, we have taken a policy position that will allow us to balance the three priorities that we have in this area. We are not like Ms Feller, from the UNHCR—an Australian—who has as probably the sole requirement of her employment to promote the very, very best rolled-gold practice for the UNHCR. That is her task—I respect her for it—but it is not mine. The government’s task is to live up to those three obligations: live up to our requirements under the convention, live up to border protection commitments to the Australian community and live up to our foreign affairs obligations to keep good and stable relationships with our neighbours. That includes making sure that Australia is not used as a staging point for protests about domestic issues in other countries.

Senator Bob Brown —Appeasement, that’s what it is. It’s just appeasement.

Senator CROSSIN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the recent reports of abuse in detention centres, won’t the removal of asylum seekers offshore only reduce external scrutiny and protection for detainees? How will the Prime Minister’s commitment to allow families with children to live in the community be honoured when they are sent to Nauru and Manus Island? Didn’t the minister claim last year that detaining these families should be a last resort? Won’t all asylum seekers, including children, now be locked up when they are moved offshore?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) —There are three points. I did hear an interjection from someone about this government appeasing Indonesia.

Senator Bob Brown —That was me.

Senator VANSTONE —It seems extraordinary to me that the grant of 42 protection visas against the wishes of the Indonesian government can be classed as appeasement. But then I saw who made that interjection and I thought, ‘Yes, you are intellectually capable of coming to that conclusion. You are intellectually capable of deciding that giving 42 visas to the West Papuan Indonesians against the wishes of the Indonesian government should be classified as appeasement.’ You take the cake!

The PRESIDENT —Order, Minister! Would you return to the question and address your remarks through the chair.

Senator VANSTONE —Sorry, Mr President. I was momentarily distracted, for which I apologise.

Senator Crossin —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I asked the minister the supplementary question—not Senator Brown. I would like my question answered, please.

The PRESIDENT —I have already asked the minister to return to the question, and I believe she is going to. She has 27 seconds to complete her answer.

Senator VANSTONE —There are two points in relation to the question. Firstly, the agreement made last year was made in relation to people who are in Australian detention facilities. Of course, if some of them are on Nauru they are not in Australia, so it follows from that—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator VANSTONE —It was quite specifically excluded. The second point is that it is an immigration processing facility in Nauru. Women and children will be free to move around during the day but, partly as a consequence of duty of care obligations, they will be required to be there at night.