Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:43): I rise to speak on today's matter of public importance and, in doing so, will highlight the difference between the asylum seeker policy of this side of the Senate and the policies of those on that side of the House. I seek to immediately draw the Senate's attention to a murky shadow in the Senate from 23 November 2011. During question time on that day, Senator Cash was asking Senator Carr, who was then the minister representing the then minister for immigration, about the Labor government's policies in this area. During the course of Senator Carr's answer, Senator Cash interjected to say that the policies relating to people seeking asylum are 'the gift that keeps on giving.' It is three years on and that is still the premise of their policy on this humanitarian issue. Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator URQUHART: It is to keep up the division, keep up the scaremongering and keep up the persecution rather than trying to assess the most desperate people who want to come to Australia— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator URQUHART: and make a better life for their family. We could not get a clearer policy position from the Liberal Party— Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator URQUHART: which wants people to get on those leaky boats and to drown at sea. This is the Liberal Party policy writ large— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senators, I know this is a very emotive issue, but I am trying desperately to listen to the contribution from Senator Urquhart, who did sit through everyone else's contribution without interjecting. If you could refrain from interjecting, I would greatly appreciate that. Senator Brandis: Mr Acting Deputy President, I want to take a point of order under section 193(3). I think the senator has reflected on Senator Cash, because she has asserted falsely that Senator Cash when she made the interjection in the words attributed to her by Senator Urquhart was reflecting upon the circumstances of drownings rather than, as was plainly the case, reflecting upon the senator, Senator Kim Carr, whom she was addressing in her interjection. That is a shocking reflection on Senator Cash. It ought to be withdrawn under standing order 193(3) or Senator Urquhart ought to make it clear that that is not her imputation. But, if it is her imputation, it must be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, with all the screaming that was going on, I was finding it very hard to hear what was going on. But I will ask Senator Urquhart if she wishes to address your concerns. If not— Senator URQUHART: I do not agree with Senator Brandis's point of order. My comments were in relation to a comment that Senator Cash made. If you have a look at the Hansard, you will see the correct record of those. This is the Liberal Party policy writ large—'the gift that keeps on giving'. Senator Cash sought to clarify her comment, that she was not claiming that boats sinking at sea were a gift that kept on giving. If you had listened, Senator Brandis, I would have continued— Senator Brandis: Mr Acting Deputy President, you have not ruled on my earlier point of order. But Senator Urquhart, in the sentence that has just come from her, has conceded and confessed that the imputation she sought to cast against Senator Cash was in fact false. So she is convicted by her own confession that her imputation was a falsehood. It is disgraceful. Senator McLucas: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on the point of order. I put to you that there is no point of order. The reason is that Senator Brandis jumped up too early. If he had waited and listened— Senator Brandis: She already made the slur. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Brandis! Senator McLucas has the call. Senator McLucas: I put to you that there is no point of order because Senator Urquhart has explained fully what Senator Michaelia Cash was intending when she made those cold and dreadful statements. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see no point of order. Senator URQUHART: So she was not claiming that boats sinking at sea were the gift that that kept on giving but that it was the government's policy that was the infamous gift. The slip of the tongue remains emblematic of the Liberal-National coalition's willingness to use this humanitarian issue purely as a political plaything. While in opposition, those opposite talked tough across the country, shouting from the rooftops whenever a boat carrying people seeking asylum arrived. The now Prime Minister stood in front of billboards across the country that were used to highlight the number of boat arrivals over a given period and were solely about politics and about demonising those who were seeking to make a better life for themselves and were never at all about trying to work through the problems in a collaborative manner. It was their way or no way. Of course, in the latter stages of the Labor government, we introduced a policy of processing people seeking asylum offshore on Nauru and Manus Island. It is this policy that is credited as slowing boat arrivals. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are really starting to earn our dollars today—or some of us are. I will just ask once again if the interjections could be kept to yourselves. If you could let Senator Urquhart make her contribution in peace, it would be greatly appreciated by me. Senator URQUHART: Upon coming to government, the attitude of those opposite got worse. It started with the once-a-week press conferences to supposedly provide updates on immigration matters. These farcical briefings ended after a few months. Most believe it was because the minister realised that there was no point holding a press conference if he was simply going to patronise journalists and refuse to answers questions. In the year since the Abbott government was elected, there has been a cone of silence over the immigration portfolio under the guise of not wanting to provide information to people smugglers. Ironically, other ministers are more than willing to provide ongoing public commentary on national security matters. In the past six months two young men have tragically lost their lives while in the care of the Australian government on Manus Island. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Reza Barati and Hamid Kehazaei. Both lost their lives this year—Mr Barati through a failure of security measures and Mr Kehazaei through a failure of medical processes. We know that police in PNG have arrested and charged two people over the murder of 23-year-old Reza Barati. Both men are believed to have worked with G4S, the company which managed security at the detention centre at the time of Mr Barati's death. Mr Barati died from severe head trauma during a riot inside the Australian-run detention centre on Manus Island on 17 February. Mr Kehazaei cut his foot at the detention centre on Manus and developed septicaemia because it was left untreated. He was eventually transferred to Brisbane's Mater hospital where he suffered a heart attack. The 24-year-old was later declared brain dead. In early September, his family back in Iran made the decision to switch off his life support. The lawyer representing the young man's family, Ruth Hudson, says there has not been enough information provided to the family and the Australian public about the specifics of his transfer from Manus Island to Brisbane. Ruth Hudson has said she would investigate three critical points in the timeline of Mr Kehazaei's treatment: the possibility of an inadequate initial diagnosis; the potential failure of not transferring him quickly enough to Australia; and the failure to provide adequate treatment. A number of former Manus Island staff have also spoken about the conditions at the centre, including former G4S and Wilson Security guard Beau Mitchell. In an interview with the ABC, Mr Mitchell said he was not surprised an accident of this magnitude had occurred. Mr Mitchell said: There's no air conditioning, the beds are extremely close together. The living standards are pretty quite filthy … Often they'd be standing on concrete to have a shower that was literally falling apart underneath them, just completely rotting away. … … … The people that were actually working there did a fantastic job … if it was something quite severe they'd be seen quickly but if it wasn't an emergency it was a 2-3 day wait normally. It appears that we have people trying their best in really terrible conditions, and we are not hearing anything about this from the government; they are completely silent, leaving it up to whistleblowers to inform the public about these squalid conditions. If this track record is not bad enough, the government has now reached new lows by brokering a $40 million deal with Cambodia that is reported to resettle only a handful of refugees. In true Abbott government form, the Cambodia deal was brokered under a veil of secrecy. Australians were given no details of the deal until the ink was well and truly dry. In fact, the only way we heard about it was through the Cambodian press. In the absence of transparency and full disclosure from Mr Morrison, we also discovered from the Cambodian media what Mr Morrison will be getting for his $40 million. According to an article in the Phnom Penh Post, the Cambodian Minister of Interior, Sar Kheng, has said on this matter: We will try to take four or five people, maybe two or three (initially). If that is what actually transpires, we are looking at quite a few million dollars being spent on each refugee. It certainly does not sound as though Mr Morrison has achieved value for money in this deal, and it sounds very suspiciously like policy on the run. We also need to ask questions about Cambodia's capacity to support these people. The president of Cambodia's Centre for Human Rights, Virak Ou, told Radio National that Cambodia is in no position to take refugees. On this matter he said: We are a poor country, the health system is sub-par at most. I don't know how the refugees will send their kids to school. According to UNICEF, 18 per cent of Cambodians exist below the international poverty line of $1.25 a day. With all these existing problems, it is hard to see how Cambodia will be able to support more people with their already stretched public resources. Similarly, we cannot close our eyes to Cambodia's human rights record. In fact, as recently as January this year the Abbott government was concerned enough to denounce Cambodia at a United Nations Human Rights hearing for its human rights abuses. Now, just nine months later, it appears the government expects us to believe that there is no longer a problem. Australians need to be certain that the safety and security of refugees is protected, and it is the responsibility of the Abbott government to provide that assurance. So far, we have heard nothing about the measures the government is putting in place to ensure that the health and wellbeing of refugees is guaranteed. This is an ill-considered quick-fix deal through which Australia shirks its responsibilities as a global citizen. We also need to recognise the sheer hypocrisy of this agreement, especially when it was members of this government who were so brutally opposed to the Malaysia regional solution proposed by the Labor government in 2011. It simply does not make any sense to complain about the human rights implications of asylum seekers being sent to Malaysia but to have no concerns with stitching up a deal to send people to Cambodia. The truth is that this was more about political wins than the feigned concern about the health and wellbeing of asylum seekers. Prime Minister Abbott himself admitted as much when he apologised to Malaysia soon after getting into office. On this matter he said: I offered an act of contrition, if you like, to Prime Minister Najib for the way Malaysia got caught up in what was a very intense and at times somewhat rancorous debate in Australia. He knows we play our politics pretty hard in our country. This is an outrageous admission that our Prime Minister sees the global refugee crisis as little more than a political tool used to score points in domestic politics. On this side of the chamber, we do not see any policy as 'a gift that keeps on giving'. Rather, we are committed to working through issues with fairness, equity and justice at the fore of our decision making. I implore the government to end the silence and adopt a similar approach.