Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (16:06): In an era of deafening, shrill, dog-whistle politics on refugee issues we well may thank the Constitution for the existence of the High Court, because it would seem that the High Court, being the most respected institution in this country, is at least paying some attention to human rights—a fact that this government has failed to acknowledge. The government's secretive approach to immigration policy has plumbed new depths. The High Court processes are now exposing the extent to which the government has been able to hide from this parliament and from the Australian people its actions in the name of national security. We have seen proceedings involving the detaining of 153 Sri Lankan asylum seekers—and I assume now that the government has confirmed the existence of the prison ship which we have alleged has existed for some time now. The government has refused to provide information to this parliament but it is at least being obliged to provide information to the High Court. Today the government has made an undertaking to the High Court that it will not attempt to repatriate the asylum seekers without giving 72 hours notice. This is the first time the government has acknowledged that it has these people in detention. Mr Justice Crennan has accepted the undertaking that the government has made to the High Court and has said that a full bench will hear the case against the government on an expeditious basis. Senator Payne: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps Her Honour Justice Crennan might be slightly perturbed about being called 'Mr Justice Crennan'. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, of course—I thank the minister for the correction. The government's claim that it is acting within the law may now be fully tested, and the fact that the High Court has decided to hear these matters with a full bench suggests that the government has a case to answer. The barrister representing the asylum seekers, Ron Merkel, says that all of the people in this case are Tamils and there is evidence that they have fled their country to escape persecution. Crucially, he submits that they have received an affidavit from this government that constitutes the first official acknowledgement that it is actually holding asylum seekers. He submits that they are being held at sea by Australian authorities and that the key issue is whether or not the relevant parts of the Migration Act allow the government to hold them within the law. Another member of the asylum seekers' legal team, Mr George Newhouse, commented in an ABC report that the issue is whether Australian law allows the government to hold people in a secret rendition location. Labor calls on the government to come clean with this parliament and to come clean with the Australian people. We have never accepted that the government should throw away the humanitarian handbook in pursuit of what is nothing more than a political scoreboard. The government is seeking to use refugees for political purposes. In the last parliament, not a day went by when the shadow minister, now the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, would miss the opportunity to make enormous political capital about every boat that he saw coming across the horizon. There was no question then about secret operational matters that could not be discussed with the Australian people; there was no suggestion in the election period that the government was not going to provide basic information to the Australian people and to this parliament. These are all matters that have arisen subsequent to the election. Serious questions are being asked, and the Australian people have a right to know the answers to these questions. Is this government's claim that it is acting in accordance with our international obligations justified? Criticisms of the government are not just being made in the parliament; they are not just being made by the Australian Labor Party. In fact, 53 of Australia's leading international legal experts released a statement citing their 'profound concern' with reports that asylum seekers are being subjected to rapid and inadequate screening and then promptly returned to Sri Lanka. According to these legal experts, the government's actions have raised a real risk of refoulement, placing Australia in breach of its obligations under international refugee and human rights law, including the 1951 refugees convention, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The fact is that we do not know if the government's claims are correct because they have not been straight with the Australian people and they have not been straight with the parliament. Now they are obliged to be straight with the High Court. The minister, Scott Morrison, must explain the process under which he has acted to determine the refugee status of these applicants. It is simply not good enough for the minister to make an assertion that he is acting within the law—there has to be a clear statement made about what the government is doing and this parliament has to have the capacity to hold the government to account particularly when it comes to the question of its capacity to act within the law. The government is now asking asylum seekers four questions at sea—an assessment process they claim was the same as that of the previous government. That is not true. It is yet another lie by this government. What we are being told is that four arbitrary questions are being considered to be sufficient to decide whether a person is able to claim refugee status in this country. Legal scholars have noted that 'such summary procedures do not comply with minimum standards on refugee-status determination under international law', and 'holding asylum seekers on boats in this manner also amounts to incommunicado detention without judicial scrutiny'. There are other questions that the minister has to answer, apart from the question about why he constantly lies about operations and the application of refugee status— Senator Payne: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Carr knows that that is inappropriate language to use and I seek to have you ask him to withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): It is inappropriate, Senator Carr, and I ask you to withdraw. Senator KIM CARR: I withdraw. The minister has said things which are completely and totally untrue about the way in which the previous government acted on these matters. He has constantly misrepresented the facts, he has been injudicious with the truth and on many occasions he has failed to fundamentally deal with some basic questions. What country information is the government using to assess refugee claims? What is the quality of the information being gathered? Who is conducting these assessments? What are the rights of appeal for applicants? What judicial restrictions were there when the assessments took place? Were the asylum seekers able under our protective mechanisms to have legal representation, and if so from whom? The fact is that there is no evidence being provided to this parliament to support the government's claim that it is acting within the law. The integrity of our refugee status determination system is significantly at risk by the failure of this government to actually come clean on these issues. The policy of secrecy and duplicity will bring this country into disrepute. The government's actions are clearly for political motives, not for national security motives. The appropriate action would be for the government to bring these asylum seekers to Christmas Island so that a proper and thorough assessment can be undertaken. Under those circumstances, it may well be appropriate to transfer people to Manus Island or Nauru, or to repatriate them. But there has to be a proper legal process to assess their claims for refugee status. The minister needs to explain why he has neglected to act in accordance with the Regional Settlement Arrangement, which would have provided a much higher level of efficiency. The minister now has to acknowledge the facts in this matter before the High Court of Australia. This is something he has failed to do in this parliament and for the Australian people. We will soon see whether the government's claims to be acting within the law are, in fact, valid. We will soon be able to test the claim that Australia is acting within its international obligations. I look forward to the High Court's deliberations.