Tuesday, 8 February 2022

Refugee detention

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:24): My question is to the Premier. Premier, right now 33 refugees and asylum seekers are being held in detention at the Park Hotel in Carlton, just a few minutes up the road from here. Most of these men have been locked up for nearly 10 years despite committing no crime. They were flown to Melbourne nearly three years ago for medical treatment but have been locked up in Melbourne hotels without access to the outside since then. It is a form of torture happening right under our noses. Premier, we have heard very little publicly from the Victorian government about the fate of these men. My question is: will the Premier publicly advocate to the federal government for the refugees locked in the Park Hotel to be freed immediately?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:24): I thank the member for Melbourne for her question. I will try and provide some commentary, albeit briefly, and then, if I have to, write to the member for Melbourne detailing all the steps that we have taken, I think in partnership with an NGO provider of health care that are doing the best they can to provide care and support to those individuals that she references.

I have not had an opportunity over our time together in this place to have a conversation with the member for Melbourne in relation to my views about these matters. Immigration detention and the issue of border security and those coming here without appropriate authority is a wicked problem. I have throughout my time in public life always said that we need not have a wicked solution to a wicked problem. I want to see humanity. I want to see a sense of caring, a sense of love and a sense also of course of pragmatism, but I have on many different occasions advocated for the reunification of families that have been separated by arbitrary rules. I have on many different occasions advocated for children who are Australian citizens because, whilst their parents came here without the appropriate authorisation, they were born here. These are not matters for a state government, but I would like to think—

A member interjected.

Mr ANDREWS: I am not sure what the member for—

A member: Mr Irrelevant.

Mr ANDREWS: indeed—was on about, but this is a serious matter. The question has been asked seriously, and I would have thought that the member for Melbourne was entitled to an answer rather than the commentary and the idiocy of some. This is a serious matter.

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: How dare I? You have got to be joking.

Ms Ryan: Speaker, my point of order relates to the fact that over the last couple of years I have noticed a pattern of behaviour from the Premier where he seeks to paint the opposition doing things that we are quite simply not doing because he knows it plays to the cameras and to a recording that other people will see later. I would like to ask you to actually review that and the appropriateness of that and perhaps counsel the Premier because he is doing this place a disservice. I think the Victorian public need to be aware and need to know that his actions do not reflect the reality of events in this chamber.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Euroa has not raised a valid point of order.

Ms Allan interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will come to order.

Mr Southwick: On a point of order, Speaker, while the member for Euroa was making a point of order, the deputy leader interjected and called ‘you lot’, referring to us as a bunch of Neo-Nazis. I take offence to that and I ask the deputy leader to withdraw. It is insulting, and you cannot just cast those words around this place; it is offensive.

The SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear any interjection, and it sounds, from the point of order taken by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, that if any comments were made they were directed to a broad group of people—that is, members on the other side of the house, not an individual. There are clear rulings—

Mr Walsh interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals knows that when I am making a ruling I do not like people interjecting across me. There are clear rulings around the seeking of a withdrawal, so I cannot seek a withdrawal from the Deputy Premier at this point in time.

Mr ANDREWS: As I was saying in response to the very serious matter that the member—

Mr Southwick: On a further point of order, Speaker, I am one of those on the side which was referred to and I am personally offended by those comments that were made. I ask the deputy leader to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr ANDREWS: As I was saying, Speaker, in response to a very—

A member: You got away with it, James.

Mr ANDREWS: No such comment was said, and that is a fact. I am sitting next to the Deputy Premier, and no such comment was made—none whatsoever. So on that basis those opposite can try this latest tactic—a summer of hard work to come up with this nonsense. They come up with this sort of low-road nonsense. The member for Melbourne asked a serious question that is about those in our community who have the very least amount of power, and those opposite could not even listen to the answer, so disrespectful are they of not only the member for Melbourne but this Parliament and those who in the community with no power.

Mr Hibbins: On a point of order, Speaker, just on relevance, I appreciate there is a debate between the government and the opposition in terms of interjections and what have you, but the real issue is the matters raised by the member for Melbourne in regard to these men. I would ask the Premier to come back to answering directly the question of the member for Melbourne.

The SPEAKER: On the point of order, the Premier was coming back to answering that question.

Mr ANDREWS: Thank you, Speaker. I will write to the member for Melbourne detailing all the different steps that we have taken in partnership with others to provide the very best care that we possibly can. I do make two further points: one, these are fundamentally issues for the commonwealth government and, secondly, if you do a search of the record, you will see consistent—albeit not three times a week, but consistent—representations and views put on the record by me for a more compassionate approach on these very issues.

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:31): I appreciate that the Premier says these are not really a matter for state governments but, Premier, you have a direct line to the Prime Minister. These men are being held in our state just minutes down the road from here. With his platform the Premier of Victoria’s loud public advocacy on this issue would make a big difference—in fact it could make all the difference—to these men’s lives. Will the Premier speak up more loudly and publicly to advocate not just for health care for these men but for these men to actually be released?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:31): Again, the member for Melbourne has asked a serious question, and I do not want to be partisan in my answer, but I think it is somewhat self-serving to inflate and elevate the special relationship that I have on matters of immigration policy and border security with the Prime Minister. Like, seriously, I am more than happy to be consistent, to be loud. I think the Prime Minister knows that there are many things we do not agree on, and this would be one area of policy that we do not agree on, but the notion that he is ringing me up to get advice on who should get in and out of the country—that is not happening. We saw that most recently in relation to a tennis player, for heaven’s sake. What I will do—

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: I let him in, did I? I do not think he played, actually. I do not think he played, and the tournament went along just fine without him. I will write to the member for Melbourne, but the member for Melbourne ought not doubt my commitment on these matters or weaponise them in her own political games.