Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to spend a little bit of time on this, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I do not think the member for Stirling is aware of the history. He is not aware of the amount of time that people spent in Nauru. He may not be aware that one of my predecessors as minister for immigration, Senator Vanstone, instigated and commissioned a report into the psychological damage of people who were kept at Nauru to advise her as to what to do with the people who were left on Nauru. This report does not make pretty reading. I will not tolerate the shadow minister for immigration or the shadow minister for customs saying that their solution was a humane one because it is nonsense, and anybody who read this report would be disabused of that notion. For example:

The nature of symptoms shown maintains that the depression will produce an inevitable cycle of further deterioration. The most important symptoms in this regard are hopelessness, worthlessness, self-blame, cognitive impairment, withdrawal and sleep disturbance.

It goes on:

Instead, frustration and anger are turned inwards against themselves, and this is contributing to a risk of self-harm and suicide.

The report goes on:

While the group considers the level of risk with regard to mental health, it is clear that the current environment and circumstances are dominant contributors to their condition.' It further goes on: 'The fact that the OPC operates as an open centre makes little difference to the mental health of residents. The mental health of the residents will continue to deteriorate rapidly while they remain in the OPC. These migrants have been suffering from their mental health cases for several years already and are deemed to be highly vulnerable to do self-harm if they continue to stay in the offshore processing centre in Nauru.

It goes on:

The IOM mental health team have given them all necessary services that they would be needing, but despite the availability of the advanced psychiatric medications frequent monitoring of behaviour and safety prevention provided these patients, and even the availability of a psychiatrist for 24 hours, are not enough to treat their mental health cases.

This is their more humane solution. This is what the opposition are so proud of. Those are people who were resettled in Australia. After being told to wait on Nauru they were eventually resettled in Australia. They did not break the people smugglers' business model; they broke the people. These are people who are still under psychological care in Australia today. Let's not have these crocodile tears from the opposition about a more humane approach.

What we do have with Malaysia is an arrangement whereby people will be transferred from Australia to Malaysia with the agreement of the Malaysian government. Therefore they are people who will be treated with dignity and respect and in accord with human rights standards. That is perhaps why the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has seen the benefits of this arrangements. We know the opposition, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, have been out there trying to claim, falsely, that the Pacific solution somehow had the support and involvement of the UNHCR. It did not. The Malaysian agreement entered into by the government has been developed in consultation with the UNHCR. That is perhaps why we have seen the UNHCR spokesman say:

To us, it's a real commitment by Australia in burden-sharing with a country like Malaysia that is now coping with a large number of refugees and asylum seekers.

We think the agreement has the potential to enhance the protection for refugees in Malaysia, as well as the region as a whole.

If it realises more resettlement opportunities for refugees, this would be a positive outcome.

There are plenty of statements on the record from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the benefits of the arrangement with Malaysia, as opposed to the UNHCR's views about the previous government's approach.

We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say on 27 May of the former government's centre on Nauru, 'It was auspiced under the United Nations and the IOM and we were responsible for the health, the education, the recreational facilities and all the support they received.' We had Senator Birmingham say just last week it was 'overseen and approved' by the UNHCR. Let's see what the UNHCR actually had to say about the previous government's record. On the day the Nauru centre closed, the UNHCR said,

UNHCR had strong concerns about the 'Pacific Solution' …

                    …   …   …

… in our view, today's closure of the centre on Nauru signals the end of a difficult chapter in Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Many bona fide refugees caught by the policy spent long periods of isolation, mental hardship and uncertainty – and prolonged separation from their families.

Just this week the UNHCR said this:

UNHCR was not involved and, indeed, distanced itself from any role in overseeing or managing the processing facilities on Nauru under the Pacific Solution. Recent media reports that the centre on Nauru was approved by and run under the auspices of the UN are factually incorrect.

That bells the cat for the claims of the opposition.

Here we have a situation where the opposition says: 'We will reintroduce Nauru. Don't worry about the fact that people arrived after Nauru and then ended up in Australia and it did not break the people smugglers' business model.' Then they say: 'Let's reintroduce temporary protection visas. Don't worry about the fact that the number of people, most particularly the number of women and children, getting on boats and coming to Australia after the introduction of temporary protection visas went up over the next two years.' Then they say, 'Let's turn back the boats.' So we have these crocodile tears about people being transferred to Malaysia. I wonder what protections the opposition would put in place for people who are turned back to Indonesia. I bet they would have none. It is okay to turn the boats back and not accept any more refugees as part of the process. It is okay to unilaterally turn a boat around on the high seas and send it back from whence it came, to Indonesia, without having a regional agreement to do so. But it is not okay apparently for this government to enter into an arrangement with another country under the Bali process in consultation with the UNHCR which ensures better protection and takes more refugees as part of the process. What hypocrisy from those opposite who say, 'We will turn around the boats,' and then come in here and cry crocodile tears about what happens to people when they are transferred to another country.

We have entered into an arrangement that means people will be treated in Malaysia in accordance with the agreement between the governments, which means that they will not be treated as illegal migrants. We know the opposition thinks this is a plan which just might work because the opposition has suggested something similar. Let us not forget that last November the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, in his Lowy Institute speech suggested Australia 'trade off … taking more refugees out of the camps in countries of first asylum' and he mentioned particularly Pakistan and Iran. He now claims that he was not talking about an agreement which would have Australia taking more refugees. He claims now that he was talking about a one-for-one swap. I wonder why he said this proposal would involve Australia taking more refugees. It does not sound like a one-for-one swap. He also says now, 'I was not talking about Australia managing it; I was talking about the UNHCR managing it. I was talking about a UNHCR arrangement.' There is not a word here about that other than to say the UNHCR would be invited as observers. He also very clearly proposes a bilateral arrangement between the Prime Minister of Australia and President Ahmadinejad, hardly a recommendation that could be seen as protecting people's human rights and ensuring that they will be treated with dignity and respect.

We have two alternative proposals before the House and before the Australian people. The opposition would send people to Nauru—presumably 1,500, which was about the capacity last time. There is no detail about where they would be resettled if they are regarded as genuine refugees, no detail about how they would be returned to their country of origin if they are not genuine refugees given the fact that Nauru has said that they would not support involuntary returns of anybody kept in Nauru, no detail about how the damage inflicted last time as outlined in those psychologists' reports would be avoided next time, damage to families and children included, no regional framework, and no UNHCR involvement despite the misleading by those members opposite. Or we have the arrangement with Australia and Malaysia as part of the Bali process in consultation with the UNHCR, which engages Malaysia, increases our humanitarian intake and means that, even if we transfer 800 people from Australia to Malaysia, there will be 3,200 people transferred in net terms who are able to resettle in Australia—4,000 souls who are able to say that they have a better life in Australia as part of a regional agreement. That is something that this government should be proud of and is proud of.

I understand that the opposition is devastated that this just might work because it would take away their sound grabs. It would take away their opportunity for cheap point scoring. They would be an opposition in search of a new narrative.

See this speech in context