Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the good intentions of the member for Lyne and I acknowledge the good intentions of, I think, every single member in this House of wanting to address this issue. But good intentions are not enough to deal with the problem that has been before this place for the last five years. We need more than good intentions to address the terrible things that have happened over the last four to five years. It was good intentions, I am absolutely sure, that led members of that side of the House when they came to government to abolish the measures that existed under the Howard government. It was the arguments of many outside of this place who campaigned for years and years—and described those measures which kept our borders secure and ensured that fewer than 300 people turned up in six years—and that prevailed in 2007, and the measures that were in place were abolished. Since then we have seen more than 19,000 people arrive and we have seen more than 330 illegal boats arrive—and, even as we speak, we are seeing another tragedy unfolding to our north.

The Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012, which has been put forward by the member for Lyne, effectively achieves the same outcome as the government's bill in abolishing all human rights protections that are legally binding under our Migration Act. That is what it does, and I will move in my name amendments that would seek to restrict those countries that could be eligible for offshore processing under the member for Lyne's bill to be limited to those countries that have signed the refugee convention. It was the High Court itself when it issued a statement on the matter that has focused the minds of the parliament today that said:

The Court held that, under s 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Minister cannot validly declare a country (as a country to which asylum seekers can be taken for processing) unless that country is legally bound to meet three criteria. The country must be legally bound by international law ...

That is what it said. This bill does not confine or restrict those countries to those countries that are bound by international law.

The question is asked: why is this important now to the coalition? It is a simple answer. It is because this bill, as with the government's bill, seeks to remove the legally binding human rights protections in the act. And when you remove those protections, those on this side of the House, who believe in offshore processing and offshore protections, say that those measures should be replaced by other legally binding protections. The only objective, legally binding protection that can be used as a litmus test for this parliament to give instructions to the executive as to which countries and which places they could send people is whether a country is a signatory to the refugee convention. There are 148 countries who have signed that convention. That includes the Philippines, that includes Nauru, that includes Papua New Guinea, and that includes many other countries.

These protections are important. You have to ask yourself the question: why is it necessary to abolish the protections that exist in the Migration Act to allow this abominable Malaysian people swap deal to proceed? Why is that necessary? Why must you abolish human rights protections to enable this deal to proceed? That is what is being put before this parliament, not only by those members opposite but also by the member for Lyne. The Bali process, as he outlined in his bill, is a worthy process and one we initiated in government but it does not provide legally binding international obligations on its participants. We believe in a bill that would have the consensus of this House and of the other place—because the only bill that will leave this parliament this week is one that reflects the consensus of both houses of this parliament. That is the bill that the Leader of the Opposition referred to earlier, when he sought to have that bill introduced and was frustrated by the members of the government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move the amendments and I implore this parliament to protect those protections in the human rights field in the Migration Act for offshore processing. (Time expired)

See this speech in context