House debates
Wednesday, 3 August 2022
Matters of Public Importance
Asylum Seekers
3:43 pm
Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
I'm not suggesting you do. I'm making that point because there have been a number of points made in the debate. The overwhelming focus is on an orderly migration program, where at times you say a quick yes or a quick no, not a 10-year-long maybe, which was the absolute disgrace that we saw under the previous government. So I will fight in this budget and in every budget henceforth for more resources into the visa-processing system. It is without doubt 80 to 90 per cent of the work in my office, and it is an abomination how we've treated people in this country—an absolute abomination.
It's also true, as has been said, that we have more people displaced at the moment in the world than ever before in recorded, modern human history. We've had 20 years of debate in this country on this, the most wicked of public policy problems. If there were an easy solution it would have been found by now. As a public policy nerd—I sat on the Left of the Labor Party and shared in many of the conference debates on this—I've had to accept the lesson the hard way that the policy settings we have in this country have real-world impacts offshore, particularly in the people-smuggling business, and they're factors that we have to take into account in our settings now.
In terms of principles, as the government has said, if there are no security or safety concerns then individuals should be living in the community when they're onshore until a durable solution is found—no ifs, no buts. There is also a small cohort of people for whom there are security concerns, and they will not live in the community. They should not, and I totally reject some of the advocacy we've had from the so-called expert groups. Very well-meaning as they are, it doesn't meet community standards. If people have committed serious crimes and they haven't disclosed them, they're not going to live in the community. We've got to recognise there is a cohort there, small and complex as it is.
We also need to honour our international obligations under the Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which have to be at the core of our detention regime. There will be a detention regime in certain circumstances, so part of the policy focus has to be to make sure that it's actually done properly according to international law and subject to proper oversight. It is true that under those instruments Australia is not obliged to give a visa to people who engage our protection obligations if compelling national security or public order considerations apply. The fact is, as I touched on at the outset, Australians overall must have confidence and trust in the integrity of the migration system, which does mean border control and support to orderly migration. In that regard, I do think that our platform commitments, which have been touched on, improve the oversight, the transparency, of detention where it is necessary or important.
I acknowledge the minister, who for decades—since you and I met when we were I think about 19 years old, a thousand years ago—has been a consistent champion for fairer, more humane refugee policies. We wouldn't find a stronger, more consistent and compassionate advocate in the parliament than, you, Minister, in implementing and finding this very difficult of balances. (Time expired)
No comments