Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the government guarantee that its proposed changes to the Migration Act provide a binding legal obligation for any designated offshore processing country not to return an asylum seeker to the country from which they are fleeing?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have provided the amendments, and they enable the minister for immigration to make a determination about offshore processing. In order to make that determination the minister would need to turn his mind to the national interest and, specifically, to two points in particular: the honouring of the central obligation of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that people were not being taken to places from which they would be returned to a place of persecution; and that those asylum seekers could have their claims processed. That is what these new amendments provide.

To the opposition generally, we have provided these new amendments today—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order on relevance. My question to the Prime Minister was whether she could give a guarantee that these changes to the Migration Act would not—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Prime Minister will respond in a directly relevant manner to the question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendments are there for the opposition to see. Regarding the opposition's consideration of these amendments, they would put the minister for immigration in this government in the same position that the minister for immigration was when, under the Howard government, a determination was made to take people to Nauru, not then a signatory country to the refugee convention. No legislation was in place in Nauru. What was in place was a memorandum of understanding between governments. If, when the opposition was sitting on the government benches, that was viewed as perfectly satisfactory for them, I do find it a bit odd that now they are sitting on the opposition benches it is apparently no longer perfectly satisfactory for them. Those were the circumstances with Nauru.

Opposition members interjecting—

There is no amount of shaking of heads or interjecting that will change that fact. That is the history. That is what the Howard government did.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

False!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Those interjecting will cease interjecting and the Prime Minister will ignore the interjections.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the end of the day what we are seeking to achieve with these amendments, despite all of this contradiction about the clear history, is a circumstance where the government of the day has the ability to put offshore processing beyond legal doubt. We have provided amendments because I believe Australians are looking to us to find some common ground and to act in good faith so that we as a nation can put this issue behind us and have legal certainty. I do genuinely believe that. The reason we provided the amendments today was that we believe the Australian people are looking to us to go beyond politics as usual. I hope that in considering these amendments, which are in the national interest, we can find the common ground in this parliament which enables us to go beyond politics as usual and to put offshore processing beyond doubt.

I cannot forecast every permutation and combination of governments to come, but it may be that a government in the future wants to do exactly what the Howard government did when it had processing on Nauru in exactly the same circumstances—a non-refugee convention signatory country and a memorandum of understanding. I ask those opposite: why would they want to deny a future government the power they sought for themselves and used themselves when they were in government?