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

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I ask the leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (39), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (39), as circulated, together:

(1)   Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), omit "Offshore", substitute "Regional".

(2)   Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Offshore", substitute "Regional".

(3)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(4)   Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 16 to 20), omit the item, substitute:

4 Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

regional processing country means a country designated by the Minister under subsection 198AB(1) as a regional processing country.

(5)   Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (line 27), omit "to an offshore", substitute "to a regional".

(6)   Schedule 1, item 7, page 3 (line 29) to page 4 (line 1), omit the item, substitute:

7 Paragraphs 36(2)(a) and (aa)

Omit "to whom", substitute "in respect of whom".

(7)   Schedule 1, items 9 and 10, page 4 (lines 4 to 9), omit the items.

(8)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 1), omit the heading to Subdivision B, substitute:

Subdivision B—Regional processing

(9)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 11), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(10)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 12), after "Minister", insert "and Parliament".

(11)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 13), omit "offshore", substitute "regional".

(12)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 14), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(13)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 17), omit the heading to section 198AB, substitute:

198AB Regional processing country

(14)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (lines 18 and 19), omit "in writing, designate that a country is an offshore", substitute "by legislative instrument, designate that a country is a regional".

(15)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (after line 19), after subsection 198AB(1), insert:

(1A)   A legislative instrument under subsection (1):

  (a)   may designate only one country; and

  (b)   must not provide that the designation ceases to have effect.

(1B)   Despite subsection 12(1) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, a legislative instrument under subsection (1) of this section commences at the earlier of the following times:

  (a)   immediately after both Houses of the Parliament have passed a resolution approving the designation;

  (b)   immediately after both of the following apply:

     (i)   a copy of the designation has been laid before each House of the Parliament under section 198AC;

     (ii)   5 sitting days of each House have passed since the copy was laid before that House without it passing a resolution disapproving the designation.

(16)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 22), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(17)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (line 11), omit "in writing", substitute "by legislative instrument".

(18)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (lines 14 and 15), omit subsection 198AB(8).

(19)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (lines 22 and 23), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(20)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (line 28), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(21)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (lines 26 and 27), omit the heading to section 198AD, substitute:

198AD Taking offshore entry persons to a regional processing country

(22)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (lines 33 and 34), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(23)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 9 (line 11), omit "to an offshore", substitute "to a regional".

(24)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 9 (line 19), omit "offshore", substitute "regional".

(25)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 9 (line 22), omit "offshore", substitute "regional".

(26)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 9 (line 31), omit "the offshore", substitute "the regional".

(27)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 11 (line 14), omit the heading to section 198AF, substitute:

198AF No regional processing country

(28)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 11 (line 16), omit "offshore", substitute "regional".

(29)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 11 (line 17), omit the heading to section 198AG, substitute:

198AG Non-acceptance by regional processing country

(30)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 11 (line 19), omit "offshore processing country, or each offshore", substitute "regional processing country, or each regional".

(31)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 11 (line 27), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(32)   Schedule 1, item 25, page 12 (line 5), omit "offshore", substitute "regional".

(33)   Schedule 1, item 26, page 12 (line 15), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(34)   Schedule 1, item 26, page 12 (line 17), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(35)   Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 21), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(36)   Schedule 1, item 36, page 13 (line 18), omit "the commencement of this item", substitute "13 August 2012".

(37)   Schedule 2, item 2, page 14 (lines 10 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

2 Section 4

Insert:

regional processing country has the same meaning as in the Migration Act 1958.

(38)   Schedule 2, item 4, page 14 (line 23), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

(39)   Schedule 2, item 8, page 15 (line 21), omit "an offshore", substitute "a regional".

These are important amendments that I foreshadowed yesterday, when this bill was brought on. These amendments reflect the recommendation of the Houston panel that instruments allowing for offshore processing places be laid before the House and be disallowable by both houses of parliament. It also reflects discussions between the government and the opposition to ensure that if such an instrument is designated, for example, in an extended non-sitting period, there still be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary approval. I understand that these amendments will meet with the agreement of the House.

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

As I referred to yesterday, the amendments moved by the government have been brought together as a result of the minister and I working together on this. I thank him for that and for the acceptance of the proposals put forward by the coalition.

These amendments imply and create a very significant responsibility on this House and on the other place. It is now this parliament that is the arbiter of protections for people who are processed offshore. That is the consequence of these amendments, which are being put through with the agreement of the coalition. These amendments, together with the bill more broadly, will re-enable offshore processing at Nauru. To have offshore processing take place at Nauru has always been intended by the coalition. There is no change to the arrangements that will be undertaken on Nauru, as we see them and understand them. They are those we have always advocated and we therefore welcome, absolutely, the restoration of the way that matters will be handled on Nauru, where there will be no advantage, as there was certainly no advantage previously.

I also note that as a result of these amendments and this bill, if adopted, there now will be an opportunity for the government to put Nauru in place. I urge the government today to take heed of the advice the coalition has been providing on how that can be best done on Nauru. We have done significant work on the construction, planning and development arrangements on Nauru and that work will be available to the government at any time. We have offered it before and it is available to them now. I am in the process of writing to the minister today to outline that. Having spoken within the last 24 hours to the International Organisation for Migration, I can confirm to the House that they are prepared to work with the government, as they always have been up until now, to re-establish and manage this facility on Nauru. Also, the contractors who previously worked with the IOM, and who I can confirm today are prepared to be a part of this, will be available to work with the government to achieve this.

These amendments, together with this bill, will ensure that at least one of the measures the Howard government had in place will be restored. But as I have said—and those on this side of the House have reminded this chamber and those outside this chamber—the history on this matter is important because when a government gets it this wrong they should face the music for doing so. That is what has been taking place over the last 24 hours. Now, we can proceed with this. But if we want the Howard government's result of a 99 per cent reduction in boat arrivals, you need to put in place all of the Howard government measures.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not support the amendments and I rise to speak against them. A number of the reasons I, and the Greens, have for speaking against the amendments have been eloquently summarised in a letter sent today to the Prime Minister from a wide range of refugee, social justice and human rights groups, including Amnesty International Australia, Ged Kearney, the President of the ACTU, the Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia, the Melbourne Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office, former Prime Minister the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, as well as a number of other groups in this sector. They write:

We are united in our opposition to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill, currently before parliament. We are also concerned that other legislative changes required to implement the recommendations of the expert panel on asylum seekers will, if passed, see the Australian parliament remove legislative safeguards for asylum seekers, reverse previous measures implemented to protect vulnerable people and breach Australia's international obligations.

We oppose any form of offshore processing and policy centred on deterrence and punishing people based on their mode of arrival. We are particularly concerned that the implementation of the expert panel's recommendations will:

repeal the few human rights protections included in the offshore processing legislation passed in 2001;

see any country designated for offshore processing, regardless of whether it is a party to the refugee convention;

punish asylum seekers who arrive by boat, in breach of the refugee convention;

implement a return to assessing asylum applications in Nauru and Manus Island, ignoring past lessons regarding the mental health impacts of holding people indefinitely with limited freedom of movement;

facilitate the removal of child asylum seekers from Australia;

facilitate the transfer of unaccompanied minors, who will have no guardian to act in their best interest, in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;

prevent irregular maritime arrivals, whatever their age, from proposing family members for the Special Humanitarian Program, the SHP, creating greater incentives for families who want to stay together to travel by boat to Australia; and

leave open the possibility that boats may be turned back in the future, contravening the convention for the safety of life at sea.

The letter continues after that.

This legislation and these amendments reflect that it is a tough issue. Anyone who says it is not a tough issue is not paying attention. I know that the Australian people have been demanding that this parliament do something.

But when they asked us to do something, I do not think they wanted us to commit people to indefinite detention. I do not think they wanted us to return to the dark days of John Howard. I think they wanted us to save lives and protect refugees in a different way, and instead we have gone back to the future.

When the pressure is on, when there is a national call from many to say that something needs to be done, and rights need to be stripped away, that is the time it is most important to stand up for vulnerable people and to stand up for vulnerable principles. The right to seek asylum is not a new right. It is a right that has existed in various forms, at various times, for over 2,000 years. It has been codified in our law for many years. But, for the last two decades, we have seen that right attacked and eroded. It started with mandatory, indefinite detention under the Keating Labor government; it continued under the Howard government, when the Labor Party supported the Tampalaws which began the Pacific solution; and it continues today.

What is perhaps the greatest tragedy of the recent debate is that we could have pursued a different path. We could have resolved to pursue actions that would have helped refugees while preventing drownings at sea. The Greens stood ready to work with the government to put substantial resources into processing refugees before they got onto boats. We were ready to put in place a real regional framework, like we had at the end of the Vietnam War, which offered resettlement to people, not deterrence. Instead, we have a reprisal of the Pacific solution. We are punishing refugees with the prospect of indefinite detention on an island prison. We are punishing those refugees who, after many years, find their way to Australia, by removing their right to family reunion. We are punishing refugees by removing any rights to appeal. And the appalling tragedy of this all, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that it will not stop the boats—we know that from history, and we know that from the tragedy of the SIEV X.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that government amendments (1) to (39) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.