Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide express statutory authority which applies where the Commonwealth has entered into an arrangement with another country with respect to the regional processing functions of that country.

The amendment solely goes to: (1) enabling payments; and (2) enabling the fact of regional processing. The legislation does not change or in any way expand the current situation in regional offshore processing.

The amendments made by this bill strengthen and put beyond any doubt the existing legislative authority to give practical effect to the substantive regional processing provisions inserted by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012.

This is achieved by providing clear express statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing centres. This also extends to the expenditure of Commonwealth money on these arrangements.

The substantive regional processing provisions came into effect on 18 August 2012. They provide for the transfer of illegal maritime arrivals, who arrive in Australia by boat without a visa, to be transferred to another country for assessment by that country of their claims to be refugees. The only condition for the designation of a country is that the minister thinks that it is in the national interest to make the designation. Currently, the Republic of Nauru and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea are designated as regional processing countries.

The current regional processing framework was introduced by the previous Labor government

The amendments were made to the Migration Act 1958 by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012 to: (1) provide that an offshore entry person is a person who has, at any time, entered Australia at an excised offshore place after the excision time for that offshore place and became an unlawful non-citizen because of that entry; (2) allow a regional processing country to be designated without limitation by the international obligations or domestic law of that country; (3) provide that, subject to relevant limitations, an offshore entry person detained under section 189 of the Migration Act 1958 must be taken to a regional processing country as soon as practicable.

On 10 September 2012, the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship designated Nauru a regional processing country.

On 9 October 2012, the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship designated the Independent State of Papua New Guinea a regional processing country.

The bill confirms the ability of Australian officials, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, to take action to assist the foreign government in the regional processing country, consistent with the law of that country.

The bill only seeks to ensure that there is express legislative authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries. It does not purport to have any effect in itself on the rights of those persons.

The bill applies where the Commonwealth has entered into an arrangement with a person or body in relation to the regional processing functions of a country. 'Person' includes a 'body politic' and therefore a country.

Specifically, the bill provides statutory authority for the Commonwealth to:

In this bill, 'regional processing functions' include the implementation of any law or policy, or the taking of any action, by a country in connection with the role of the country as a regional processing country, whether the implementation or the taking of action occurs in that country or another country.

The bill also makes clear that an arrangement is a very broad term, and can apply to arrangement, agreement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether or not it is legally binding.

The term 'action' explicitly includes exercising restraint over the liberty of a person. I wish to make it clear that Australia does not restrain the liberty of persons in regional processing countries. To the extent that the liberty of persons taken to regional processing countries is restrained in those countries, this is done by those countries under the respective laws of those countries.

These amendments do not otherwise provide authority for any restraint over the liberty of persons. The lawful authority for any restraint over liberty arises under the law of the relevant regional processing country.

To avoid any doubt about the intention of these amendments, the bill includes a provision to clarify that these amendments are intended to ensure that the Commonwealth has capacity and authority to take action, without otherwise affecting the lawfulness of that action. The purpose of this provision is to assist readers to understand the purpose of these amendments, which are limited to providing the Commonwealth with express legislative authority to take action to assist foreign governments in regional processing countries.

These amendments will apply from 18 August 2012. This has the effect of retrospectively and prospectively authorising Commonwealth actions and expenditure in regional processing countries. The date of 18 August 2012 is the date on which the existing legislative framework for regional processing under the Migration Act commenced. The retrospective operation of these provisions will provide authority for all activity undertaken in relation to regional processing arrangements for the entire period these arrangements have been in place.

The government wishes to ensure that there is a sustainable and solid framework for Australia's role in regional processing arrangements. To ensure the long-term viability of regional processing, the amendments in the bill seek to strengthen the existing legislative framework for regional processing activities.

There is no question that the regional processing arrangements are important to Australia's strong border-protection policies. Specifically, regional processing arrangements help combat people-smuggling. Offshore processing removes the attraction of engaging a people smuggler and taking a dangerous boat journey. Anyone who comes to Australia illegally by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia. Regional processing is therefore an important regional solution for maintaining Australia's strong border-protection policies.

The government does not want the sustainability of regional processing weakened. The Australian people do not want to see a surge in people-smuggling ventures again. Nor do we want people's lives put at risk. We want a sustainable and solid framework for processing claims in regional processing countries. The Australian population deserves greater confidence in the integrity of the regional processing framework.

Regional cooperation is a key element of the government's approach to the protection of our borders. This bill will ensure that Australia is able to continue to provide the necessary support and assistance to regional processing countries to carry out these arrangements.

I trust this bill will have the support of all members, most particularly those with an interest in ensuring the continued success of regional processing arrangements.

I commend the bill to the House.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We understand that this is an urgent matter and that the government is seeking for it to be dealt with before the parliament rises for the winter break. We note the guarantee from the government that these amendments in the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill solely go to enabling payments and enabling the fact of regional processing, and that the legislation does not change or in any way expand the current situation in regional offshore processing. Labor have been promised that this amendment bill does not empower new conduct and that nothing here is the basis for new action.

We should record that we are underwhelmed by this request for urgent action at one minute to midnight. Surely such important proposals and their timing can be allowed greater periods of preparation and debate. We flag that we will ask questions in the consideration-in-detail stage in the Senate to ensure the legislation is in fact what we have been promised.

But this legislation goes to, I think, deeper issues in the nation. Trust is in short supply in the 44th Parliament. Every question time, the government regularly attacks our patriotism, our love of this nation, our good faith and our sincerity on these important matters. But it is a very big wheel that does not turn, and sometimes in life the very people you attack are the very people you need to turn to. This is one of those times.

Labor will be supporting this legislation because it is our policy. Our policy is based on fundamental principles. How do we best ensure safety at sea? How do we stop people smugglers preying on the desperation of the persecuted, the vulnerable and the dispossessed? How do we make sure that genuine refugees get that second chance and that those who are not genuine are sent home? How do we ensure that Australian Navy and Customs officials never ever again face the grim task of pulling bodies from the water off Christmas Island?

I am sure that I speak for all of us in this place when I say that the devastating loss of life—the drownings, the perishing of vulnerable people, of children—is something that we cannot in good conscience ever accept. It is human tragedy we must do everything in our power to prevent. Labor stands resolutely to make sure that the dangerous sea voyage from Java to Christmas Island remains closed.

As I have said before, Labor learnt lessons from its time in government. At the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka, the movement of refugees in our region changed fundamentally and immediately. Australia was slow to respond and to change our approach. The consequences are well known; no-one supports them—no-one. Today, we support this legislation, which is consistent with the approach that we took in government, consistent with our policy and entirely consistent with the regional agreement that Labor settled in 2013.

So we come to this position today not, as some do, out of fear and not, as some do, in an attempt to pander to the worst instincts or the base motives of those who have never learned to accept, appreciate and value the reality of modern multicultural Australia. We stand here not as defenders of an inward looking fortress where the problems of the world are never ours; instead we stand here guided by our compassion, because our compassion demands that we prevent drownings at sea, just as our compassion demands the humane treatment of all those in our care.

For us as lawmakers, as leaders, as parents and as human beings, this is not an abstract debate where the loss of human life is lightly dismissed or conveniently overlooked. We cannot limit our compassion to those in our line of sight. We never see the photos of the people who drown seeking refuge in Australia. We never hear their voices. We do not know their stories. But their life does not matter less because of this, their death is no less tragic because of this, and the duty that we owe them is no less. These are real people. The challenge before us is real, and the questions that we grapple with are as fundamental as life and death. If we sit here in the house of the Australian people with the power to pass laws which can save lives—laws which can stop some of the most desperate downtrodden people in the world from paying every last dollar they have for a cramped spot in an unsafe, possibly lethal, boat, for them and the people they love—then there is no choice: our compassion and our conscience demand that we act. We will vote for this bill because people's safety comes first. We will vote for this bill because there are some things more important than partisanship or political agendas. We will vote for this bill because we are guided by our compassion.

In voting for this legislation, we make it clear that there has been no more effective deterrent than the regional resettlement agreement introduced by Labor. I appreciate that the government, by moving this amendment bill, acknowledges the truth of Labor's policy. It acknowledges that there is no better method of preventing people from taking a dangerous voyage in unsafe vessels on a lethal journey than the arrangement that we put in place, and no better way of ensuring genuine refugees are prioritised and put ahead of those who are not; there is no more important act by an Australian government in reducing the flow of vessels than this.

Because of the agreements that Labor secured with the governments of Papua New Guinea and Nauru to have people found to be genuine refugees at the Manus Island Detention Facility and in Nauru resettled, but not in Australia, our country was unequivocally taken off the table as a permanent resettlement destination. News of these agreements spread rapidly through the people-smuggling network, despite a clear attempt by some now in government, and some of their supporters, to send a message to those very same networks that the arrangements that we put in place could be overwhelmed. The only possible outcome of such irresponsible public messages was to encourage people to continue to risk the voyage. These were messages which those opposite, and some of their backers in the community, stopped articulating the moment the election was complete.

But Labor understands, in opposition as we did in government, that it is essential that the people smugglers do not have a product to sell. This means settlement in Australia must be off the table. This is the clear, unambiguous message Labor sent from the first day of our regional resettlement policy. People would still be processed under the convention, but the people-smugglers could no longer advertise Australia as the destination. Under Labor, Australia increased our humanitarian refugee intake from 13,750 people to 20,000 people. Our policies were designed so that Australia would help more people, while ensuring that each individual got here safely. Within two months of the conclusion of Labor's Papua New Guinea agreement, vessel arrivals had dropped by 90 per cent. Following this, the new government did not put in place a single other piece of substantive policy until mid-December.

Labor believes in doing all that is necessary to bring an end to the loss of life at sea. We do support offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island as a step which has saved lives, but this does not absolve the government from their fundamental responsibility to ensure that people on Manus Island or Nauru are treated humanely, and with dignity. We do not believe the government are running offshore processing in the way we would, or in the way that Australians would expect. Genuine refugees are vulnerable people, fleeing persecution. It is not for us to demonise them, to vilify them or to seek to score political points from their misery. They are not illegals, and fleeing persecution is never a crime.

When asylum seekers are in an Australian funded facility even if overseas, Australia still has a duty of care. Languishing in indefinite detention is not a humane solution. There is no place whatsoever in Australian funded facilities for violent, inhumane or degrading treatment. Our responsibility is to process asylum seekers as efficiently and as rapidly as possible so that genuine refugees are not left in limbo and the people who are not genuine refugees are sent home.

Regional resettlement will always be at the core of Labor's approach to this issue. We know it works. We know it sends the message to the people smugglers that their days of profiting from those in dire need are over. We know that regional resettlement when properly administered is the strongest and most humane approach to asylum seeker policy.

When Labor were asked to support this amendment there was some considerable recollection in my party of Labor's first regional resettlement policy that centred on the Malaysian arrangement. Because of the High Court's decision in that case, the fate of this plan was left in the hands of the parliament, just as we are being entrusted now. It was a debate that captured, for all to see, the poisonous, obstructionist negativity of the Abbott opposition. We remember that, after years of slogans and scaremongering, they suddenly sought to lecture us on the rights of refugees. We remember the then shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook—the man who said in 2011 that allowing relatives of asylum seekers who drowned at sea to attend the funeral of their loved ones and, for some, the funeral of their own child was not a reasonable use of money—lecturing us about being humane. We will never forget the crocodile tears from the Treasurer when he said:

I will never ever support a people swap where you can send a 13-year-old child unaccompanied to a country without supervision—never. It will be over my dead body.

We will never forget that when Prime Minister Gillard wrote to Tony Abbott asking for bipartisanship, seeking cooperation to reach a solution, he wrote back saying: 'This is a problem that you have created and it is your responsibility to solve.' That was his idea of leadership: 'This is your mess, you fix it.'

We will never forget the deal that the Liberals and the Greens did in teaming up to defeat the Malaysia arrangement. We will never forget the 689 souls that were lost after that vote. My fear is that the truth is that the coalition opposed the Malaysia arrangement not because they thought it would not work but precisely because they were afraid it would work. They played their politics hard.

It is precisely because we remember what I think was one of the saddest days in the parliament that Labor are determined to be better. When confronted with the same facts as Tony Abbott was when he was Leader of the Opposition I could not draw the same conclusion that he did. My job as Leader of the Opposition first and foremost is to put this country first. I am a very different person. There is the national interest. We do put that first. There is the safety of people. That certainly comes first.

We will not grind this parliament to a halt. We will not create or allow the uncertainty to continue. We will not ignore the consequences of our decisions in the pursuit of political gain. When hearing the problem it took me not even 10 seconds to work out the ultimate course of action that I believe Labor must take, and when the facts were put in front of my colleagues they arrived at that same conclusion. We will do the right thing. We will help you solve this problem. As we have said from the very outset, the government will continue to have the support of Labor in bringing to an end the flow of these vessels to Australia.

Too often this debate is conducted only at the highest temperature. Too often fear and suspicion rule. Too often straw men and slogans are substituted for argument. Too often refugees are demonised. Still too often the two-decade-old, toxic, malignant poison of Hansonism seeps to the surface of Australian politics. That genie needs to be put back in the bottle forever. We can I believe because I believe we are a bigger, better and more generous country than this. We live in a nation made great by migration. We are fortunate to count people from every faith, flag and culture as our own. In the future I believe we are capable of a better conversation of how we fulfil our obligations as an international citizen and as a peaceful, prosperous nation.

Labor's approach to this question is clear. We believe in being true to our international conventions. We believe in being true to the welfare of all people affected by our policies, whether or not they are in our line of sight. We believe that the pathway to a better life for genuine refugees should always be governed and supported by, and in working with, the United Nations and its agencies, not exploited by people smugglers and their criminal networks.

Our approach is to ensure that when we offer a place in our nation—the great privilege of being a part of this country—to some of the most vulnerable people in the world they come here safely. Consistent with this approach we offer our support to the government. But I say to the government: please do not take our support lightly.

It may well be, in the light of what we have done, that the government, in its question time attacks, will stop questioning our sincerity, our commitment to safety, our commitment to refugees and our commitment to the security of this country. It may well be that this is a new turning point that it may usher in an era where the government does not always resort to the baiting of the opposition and to the politicisation of an issue which is far more important than any speech any of us will ever give here. But that may not happen. We have not asked for that promise back from the government. But when the government do this, remember what every man and woman in Labor is thinking: when you needed us, in the national interest, we were there. When you feel like taking a shot at us to pull some lever, to push some focus message, to bring out the lesser angels of the Australian nature, all I say to you is: remember this moment, because every person on our side will. I have asked the Labor Party to take the government on trust on this matter, and we know that trust is in short supply.

But, even if nothing changes in the government's approach and the way in which they treat the politics of this issue in this parliament and outside, I will ask that we should make a decision that the moment of cooperation here could be a turning point in our national debate. These decisions are not reached easily; I understand that. But I can ask all of us, including the government, for no more dehumanising, inflammatory language, for no more false bravado or faux toughness. Let us no longer use some of the world's most vulnerable people as a prop for politics. Take what we are doing, and let us commit to a parliament which we can explain to our children we were proud to serve in, because this is the right thing to do. Let us commit to a parliament worthy of our decent, civilised, humane country, a parliament which shows us for who we truly are. The nation that we want to see in the mirror should be reflected in the parliament of Australia: compassionate, strong, generous, secure, safe and fair.

We all love our country. We are all human beings who do not want to see anyone else suffer. But, because we all love our country, today let us vow to serve it better.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the final hours of this parliamentary session we have witnessed an important address from the opposition leader, outlining his reasons for supporting the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015. Whether we view that as a measured and graceful capitulation or simply political opportunism, history will write that story. But, for those who were here, and for those on that side of the chamber who were accessory to the unpicking of our border control in 2008, history will remember not just one contribution today but seven years of Labor decisions that led to the tragedy in the first place.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many of you holding up props now were not here in 2008. Many of you were not here to see a systematic unpicking, in the most graceless of ways, of perfectly functional—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Charlton will put that document down.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the standing order covering bad judgement.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order; it was not even a good try.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

Order! Interjections of that nature are not appropriate. The member for Bowman.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member to withdraw his unparliamentary remark.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Rankin?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not be withdrawing that.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will not be withdrawing it?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the advice of my colleagues, I withdraw.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that was good advice. The member for Bowman has the call.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the colleague next to the member for Rankin to withdraw his unparliamentary remark, referring to being 'on the pills'.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member assist the House by withdrawing that comment. I did hear it, and you are not in your own seat.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you heard it, then you would have done something, but you did not. I am not going to accept that someone over there wants to start ranting and raving and then try and get every member over here to withdraw things which he thinks he hears.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for McEwen that he is not in his seat and that he should not be interjecting anyway. I give the call to the member for Bowman.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we will have is a history of seven years recorded and the speech today, representing an important convergence of views in this parliament. And that should be welcomed. But we witnessed a systematic unpicking in 2008, and the events since. Obviously, in parliamentary democracy two parties will take two very different paths, and history will remember the actions of both—often not in the purest of terms.

Let me reflect if I can on events from 1992, where I witnessed the results of actions in-country for the internally displaced and saw the efforts of many in these nations to make their home in these war-torn areas and to do their best. I and those of us on this side can never forget that the 30 million people internally displaced, and refugees around the world, are just as important as those who pay the people smugglers. That is something that can never be forgotten. For those who lost their lives clearing the land mines and allowing roads to be reopened, for those unable to find a people smuggler to pay off, for those who are unable to make their way across to South East Asia and then pay people smugglers, we must never forget that they are just as important and have just as much reason to seek our protection. Anything that undermines that and undermines that systematic approach deserves to have the resources of this nation directed towards it. I do not simply speak about work on the border, doing cross-border resettlement. I do not simply mean that we deploy our skills and expertise in these nations. But ultimately we need to remember that those most subject to political persecution, most deserving of protection under international treaty, cannot find their way to a people smuggler.

If there is one thing we should remember from this debate, as we see a convergence around the recognition on both sides of this chamber that we should support regional processing, it is: never forget that you simply crowd out those who need the help most if you are complicit in allowing our border protection to crumble away to nothing. At that point it becomes a commercial arrangement about who is brought here, and that is something we can never allow to occur. Now history has been written, and it is easy to bury in the past some of those events. Perhaps today it is reasonable to do that, given the concession that we have from the opposition. Now we have bipartisan agreement around a recognition that the Commonwealth needs a head of power to be able to fund, to be able to take decisions and to be able to effectively do anything that is conducive to allowing regional processing. Whether you call it 'regional' or 'offshore' processing, it does not matter today. What does matter is that after seven years of constantly traducing that solution, we finally do have bipartisan agreement.

The opposition leader talks about the desperate and the downtrodden. With that language he is effectively saying that this is a battle between logic and compassion. I have to disagree most strenuously. Both sides of this parliament make that very argument—though with potentially different methodologies. He concedes today that it is not compassionate to continue the flow of people across the Timor Sea. It is not compassionate to continue to allow them to ply their trade. And that is a reasonable concession, but it is a concession that could not be achieved for the eight years previously. The treaty itself identifies those with a well-founded fear of persecution—not that you are desperate, not that you are downtrodden. With those words from the opposition leader we can see, almost microscopically, a misunderstanding of this issue. It is an inability to separate the need of that person directly in front of you from the need of the others whom they moved in front of through a commercial arrangement. It is that financial arrangement that has been stopped when we put an end to people smuggling. That is just a statement of fact. That does not mean that one lacks compassion. It is simply the reality that those who are able to monetise an arrangement are in a privileged position and are able to make their case; whereas those who do not have that access cannot.

I have sat for six hours in the back of an ambulance with a young man whose leg was blown off by a trip-wired landmine. He was engaged in clearing villages so that the displaced could return home. That is where they wanted to go. When he lost his leg and was unable to clear landmines, his brother enlisted the following week and said, 'I want to take the place of my injured brother to continue the work.' We often forget how much is done in these countries to turn them back into home. We have this generalised perception that anyone who flees has a legitimate call under a treaty. We would often feel that because there are two minority groups who are permanently at war with each other, the entire population has a claim. Ultimately there simply has to be a bar; if there is not, you are simply subscribing to complete population mobility worldwide—which is, at the moment, far from being considered.

What we do now is close a loophole opened up by the High Court. Today we are recognising the head of powers for the Commonwealth. Today we are witnessing that the other side, for whatever their political reasons, have finally come to the table on regional processing. Why that has occurred I will allow history to determine.

Opposition members interjecting—

The point that I started with—and despite the anger from those on the other side of this chamber—is: it will not matter what was said today. What will matter just as much is the interference and opportunism, the walking on both sides of the street on this issue, the winking at the group that said they all opposed offshore processing, and the reality of voting differently in this chamber. It is that change, whether it is done in good faith or otherwise, that will be remembered by the Australian people.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government comes to the opposition in relation to this legislation seeking bipartisanship and support. We will give that bipartisanship and support even though the fundamental bipartisanship around this issue—which had been in place for most of the history of this country since Federation—was fractured by the coalition in the way that it handled the boarding of the Tampa in the lead-up to the 2001 election and in the way in which it argued that case.

When John Howard said, 'We decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come,' that was a statement which pushed a red-hot button and became a rallying call for the darker angels of humanity. That was the moment at which bipartisanship in this country, around a matter of enormous complexity, was fractured in a way which is yet to be resolved. We give our bipartisanship today notwithstanding that; and we give our bipartisanship notwithstanding the fact that, in speech after speech after John Howard made that statement, there was reference to asylum seekers as being 'illegals'—as if they are the problem, as if these are people who mean to do us harm, who are seeking to come to this country to invade. And yet everyone knows that those who seek asylum, who flee persecution, are the most vulnerable people in the world today.

The government comes and seeks bipartisanship even though, during the time of the Rudd-Gillard governments, we saw time and again the then shadow minister relentlessly pursue this matter in the most political of ways, referring to the dedicated and dangerous work of our defence personnel and our Customs personnel on the Timor Sea as being equivalent to a taxi service.

The government comes to us seeking bipartisanship and we will give it, even though throughout the period of the Abbott government we have seen in question time after question time the government beat its chest and point to a political scoreboard—which is actually about the lives of people, the lives of the most downtrodden—seeking to leverage human misery to pursue a political result. The government comes to us seeking bipartisanship and we will give it, because this is a profoundly complex and difficult issue—an issue which, even if we were on the same page, would be difficult to solve. But in circumstances where this issue has been the subject of the most appalling partisan politicisation, it becomes an impossible problem to solve and, as a result, people die.

The government comes to us seeking bipartisanship and we will give it, even though four years ago in almost a precisely similar circumstance the then Gillard government faced the difficulty of a High Court which had struck down Labor's arrangement with the Malaysian government. At that moment, we saw the grubbiest of deals, the unholiest of alliances, as the government sought to work with the Greens to make sure that no legislative remedy could pass this House and this parliament in order to deal with that High Court's decision.

The government comes to us and seeks our bipartisanship, even though the circumstance of this day is precisely the same to deal with the potential for such a decision. We saw Tony Abbott at the time say in this place:

It is not the opposition's job to save the government from a mess of its own making …

In a letter to the then Prime Minister, he writes: 'It is your mess. You can fix it.' The government seeks our bipartisanship and we will give it, even though we saw all of that, even though we saw arguments being presented at the time by the coalition, which, given what they have now done, no-one could possibly believe were sincere. We saw the teary shadow Treasurer at the time raising human rights concerns around children as a basis for opposing the Malaysian arrangement. We heard arguments around the fact that Malaysia was not a signatory to the refugee convention, even though our nearest neighbour, Indonesia, is not a signatory to that convention either. We have seen the tactics and the processes that have been undertaken by this government since.

It is worth understanding what the Malaysian arrangement would have done. The Malaysian arrangement provided for the virtual turnaround of 800 people. Because this government's turn-back policy happens under a shroud of secrecy, we do not know precisely how many people have been turned around over the period that the government has been turning back boats, but we can be certain that it is a number measured in hundreds. If that is the reason by the government's own logic that the flow of asylum seeker vessels has stopped from Java to Christmas Island then, by their own logic, this is an issue which could have been resolved four years ago.

The government comes and seeks our bipartisanship and we will give it, even though four years ago when we asked for that cooperation they turned their back on us. And there has been so much in seeking to attribute blame for the past, in seeking to put on record a political scoreboard around this issue, but the one figure you will never hear from the coalition when it comes to this issue is the number 689, because that is the number of people that we know of who perished at sea after the Malaysian arrangement was blocked in this place by virtue of the agreement between the government and the Greens.

In seeking our bipartisanship, and we will give it, no-one should assume for a second that this represents the Labor Party condoning the manner in which this government has conducted offshore processing. Offshore processing has been critically important. Offshore processing has been the single most important decision that a government has taken in this country to see an end to the flow of asylum seeker vessels from Java to Christmas Island. But if Labor were in power we would not be doing offshore processing in the way in which this government is pursuing that policy, and our support for this legislation today should not be taken as condoning it. It should not be taken as condoning the decision of the former minister to not complete the hard-walled facilities on Nauru such that those people who remain in the detention facility on Nauru have been living in tents for almost the two years since the Abbott government came into power. They have been living in tents by virtue of an active decision of a government.

The literature around the world on how people are treated and how they survive and the human behaviour which occurs in refugee camps makes it clear that issues of domestic violence and issues of sexual assault are much greater when people are living in tented facilities than when they are living in hard-walled facilities. It is not rocket science. When you live in a tent, you do not have security. When you live in a tent, you do not have privacy. All of that literature was at hand for this government when it made the decision not to construct buildings on Nauru or not to finish the constructions of the buildings on Nauru and to keep people living in tents. For me, having that information at hand when that decision was made means that everything that has flowed since and that we have seen reported in the Moss review is conduct and behaviour which this government absolutely knew would flow from the decisions that it took.

We would not, in supporting this legislation, be seen to condone the fact that until the beginning of this month we have seen the most substandard medical facilities on the Manus Island detention facility—substandard medical facilities which saw a man, Mr Hamid Kehazaei, manage to contract septicaemia and that not be resolved and him pass away in a hospital in Brisbane. Not until his death do we see medical facilities being built, which are now coming into effect as of this month.

The fact that we are supporting this legislation should not be seen as any kind of absolution that you will never hear from this government the phrase that people in our facilities, which are funded by Australia, should be in those facilities in a manner which is safe, dignified and human That is not a phrase which ever passes the lips of this government. What we see is an offshore processing network which has been conducted in a shroud of secrecy, which has left the fate of 2,000 people out of sight, out of mind and unresolved. The government sits here today without any clear sense whatsoever about what the ultimate fate of those 2,000 people will be.

We supported offshore processing because offshore processing, as I said, was the most important step that any government has taken to see a reduction in the flow of asylum seeker vessels from Java to Christmas Island. We stand with resolution to ensure that that journey will never be reopened again. Labor in government made mistakes, and we have absolutely acknowledged that, since the beginning of our time in opposition. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better if offshore processing had not been closed. We made this acknowledgement more than a year ago and we did so because we believed that this is an issue of such import that we need both sides of politics to come forward to work out where, as a country, we have gone wrong and how we can move together down a path to make sure that we get it right.

The fact of the matter is—and people need to understand this—that what characterises the journey between Java and Christmas Island is criminal syndicates of people smugglers who prey upon the most vulnerable. In the process of their preying upon the most vulnerable, we have seen people die in their hundreds and, ultimately, their thousands, and that has to stop. That it has stopped is an unambiguously good thing, something which we in opposition support. We will never be a party to seeing that start again, because there is nothing moral at all about supporting policies which would see people smugglers put back into business to prey upon those vulnerable and which in turn would see those vulnerable die.

In ensuring that that never happens again, we stand from a position of compassion. In articulating that principle, we should not be seen as I think the government is seen. That closing of the journey for the government is a central piece of an architecture which is basically about turning our back, as a nation, on the world's problems. That is not how Labor views this issue. Labor sees that the world is going through the biggest humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. There are more displaced people, more asylum seekers, more refugees, on the planet today than there have been at any time since the Second World War. It is Labor's view that we need to be more engaged on that issue than we have ever been before, befitting a modern and civilised nation which, at its best, has a multicultural society which is genuinely the envy of the world, a multicultural society which sees that the heritage that people bring to this country enriches us as a nation but, importantly, becomes very much an instance of what it is to be an Australian. It is possible to bring your heritage here, for that to become a part of who we are, for that to define what modern Australia is.

This is a debate which since 2001, in our view, has torn at the very fabric of that idea, torn at the very fabric of a modern, multicultural society. We need to move beyond it. We need to move beyond it and take the politics out of it—acknowledge where mistakes have been made but work together. We need to take the politics away from it so that we can ensure that we do not see people dying on our border, that we do not see a human tragedy unfold there ever again but that at the same time we remain a modern, civilised, multicultural country which celebrates diversity within our land.

On that basis: the government comes to us seeking bipartisanship and we will give it, because we know that the only way there is going to be an enduring resolution, and we will not see asylum seeker vessels coming from Java to Christmas Island, is if there is bipartisanship, and the only way we are going to be able to promote the multicultural, modern Australia that we want is if there is bipartisanship, and it is Labor who will bring bipartisanship to this table.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to have this opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 today. It is important. What I have heard, though, in what the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bowman and the member for Corio have said is that, whilst there might be bipartisan agreement on this bill, there is still a world of difference in policy, and that is hardly a surprise. Obviously, political parties present a set of policies, a set of views, to the Australian people every three years, and the Australian people make a judgement about that. Then you see every three years what the Australian people think.

I find it disappointing, though, when people talk down the views of the Australian people. I think generally the people get it right. The member for Corio talked about the 'darker angels', reflecting on what John Howard said: 'We decide who comes here and the manner in which they come'. I like to think the Australian people are pretty smart. They supported the government at that time. Of course it was not on every policy. Not everyone in every Australian home supports one side with every policy, unless they are rusted on and all that sort of stuff. The majority of people think, 'I like that; I'm not so sure about that.' But the reality is that people had a considered opinion about those policies and probably about what John Howard said at the time, and I respect that. I think everybody in this place should respect that and not talk down to the Australian people in that way.

John Howard proposed that we—as in the government of the Australian people, the representatives of the Australian people—decide who comes here. The alternative to that is that anyone who wants to come can come. I do not think any person in this country agrees with that.

In Cowan, there are lots of people who were refugees—from Vietnam, Burma, the Karen, the Chin people. We have plenty of people in the Wanneroo Baha'i community as well. When we talked about our alternative policies, which are different from the former Labor government policies, a lot of the people who came here from refugee camps absolutely supported what we did because it was really about the integrity of the system whereby the desperate need of people in refugee camps was the priority. It was not about whether somebody could hop on a plane out of Lebanon, fly to Dubai, then on to Jakarta and to people smugglers. There is a big difference between those sorts of people who put themselves or their family on an aeroplane, compared to those who were stuck in refugee camps. The big difference is the ability to pay versus being stuck in refugee camps, waiting for your number to come up—a huge difference. I think that is why so many people supported us. I have plenty of former refugees who have helped on polling booths, influenced in no small part by a policy that put need before means.

I completely endorse the government's policy and the manner in which it has been implemented because we are seeing people who come from refugee camps on the Burma-Thailand border or from Syria. Christian refugees have been fiercely persecuted in Syria. There are 1,000 places for women at risk and children. These are the outcomes of a system with integrity.

What we are talking about here is the validation of regional processing arrangements and that is just one part of a successful policy. Turn backs have been highly successful as well. Control has been exerted and not broadcasting or telegraphing the government's plans to people smugglers has been exceptionally useful, exceptionally effective. There is more to it than just Nauru and Manus Island.

A lot has been said about and I do not wish to linger on the former government's Malaysia plan. Interestingly the member for Corio mentioned the return of 800 people to Malaysia as part of that deal. That was not regional processing; that was a swap. Why did the member for Corio not mention the 4,000 who were going to come from Malaysia to here? That was an essential part of his plan. That was not 4,000 out a refugee camp like the ones I have been to up on the Burma-Thailand border; it was 4,000 people who had made it to Malaysia, but that is in the past. I do not wish to talk about the pluses or the minuses of that any more. It really is important that to a degree we look at the past. I encourage anyone who is interested in this debate not just to work off headlines on newspapers or on the internet but to look back to see what was said in 2008 and in 2009 and since then. Make your own judgement but make sure it is informed.

As I said before, I absolutely endorse the policies we have. I know that they are derided by many sectors but I absolutely endorse them. When I look around Cowan, I see the Karens and the Chins from Burma doing a wonderful job, fitting into the Australian society, working hard and doing jobs that are not that poplar. They know how to work hard and they know how to be successful.

Looking back further, I have a very big Vietnamese population in Cowan with over 5,000 Vietnamese speakers—men, women and children. So many of them have come from that refugee background, the brutality that followed the end of the Vietnam War when North Vietnam had broken the Paris Peace Accords and public opinion in the US and even here had taken away support for the democratic dream that South Vietnam used to have, when the North Vietnamese soldiers were throwing desperately wounded soldiers out of hospitals and sending people to re-education camps. That resulted in a lot of people fleeing Vietnam. Most Vietnamese came to Australia from refugee camps and that is exactly the way it should be because, to alleviate the suffering of refugees, we should certainly concentrate on their circumstances to determine their need.

If you stop the boats, as Minister Morrison did and now as Minister Dutton is doing so successfully on behalf of the government and the Australian people, then you do have capacity to take people out of refugee camps and from circumstances in Syria, where women and children are at risk. These are the outcomes of a policy that works. I absolutely refute those who want to tear down this system. What we have built here tries to short-circuit and stop the possibilities of those people who want to return to a system where cash is more important than need, where they will try to take this system out in the High Court.

It is very great that this has bipartisan support across this chamber. This is the moment where we can lock in the arrangements that we currently have and end up with a system which, again, is all about need and not about cash, because it has integrity. It is not about people who can afford their airfares, whether those are on Emirates or Qatar or some other airline from the Middle East over to Indonesia. It is a good situation.

Absolutely, there have been problems with Nauru. I find it greatly disturbing that people who want to come here are capable of crimes against women and children. I think it is a good thing in every way that people like that, who are capable of such things, will not ever come here. We know who is responsible for these crimes.

I suspect I have already gone on for too long, and I give my regrets to the minister! Again, without really going into the politics at all, I think this is a good moment, where both sides of parliament can work together to lock in an effective, working element of a policy that is working. As I said right at the start, there is a big difference in many aspects of policy in this area. The member for Corio made that very clear; he did not endorse a whole lot of the policy that we have in this area. But in my case, as someone who was here in 2008 and 2009 when this problem was being created, I say that what we have now under the leadership of Minister Dutton, as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, is exactly the right way to go. It is good for refugees in the region and it is a system that is endorsed by former refugees in the electorate of Cowan. I look forward to us being able to move past this bill and lock in procedures that are working as part of the bigger policy. Thank you.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015. The member for Cowan used words to the effect of, 'This is a good time,' or, 'This is a good moment'. Respectfully, I disagree. I disagree very strongly. This is a shameful moment. This is a very shameful moment. This is the point in time when the House of Representatives seems set to agree almost unanimously that it is okay to legalise offshore processing retrospectively. This is a shameful thing.

Mr Deputy Speaker, excuse me if I sound like a broken record in this place but I am going to say it again: we are a fortunate and a clever country. We are a signatory to any number of international agreements. It is beyond time that we started acting like a fortunate and clever country! That we start acting like a signatory to any number of international agreements, not the least of which is the refugee convention. When someone comes to our shores and claims to be fleeing for their life we are ethically and legally required in this country to give that person protection, to hear their claim and to give them permanent refuge if their claim is found to be accurate.

Yes, if their claim is fraudulent, put them on the first plane back home. But the fact is that most people who come to our shores claiming to flee for their lives are found to be fleeing for their lives. We are bound ethically and legally—ethically as a good people and as human beings who should act like decent human beings. We are bound legally by all the international agreements that we have signed up to, like the refugee convention and, I would add, like the Rome Statute—and I will talk about that in a moment. When people come to our shores, we should give them protection. We should hear their claims and we should give them refuge. There should not be mandatory detention. There should not be offshore processing. There should not be tow-backs. There also should not be any form of temporary visa. If these people are making accurate claims—and most are—they should be given permanent refuge so that they can start their lives again, often with their families, in our fortunate, clever and rich country.

In other words, the regime that has been in place now for a number of years under a number of governments, and which will be agreed to again tonight by the government and the opposition, it is downright wrong. We should get rid of it! And when that is a difficult decision to make then we should be strong. And when it is controversial in the community we should be leaders and we should explain to the community what we are doing and why we are doing it. We should not be playing to the fault lines in the community. We should not be playing to racism and xenophobia and the other weaknesses in an otherwise great country. Where there are those weaknesses, we should be leaders and we should explain to the community why we are doing the right thing. We should explain to them how what they believe is wrong and how it can be so very different.

I refer to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Of course, much of the attention up until now, quite rightly, has been about our obligations under the refugee convention. But there is no doubt that we are also in contravention of the Rome Statute, which is the international agreement which covers crimes against humanity. The fact is that it is a crime against humanity to hold someone indefinitely in detention without trial, and that is what goes on in these offshore places. It is a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute to forcibly transfer anyone to a third country, and that is exactly what we are doing under offshore processing. It is a crime against humanity to hold people in inhumane conditions, and that is exactly what we are doing with offshore processing.

This is why I have made a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court and asked them to investigate the behaviour of this government. Moreover, I would encourage them to investigate the behaviour of other governments, because much of what we do in response to irregular immigrants is the policy of the Liberal Party and the Nationals and also of the Labor opposition. I think there is a case to be made at the ICC. I think they should look into the behaviour of a series of governments, starting with this one, when it comes to crimes against humanity. The fact is—and I am pleased the point was made here tonight; I think it might have been by the shadow minister—that there are currently more people displaced and on the move than at any time since the end of World War II. I am pleased that point was made. I believe the figure is now past 50 million people. The fact is we have a global humanitarian crisis and we should be responding to it in those terms. It is not a border security problem and, frankly, I am sick and tired—and I think a lot of people are sick and tired—of hearing people stand up in this place and make out that irregular immigration by boat is a security problem, that somehow these boats are full of terrorists or would-be terrorists. They are not. They are full of desperate souls, most of whom are fleeing for their lives.

Competent terrorists do not take the rickety road through the people smugglers in Indonesia. They fly out here in their own name with a fresh passport and enter the country legally. That is what happened with 9/11. Not one of the terrorists who were involved in 9/11 entered the United States illegally. It is downright mischievous and downright cruel and nasty for people in this place to be continually talking about these boats being full of evildoers. Even just a moment ago, the member for Cowan was talking about these people who are coming out to Australia and abusing women and children as if ordinary people in our own community are not doing such heinous things. It is wrong to be demonising these people. The fact is, most of them are fleeing for their lives. When we hear their claims they are mostly found to be accurate. It is interesting; when people come up to me in the street and they start talking about irregular immigration and they start complaining about what they call 'illegals' or 'boat people', I look them in the eye and I say, 'Hang on, do you agree that if someone is genuinely fleeing for their life then it's the right thing to give them protection?' And just about every time—in fact, I think it might be every time—they say, 'Yes, of course we should give people protection who are fleeing for their lives.' It is about time the government and the opposition explained to the community that most of these people are fleeing for their lives and we should respond in exactly that way: give them protection, hear their claim and give them permanent refuge.

If we want to deal with this global humanitarian problem, we need to stop thinking of it as a border security crisis or a border security problem. What we should be doing is putting in place a sophisticated policy to try and deal with this global problem starting with trying to calm things down in source countries and doing what we can to create peace in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, for example, what did we do in Iraq? We started a war that has gone on for 12 years that has created the circumstances for the rise of Islamic State and turbocharged people movements out of that part of the world. Instead of settling it down, all we have done is stirred it up, and then we wonder why there are so many people on the move. We should have a policy that gives genuine and effective assistance to countries of first asylum. What assistance do we give Iran, for example, that is host to millions of Iraqis and people on the move from other countries? What assistance did we give Iran? We set up a security relationship with them. How about we start giving them some aid and some know-how and steering them in the right direction and helping the Iranians to care for the millions of Iraqis who are currently in Iran? What assistance do we give to Pakistan? Next to none. What assistance do we give to countries like Bangladesh where people are coming across the border from Burma? We give these countries of first asylum next to none. And what about transit countries like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia? Sure, we cooperate to get the people smugglers, and I have no objection to that, but what other assistance do we give them to help them care for and effectively and humanely resettle the tens of thousands of displaced people in these transit countries?

This is not a security problem. It is a global humanitarian crisis. Being in breach of the Rome Statute, forcibly transferring people to third countries like the Republic of Nauru or Papua New Guinea and then dressing it up as some sort of regional processing arrangement that—I see in the title—is misleading in itself. This is not regional processing. These are like the hulks of 200 years ago. This is where we send our unwanted to be unseen and unheard. These are the modern-day hulks where we put the people we do not want to have around us. The fact is these are sovereign states and we are forcibly sending people to those sovereign states. That is a crime against humanity in accordance with the Rome Statute.

What is going on here with us trying to pre-empt an interpretation of the law by the High Court is, in my opinion, fundamentally undermining our system of democracy. The role of the court is to interpret the law and then our job—the community's job—is to say, 'Okay, we'll follow that interpretation and we'll do things differently because we respect the finding of the court.' But what is the government doing tonight? With the cooperation of Labor Party it is saying, 'Oh heavens, we've got a problem with the law, so we are going to pre-emptively and retrospectively change all of the laws.' In other words, 'We're going to cook the books.' Instead of letting the High Court have a look at the law, interpret it and make a judgement which we can respect, we are going to cook the books and keep changing this law until we can find our way around that troublesome High Court—instead of respecting what its role really is.

This is a shameful day. It is a really shameful day. Whether it be national security policy or our response to asylum seekers, it is more shameful and more troubling because it is done with a virtual consensus in this place. I know there are people in this place who would agree with much of what I said tonight. I ask respectfully that, when I call for a division, they join me. That is what I think people should do. I have enormous respect for the people in this place who share my views, and I have no doubt that the member for Fremantle is going to express some concerns with what is going on here as well. I understand the limitations that are on party members, and it is unfortunate.

I do not blame the party members in situations like this; I actually blame the parties, for having such a tight control of their members. Frankly, when it comes to issues like this, whether it be the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, it would be the grown-up thing to do, the right thing to do, to let their members follow their consciences and represent their communities tonight. If there is a division in a little while—I hope there is; I will certainly try and make one happen, the fact is that some people will vote quite at odds with the majority wishes of their community. I do not blame them for it, because they are hamstrung by their parties. I blame the parties and the party system; they really should let their members follow their hearts and represent their constituents.

I make the point again: this is a shameful day. We are one of the most fortunate—maybe the most—fortunate, rich, clever and decent countries on the planet. We are a signatory to any number of international agreements. We signed them in good faith. The men and women who agreed to sign them and ratify them at the time did so genuinely. They saw the value in those agreements. Way back when we signed the refugee convention, the men and women who led this country then saw the value and the importance in that agreement.

Some years ago, when we signed up to the Rome statue, the men and women who agreed to do that saw the value in it. Our predecessors agreed back then that to hold someone indefinitely without trial, effectively in a jail, would be wrong, and that it would be so wrong that it would meet the definition of a crime against humanity. The people who signed the Rome statute knew back then that forcibly transferring someone to a third country should be regarded as a crime against humanity. The people who signed the Rome statute realised then that to hold people who are effectively in our care in inhuman conditions would be wrong. We betray the men and women who signed up to those agreements—we betray them badly—by now saying: 'It doesn't matter. We know better. We can do things differently. We can have offshore processing.'

I make the point again that these are not regional processing centres. A regional processing centre is something that is set up and run by many countries to deal with a regional issue. These places are set up by the Australian government; they are funded by the Australian government; they are run by the Australian government. The phrase 'regional processing arrangements' in the title of this bill is downright misleading and it should be removed. It should be called any number of things. It is 'offshore processing in other countries'. It is 'forced deportation to a third country'. It is a crime against humanity. And the things should be shut down.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015.

From the outset, every sovereign nation has a decision about how they will handle their migration policy. One way is simply to have a policy of open borders; to allow anyone from any country to come at any time they want. I know there are those that advocate for that. In an ideal world, perhaps that would be a noble goal. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where there are probably 50 million people or more that would qualify as refugees. We live in a world where hundreds of millions of people would love to come and live in Australia.

If I lived in another part of the world—Asia, the Middle East, Africa, even Europe or the Americas—and if I knew about the wealth, the prosperity and the lifestyle that we enjoy here in Australia, I would do everything I possibly could to get myself and my family to the country called Australia. But we do not live in that ideal world. So it is an obligation upon us to set the limits about how many people we will allow to come to this country.

If we set those limits, we also have to work out what the process will be for selecting those people, for how they will come and for how we will attempt to integrate them into society. That is the process we have to follow, because the alternative of having ideal borders is simply not a realistic situation in the world we live in.

Since the end of World War 2 we have had almost seven million people migrate to Australia through that process. They have made enormous contributions to this country. They have made this country wealthier and more prosperous. It was only a few days ago here in parliament that we commemorated the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the movement of 50,000 refugees from Vietnam to Australia. Most of them were processed through the United Nations Human Rights Council. Those Vietnamese citizens have made wonderful contributions to this country and they will continue to do so for decades to come.

But the words of former Prime Minister Howard, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come,' are fundamentally an exact description of how any government must run its migration policy. I know that the shadow minister for migration seemed to have great concerns with those words. He seemed to disagree with those words, which was most concerning. That is how we have done it.

When we decided we would not do that, we simply subcontracted our migration policies out to people smugglers. Despite the warnings—if you unpick our border protection policies, if you turn your backs on those policies, it will lead to chaos, death and undue cost—we saw the policies of the previous Labor government do just that. And that is exactly what happened. We saw 50,000 people arrive at Christmas Island by boat, making that dangerous trip. Over 1,000 people were drowned at sea. And we saw an $11 billion blowout in costs. No sovereign nation can subcontract out their migration policy to the people smugglers. That is why this legislation is ultimately necessary.

We, through this legislation, send the message loud and clear that anyone who comes illegally by boat without a visa to Australia will never be settled in Australia. I know that is hard for some on the other side to take. I know they sometimes like to think that they have greater humane values. But going against those principles cost 1,200 lives. That is why this bill is important. I am glad that the opposition is supporting this bill and coming on board with us. I commend this bill to the House.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be an understatement to say I am uncomfortable with this bill. There have been so many steps on the way to getting to what is widely viewed as this debased point in the asylum seeker debate—it is hard to say which has been the worst. I do not deny Labor's role in the re-establishment of offshore processing, although I note that the caucus's and the party's agreement to such policy was predicated on guarantees of humane, respectful treatment of asylum seekers and compliance with international law. But the awful ugly illegal reality of the treatment of asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru under the present government, however much they have sought to hide behind secretive so-called operational matters, national security and commercial-in-confidence to deny independent oversight, is being revealed in report after report, inquiry after inquiry into the physical, sexual and mental abuse of vulnerable people and the calculated removal of access to human rights, freedom and even dignity. This is a matter of national shame for which there will one day be a reckoning.

The bill has been presented by the government as an amendment to fix a technical legal issue that has arisen because of the High Court decision in the Williams case concerning the lack of constitutional power for the Commonwealth government to make certain payments. But this bill is much broader than the Williams case. Through extremely broad wording allowing the taking of any action and the doing of anything incidental to such action, among other clauses, the government now seeks to retrospectively validate the detention of asylum seekers and indeed potentially all the actions and arrangements in offshore detention centres that have occurred since August 2012.

The bill also refers to 'action in a regional processing country or another country'. If this bill is primarily for the purpose of authorising payments to the PNG and Nauru governments, what is the reason for the reference in the bill to other countries? Perhaps it is to authorise payments to Cambodia. There are a number of such ambiguities in the bill.

The government claims the bill is urgent because of the case presently before the High Court involving families including children presently in Australia who are due to be returned to Nauru where they fear sexual abuse. As I understand it, the court is not due to hear argument until at least September. I therefore do not see any need for this matter to be railroaded through the House of Representatives today when it could be dealt with in the August sittings thus allowing more time to improve the bill so that it reflects the stated purpose rather than providing a blank cheque to government for past, present and future behaviour.

This may be a small bill but it is dealing with big and serious issues. It is a matter of profound disappointment that the government seeks to rush this open-ended legislation, the import and consequences of which are potentially far reaching, not only for the individual litigants in the present High Court case but for all of the unfortunate and vulnerable people caught up in the offshore detention system.

There is a better way forward that involves establishing a genuine regional framework, working constructively with other countries in the region to improve conditions in source and transit countries and negotiating resettlement with other countries, including of course a much greater commitment on Australia's part to taking more refugees. Refugees have contributed and are contributing enormously to our Australian community. Before they are found to be refugees, they are asylum seekers. We should be careful what we do to the refugees and citizens of tomorrow through our treatment of the asylum seekers of today.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to thank all of those members who have contributed to this debate. This is a very important bill that is before the House and we thank very much the sincere contributions made by most of the members in relation to this very important issue.

The success of Operation Sovereign Borders, the success of the government's approach to making sure that we can stop the people smugglers from recommencing their business is a very important priority for this government and it is very important priority for the Australian people. The prospect of the people smugglers recommencing their business is abhorrent to any decent Australian. The thought that lives at sea would again be lost if the smuggling trade was allowed to re-establish is unconscionable and this government will not stand for it. So I thank very much members who have contributed. I thank the opposition for their support of the bill.

Question agreed to, Mr Wilkie dissenting.

Bill read a second time.