John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on why the government's strong border security policies have been so successful? Is the minister aware of any threats to the government's successful border security policies?

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. We know that this government stopped the boats. We know that this government has closed 17 detention centres that were opened by those opposite. We know that this government has got 2,000 kids out of detention who were forcibly placed there by those opposite. And we know now that they want radical change to Australia's system of offshore processing and resettlement. We also know that what they proposed is not about children. There are 10 children on Nauru, four of whom will shortly resettle in the United States, leaving six children on Nauru. We know that it's not about medical transfers, because there is a process in place in relation to medical transfers, and it does allow a third-country transfer for medical attention on a temporary basis, and that has occurred more than 200 times in relation to children.

What the opposition and the Greens propose is about ending regional processing and resettlement. That is fundamentally what it's about. The last time that happened, 50,000 people arrived unlawfully by sea and 1,200 people drowned at sea, including children. We'll never know how many, but we know that children drowned under the policies of those opposite. Today they go further with this proposed bill, which fundamentally will end regional processing and resettlement. It's very important that people understand how this bill operates. Under this bill, if a doctor on Nauru has assessed an individual and said that the person either is not sick or is capable of being attended to on Nauru, that is irrelevant if two doctors in, say, Hobart, via Skype, say that person should come to Australia for assessment. It's not required that those doctors say that the person is sick. It is merely required that two clinicians anywhere in Australia say that the person should come to Australia for assessment. It doesn't matter, under this bill, if the doctors on Nauru or Manus who have actually seen the person say that it is not appropriate or required. It is an absurd proposition. It will lead to the complete breakdown of Australia's system of offshore processing and resettlement. And it proves once again that the opposition fundamentally cannot be trusted on this issue. We know what happened last time.