Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country under subsection 198AB(1) of the Migration Act 1958, together with related documents, in accordance with section 198AC of the Migration Act 1958. I move:

That, in accordance with section 198AB of the Migration Act 1958, the House approve the instrument of designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country.

At the last election, our Prime Minister spoke of the need to be strong on borders without being weak on humanity. Regional processing is about both. For almost every day that I have been in my role, I have had to deal with the detail of protecting our borders and making sure that our country is meeting its obligations to the world's displaced and persecuted people, and I can say with absolute confidence, from the bottom of my heart, that regional processing is integral to us achieving both of these things.

Regional processing is integral to us being strong on borders because it breaks the business model of people smugglers who seek to market an outcome amongst some of the world's most vulnerable people. In doing so, it ultimately saves the lives, thousands of lives, of vulnerable people who would otherwise be exploited and tricked onto leaky boats to attempt a dangerous voyage at sea. That's something that also risks the lives of Defence and Border Force officers who have to deal with the often incredibly tragic consequences of these ventures.

I appreciate that there are people in this place who think very differently about this issue, but I would point out that regional processing has been settled policy on both sides of politics for over a decade, for precisely the issues that I have described. Regional processing was a policy formulation that was carefully formed, through a robust and very well done policy process. It was recommended in a report led by the former Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, along with Professor Michael L'Estrange, the then director of the National Security College at ANU, and refugee expert Paris Aristotle. That panel was charged with making recommendations on how best to prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Australia by boat. The principal recommendation of the work of those three eminent people was the introduction of legislation to 'support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements,' including in Nauru, 'as a matter of urgency'. They understood, as the Labor government does, that this is a regional problem that can only be solved in partnership with our neighbours and our friends around our region, and that is why today I'm recommending to the parliament to designate one of those friends and neighbours as a regional processing centre.

The person who first put in place the regional processing declaration for Nauru was Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, when he was minister at the time. He said, during that initial debate in 2012:

We are determined to expose the people smugglers' business model for what is: a ruthless con. There is no visa awaiting boat arrivals, no speedy outcome and no special treatment.

Those words were true in 2012 and they are true now.

The government has been very transparent in its position on regional processing. We implemented this policy when we were in government previously. We remained firmly committed to it while we were in opposition, and we went to the election on it. That is because, fundamentally, regional processing breaks the business model for people smugglers. It takes away the product that they are trying to sell and, in doing so, it stops vulnerable people risking their lives on dangerous voyages on leaky boats. It stops death at sea. It is absolutely as simple as that. It is tough. It sends a message that persons who attempt to take a journey by boat will not settle in Australia. It is part of a wider framework in Operation Sovereign Borders that means persons trying to enter Australia without a valid visa will be returned to their port or country of origin.

I can say this absolutely clearly to the parliament today, as I will say outside of it: our commitment to Operation Sovereign Borders is absolutely resolute. The best evidence of that is that every person who has tried to come to Australia by boat since our government has been elected and since I have been Minister for Home Affairs has been returned to their port of departure. Our government is determined and focused in its conduct of Operation Sovereign Borders, in a way that avoids politicisation of this issue. And can I say that the style of politics that has been played around this matter for so many years in this country has been fundamentally detrimental—detrimental to the national security conversation, detrimental to the border security conversation and certainly detrimental to the discussion about how we as a country can and should do more to help the world's persecuted people.

It is important for us to redesignate Nauru to enable us to create space to do some very important things to assist on the humanitarian front. Let me say a few brief things about the legal framework in which I'm making this recommendation to the parliament. The power is conferred on me by subsection 198AB(1) to designate that a country is a regional processing country, and that is contained in part 2, division 8, subdivision B of the act. Subsection 198AB(2) provides that the only condition for the exercise of power conferred on me by section 198AB(1) is that I think that it is in the national interest to designate the country to be a regional processing country. Subsection 198AB(3) provides that in considering the national interest for the purposes of section 198AB(2) I must have regard to whether or not the country has given Australia any assurances to the effect that the country would not return a person to another country where they would be at risk and that the regional processing country allows assessment of that person to be a refugee.

Three key documents have facilitated my consideration regarding Nauru as a regional processing country. The first of those is a memorandum of understanding that was signed between the Republic of Nauru and Australia on the enduring regional processing capability in the Republic of Nauru. That was signed by the former minister, who sits opposite me here in the chamber, on 24 September 2021. The second document is a statement of arrangements that are in place and that will be put in place for the management of persons. And the third is advice received from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who has been consulted regarding the designation.

I spoke about the requirements under the Migration Act for me to determine that it is in the national interest for a country to be redesignated as a regional processing country, and I want to talk the parliament through the five factors I considered when making that decision. The first is that the ongoing operation of regional processing arrangements will deter people smugglers from exploiting and encouraging vulnerable persons to risk their lives at sea. I note that the need to prevent loss of life at sea was a primary object of the subdivision at section 198AA. And, as I stated earlier, regional processing breaks the people smugglers' model in order to help us protect those people and our borders.

The second is that regional processing supports the broader objectives of Operation Sovereign Borders, which further deters such ventures by ensuring that persons will not settle permanently in Australia. I note that another primary objective of the subdivision I've referred to is that persons should be able to be taken to any country where their claims can be properly assessed.

The third factor is that regional cooperation is the only manner in which the challenges of irregular migration can be addressed, and I want to note to the parliament that through the Bali process we continue to try to manage what is a very significant global issue of transnational people-smuggling and irregular movement. We have a meeting of the Bali process coming up very shortly.

The fourth is that Nauru has been designated as a regional processing country for the past decade and has for a number of years accepted transfers under the Sovereign Borders framework, with significant infrastructure and administrative processes that have been put in place to do that properly. I note that in the past there have been real issues and concerns with the provision of services on Nauru, but I also note that over that preceding 10-year period there has been a significant uplift in these services, particularly those that relate to the protection of the health and wellbeing of persons on Nauru—in particular, the efforts the parliament has made to ensure that things like medical evacuation, clinical service provision and appropriate escalation arrangements are in place. This means that service provision is very different now than it has been in the past.

In addition, it's also important to note that persons on Nauru are not in any form of detention. So, where an individual has circumstances that require examination and assistance, I've also made it clear that we have the highest expectations of the care of those people and that there are appropriate channels for advocates and others to engage if there are concerns around individuals.

Finally, the permanent resettlement of many persons from Nauru to the United States, Canada and now New Zealand demonstrates the ability of regional processing arrangements to ensure durable, permanent pathways for resettlement, while also ensuring that people smugglers are denied their objective, which is simply to make money by marketing Australia as a destination, in an incredibly evil trade that preys on the most vulnerable people in the world. These considerations are in addition to the requirement under subsection 198AB(3) that Nauru has provided assurances that it will not return people to a country where their life or freedom are at risk, and an additional assurance in the memorandum of understanding with Nauru.

In conclusion, let me just put this in a little bit of context. When the Prime Minister has spoken, in the period that he was Leader of the Opposition and now as Prime Minister, about the need to be strong on borders without being weak in humanity, he has also talked about the need to respond pragmatically to policies that work. There are lots of different people who bring different values to this conversation. I think it's hard to deny that this policy works. This issue, like so many issues of the past two decades, has been subject to a kind of ruthless politicisation that, as I've said, I think has been extremely unhelpful to the proper resolution of this debate. But we have arrived at it and it does include regional processing. These issues are not best dealt with in an environment of partisanship and posturing. They are complex and they are difficult, and if anyone in the debate is arguing that there is a simple, easy solution to this they are absolutely wrong.

The solutions that we have found—the ones that work—carry tremendous responsibility and gravity. But ultimately there is a higher purpose here in trying to stop people dying at sea, something we saw far too much of in the period between 2000 and 2013. The preservation of life, while ensuring persons are resettled appropriately, is at the core of our commitment to regional processing and Operation Sovereign Borders. I am determined every day to pursue those objectives, where required, in turning back boats and returning persons to their country of departure. The continuation of regional processing is essential to fighting the people-smuggling trade, and its deterrence value means that we don't enable people smugglers to exploit people so they undertake this dangerous venture.

We have to separate the politics of the past from this issue. This problem has vexed this parliament for decades. It is time to move on. There is a clear settlement on this matter. It includes regional processing, and it includes Nauru amongst the regional processing countries that this parliament declares. I'd really encourage members of the parliament, both here and in the other place today, to ensure that they do vote to support this redesignation.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this unusual and extraordinary motion that we are being asked to consider today. I will speak more in detail to the deeply concerning circumstances of that shortly. At the outset I want to stress that, in the national interest, we will support this motion without amendment. I appreciate the opportunity that I was given yesterday afternoon to be briefed on the significance and the urgency of this matter by the department and at least one member of the minister's office. That happened yesterday afternoon. As always, the coalition will take a responsible approach on national security matters and we will work in a bipartisan way in Australia's interests, but that does not mean a free pass for the Labor government or its inexperienced ministers when things go wrong on their watch.

Quite frankly, I was shocked that the enabling motion linked this motion with a mechanism to limit debate on a disallowance motion on superannuation industry regulations. I mean, really? Is that the way that the government chooses to manage the very serious and very time sensitive matter that we are considering with this motion? Is that the importance that this government places on Operation Sovereign Borders and its three key pillars—to couple it with a disallowance motion it wants to guillotine? I mean, seriously? It's quite ironic that the government actually listed those superannuation regulations back on 1 September last year, because, if the government had tabled this legislative instrument in relation to Nauru last September, we would not be having this debate today.

Operation Sovereign Borders, the original coalition policy solution that stopped the boats, has three key pillars: turnbacks, when they are safe to do so; offshore processing; and temporary protection visas. Due to Labor's failure, Australia currently does not have a designated regional processing country. We haven't had one for four months. This is one of the very key pillars of Operation Sovereign Borders that Labor let lapse. Quite frankly, this has to put to bed the myth that Labor likes to spout that there have been no changes to Operation Sovereign Borders under Labor. Clearly, they have failed to protect Australia in respect of that key pillar. Let's call it as it actually is; let's call a spade a spade, because it's important.

They've also signalled their intention to deliberately dismantle the temporary protection visa pillar. So that's two. They've said that the temporary protection visas will go, and the fact that they did not renew the designation of Nauru as a regional processing centre in a timely manner has put Operation Sovereign Borders at risk. I understand why the Minister for Home Affairs would try to downplay the significance of this issue and what has been created as a result of, quite frankly, the lack of due diligence. But I put on the record again very clearly that we will support continuing the regional processing arrangements on Nauru because it is the right thing to do.

I signed a memorandum of understanding with Nauru when I was in the role of Minister for Home Affairs in September 2021 to help ensure that Australia had an enduring capability to maintain regional processing. But, of course, that MOU must have legislative backing in Australian law, and that is achieved through the Migration Act. Designating a regional processing country is the key legislative instrument under the Migration Act to allow Border Force officials to efficiently and legally deal with unauthorised boat arrivals. The fact is that the legislative instrument that allows the designation lapsed on 1 October last year. This was not a secret. The list of legislative instruments due to sunset on 1 October 2022 was tabled in parliament on the first sitting day on or after 1 April 2021, so it was a matter of public record that that particular provision, that instrument, was going to be sunsetting.

It's also worth noting the legislative framework for regional processing, including reference to the specific section 198AB, was explained to the Minister for Home Affairs in her incoming minister brief after the 2022 federal election. Did she ask any specific questions? If she did not, why didn't she? The role of the Minister for Home Affairs was severely reduced when Labor came into office. Prime Minister Albanese stripped key parts of the portfolio from her and moved them to a different portfolio, yet the minister still couldn't get across the details of Operation Sovereign Borders. The minister had ample opportunity to understand the various acts and legislative instruments for which she is responsible, but she has not done so. This happened on her watch, and she has no-one to legitimately blame but herself. She could have simply asked her colleague, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who put in place the original designation and would have understood it.

After the mess and the confusion that the Prime Minister himself created during the election campaign on offshore processing, you'd think that those opposite would pay a little more care and attention and be focused on making sure they were across the detail. Clearly, that is not the case. It's shocking that such important legislation was allowed to lapse. Now the government is rushing motions through the House to fix its lackadaisical approach to national security. This legislative lapse raises serious questions about whether Australia has potentially been exposed to legal risk for months. Between 1 October last year and today there have been at least two boat arrivals from Indonesia. Although they were able to be turned back, what exactly would have happened if they couldn't be turned back?

As I mentioned earlier, this failure is only compounded by Labor's continuing plan to get rid of temporary protection visas. Labor ministers have found time since the election to tweet about how they're working to abolish temporary protection visas. It speaks volumes about what their priorities are. They're happy to tweet about TPVs, but the minister responsible can't actually spend the time to make sure that the legislative instruments that are needed to protect our borders are in place.

People smugglers are very familiar with the laissez-faire attitude that Labor tends to adopt in government. They had a booming business under the last Labor government with more than 50,000 people arriving on 820 boats. People smugglers are desperate for any sign of change that would enliven their deadly trade, which is why the circumstances leading to today's motion should never have been allowed to happen. This should have been dealt with back in the weeks we sat last year, while the original designation was still in effect. Labor saw fit to ram through their preferred legislative agenda last year, passing legislation that suited their union mates and recalling parliament at will, but they have failed on the very basics. They have failed to ensure that vital border security legislation does not lapse, and it is, quite frankly, not good enough. It can't be fobbed off. It's a serious oversight, and the minister needs to take responsibility for it.

The government has made a lot of claims about transparency. There's a saying: 'You mess up; you fess up'. Let me just share something that Prime Minister Albanese said during the election campaign, when he made one of many blunders:

Earlier today I made a mistake. I'm human. But when I make a mistake, I'll fess up to it, and I'll set about correcting that mistake. I won't blame someone else, I'll accept responsibility. That's what leaders do.

In the interests of transparency, let us be very, very clear. Today's motion is evidence of a serious mistake by the home affairs minister. In the national interest, we have worked with the government to ensure that the mistake is corrected as quickly as possible, and it will be. We will always act in the national interest, which is why we will always argue in favour of Operation Sovereign Borders and those three key pillars, because they are the most effective means that we have to protect our borders.

The government would be very well advised to pay attention to the basics and to do everything in their power to strengthen Operation Sovereign Borders. No government should ever take our national security for granted or make it a second-tier priority. Maintaining Australia's system of regional processing is vital to our border security. That is why the coalition supports the swift passage of this motion while being absolutely appalled at the circumstances by which it is necessary.

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

The minister will be unsurprised to learn that I cannot bring myself to support the motion before the House. That's for three very, very important reasons.

For a start, offshore processing is immoral. We have a moral obligation, as a country of integrity that respects law. When someone approaches or reaches our shores and claims to be fleeing for their life or claims to be fleeing persecution, we have a responsibility to take them in, to give them protection, to hear their claim and, if their claim is accurate, to give them permanent refuge in our lucky country.

Secondly, offshore processing is illegal under international law, and that is beyond dispute. For a start, it is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute to forcibly remove any person to a third country and to keep them indefinitely in inhumane conditions without charge. The government would say that the people who are on Nauru live on an open island and can move freely about the island, but that really is to mischaracterise what goes on Nauru. It is a little speck near the equator in the middle of nowhere. It is stiflingly hot. The people who are there by the actions of the Australian government have no opportunities, no future. It is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute, and I would add there is any number of international agreements that Australia contravenes with its current response to asylum seekers. They are agreements that were signed up to and ratified by people in this place who thought they could trust future governments, future politicians, to honour those agreements because they mattered then and they matter now.

The government would say, the minister would say, that the current regime of Operation Sovereign Borders and offshore processing works and has stopped the boats. But the end does not justify the means, in particular when there are other approaches we should be considering and exploring. Four months ago was an opportunity for us to come into this place and debate and explore the possibility of other responses to irregular immigrants, to ask ourselves, 'Are there other ways of stopping the boats, stopping drownings at sea, which have integrity and which are consistent with international law?' But we haven't done that.

I lament to reflect that I've brought into this place an alternative—my own refugee bill. I brought it in on two occasions and on both those occasions it received no support from the government of the day or the opposition of the day, even though it is an alternative approach that would be consistent with international law. It is consistent with the members of the UNHCR that I have consulted. It is consistent with the lawyers at the Kaldor Centre, when I've consulted with them.

In essence, we should be talking about taking this opportunity to end offshore processing and to instead establish a genuinely regional solution in the Asia-Pacific, a genuine regional response consistent with international law and overseen by the UNHCR. That is what I have proposed twice—that we have an Asia-Pacific asylum seeker solution, one where participating countries would establish reception centres where asylum seekers in the region or moving through the region would register and have all their essential needs met. They would have a roof over their head. They would have food. They would have medical attention. They would have legal representation. They would have schools for their kids. It would be something that is humane and consistent with international law. They would be reception centres where asylum seekers could register their claims, and they could also register preferred destination countries. If that destination country's quota allows it, those asylum seekers would be processed and settled there. All this would be consistent with the principles of family unity and the best interest of the child, all the time compliant with all the international agreements we have signed up to.

I don't want to take the time of the House for too much longer; I know a number of my colleagues are keen to say a few words. In summary: this was an opportunity to think afresh. This was an opportunity to end offshore processing. This was an opportunity to invent a humane and legal response, one that would just as effectively destroy the business model of the people smugglers. I agree with the opposition, I agree with the government and I agree with what has been said; the villains in this are the people smugglers and the way they prey on some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. I do not defend them one bit. I agree with the government and the opposition that we must do everything we can to disrupt them, to shut them down and to protect people, almost all of whom are genuinely fleeing for their lives. But continuing offshore processing is not the way to do it. We should be the exemplar among the community of nations by showing there are other ways to do this which have integrity, which are consistent with international law and which are consistent with the countless international agreements we have signed up to in good faith but, for years, we have been patently in breach of.

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Georganas, for the opportunity to speak on this. I want to associate myself with the shadow minister for home affairs and all her comments. I welcome the debate from the crossbench as well, and note their keen deliberation in this very topical, humane and important debate. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I think it's a good thing in a place of debate to be able to debate respectfully. I've spent some time in Nauru. I've been there before. I have worked there. Many of my friends from the military who couldn't find employment in the civilian world ended up working in Nauru and on Manus Island. I have seen the great work that our border protection officers, our AFP officers and the people of these countries—whether it has been on Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea or in Nauru—do to support people.

I've seen people come via boat with nothing at all. The former speaker said that almost everyone who comes or wants to come are fleeing dangers—almost everyone. There are times when people smugglers come with the boat and don't know who they are. People don't have identification. They're stateless, which makes it even more challenging to work out the supports needed or what we need to do to be able to help people. But, when the boats were coming, before people were getting directed to Nauru, 1,200 people died at sea. They were children, fathers and mothers, who were drowning, on fire or eaten by sharks. I've seen the photos, which I'm sure others in this place have seen as well. It is gut-wrenching, it is heartbreaking and it should not happen.

We must have not just a deterrent for people smugglers but also an opportunity to find out who people are. Our No. 1 job in this place is to keep people safe, to protect this nation and to ensure that people who are coming via boat or coming as refugees are legitimate refugees. This process takes time, and often people that are on Nauru or on Manus Island are given opportunities to relocate to other countries or to return home. The majority of the time, and definitely in my experience, they didn't want to return home and they didn't want to go to another country. They wanted to go to Australia. I've seen horrible things. People have sewn their mouths shut or eaten things that would upset their stomach and given things to children in order to be removed and to try and come to Australia.

I think that it's to our credit that we can say that we removed children from detention. No-one wants to see children in detention. Like the former speaker, I've served, and I've seen some horrible things in the Middle East. I've also seen some horrible things that people have done to other people in Nauru. I've seen the worst in humanity. I believe that we must have offshore processing centres and I believe that stopping the boats saves lives. No-one wants to see drownings at sea and children being killed.

I do think that there needs to be a quick, robust way to find people who have found themselves a way into settlement. That has worked with other nations. But I am a firm believer in the coalition's policy that, if you come by boat, then you won't be resettled in Australia. I do believe in that. I think that has stopped boats coming and stopped people dying at sea. But not everyone agrees with this and that's fine. This is the place for debate.

It does pains me, though, to think what may have happened during the last few months when there hasn't been a policy if people were in the middle of the ocean because they've sunk their ship or they've sunk their boat. What would have happened to those children? This government was asleep. We've heard that the immigration minister doesn't support boat turnbacks. He moved a motion in his branch. I do think that the minister for immigration, especially, should address the parliament and address his position. I do think that this isn't a time where long barbs will be thrown—little ones, not long ones—but I don't want to see the boats start again. I do not want to see people dying at sea and I do not want to see horrendous things happen like those that I've seen happen to children who have died at sea.

We've got many Border Force officers, Navy personnel and people who have had to pick up these children and these families out of the ocean, and the scars and trauma that they will live with for the rest of their lives is absolutely horrendous. We don't want to see the boats starting again. We want to ensure that we protect everyone inside Australia by ensuring we have strong, robust border protection laws.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of the motion submitted by the minister. This is an extremely important motion. It reflects an issue which some might describe as wicked. It is one of those policy issues where there is both complexity and extremely important consequence, both for individuals and for society. I want to make some comments that reflect the importance of not only this particular resolution but also the government's overall stance.

As the minister said when she introduced this motion, this is a topic that has been bedevilled by political sniping for too much time over the last few decades. It is important that this issue be set very much in the national interest, very much in the public policy sphere, and I'll make a couple of observations about that. I also want to make the observation that this is an issue where well-intentioned people can disagree. I'll make some comments on why I disagree with the thoughtful comments of the member for Clark later on in my speech. I also flag that I'm going to speak in a way such that the remaining time on this motion will be divided equally between me and those who are to follow, who I suspect might have slightly differing views.

As the minister indicated, this is a topic which should be beyond political pointscoring. What we've heard from those opposite so far are two speeches which you might characterise as 'I support, but'—'I support this motion, but,' and then there is nine minutes of what you could only describe as political pointscoring that I think this important issue doesn't warrant. So I just want to flag right from the start that I think the minister, on a number of occasions in her contribution, flagged this as is one of those issues that are of such importance for individuals and for the country that we as a parliament really need to take them to a different level—a better mode; a better tone of debate.

I note that one of the best MPIs that I've ever taken part in was one on a similar topic to this. It was raised by those on the crossbench. It was an MPI where many disagreed, but it treated this topic with appropriate respect.

On the substance of the issue and why I disagree with the member for Clark, if you look at this issue I believe we have, at the heart of it, a fundamental need, as the minister and the Prime Minister have indicated, to respect humanity, to be kind, to respect our international obligations but, at the same time, to break this despicable business model of the people smugglers. This is something that was reflected way back in 2012, the last time Labor was in power, when we received the report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers. You could barely imagine a better qualified group of dispassionate experts to look at this issue. Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Professor Michael L'Estrange and Mr Paris Aristotle covered the full gamut of academic, policy and lived experience in dealing with this issue, and I just want to very briefly refer to that 2012 report. In speaking about the report, they indicated:

We recommend a policy approach that is hard-headed but not hard-hearted. That is realistic not idealistic. That is driven by a sense of humanity as well as fairness.

I believe that very much reflects the words that the Prime Minister adopted in the lead-up to the last election, which the minister cited.

Now, I won't go through all the recommendations, but recommendation 1 contained some key principles, one of which was the provision of incentives for asylum seekers to seek protection through a managed regional system. That is at the heart of the government's current approach. Another is the facilitation of a regional cooperation and protection framework. Again, this issue that we're discussing today is one element of a realistic, workable regional cooperation and protection framework. Recommendation 7, of course, as the minister indicated, recommended:

… legislation to support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements be introduced into the Australian Parliament as a matter of urgency …

Recommendation 8 dealt with Nauru in particular. Those were the recommendations of a panel that I believe dealt with this issue both from the perspective of being humane and from the perspective of solving this incredibly difficult public policy challenge of trying to prevent deaths at sea. As the minister indicated, this was the policy of the previous Labor government, it was our policy in opposition and it remains our policy today. We went to the election with that policy. It remains our policy.

In terms of all of the legal tests, the minister indicated that she has satisfied herself that this is in the national interest in relation to section 198AB(2). This will deter people smugglers. It is part of our broader satisfaction of the objectives of Operation Sovereign Borders. It is part of a regional cooperation framework. Also, as she indicated, this government will continue to ensure that there is further uplift in services on Nauru. So it ticks the boxes in terms of national interest. There are five key pillars which she has set out. In relation to section 198AB(3), she has received assurances through those key documents she talked about: the memorandum of understanding between the government of Nauru and Australia; the statement of arrangements that are in place; and the advice from the Office of the UN High Commissioner.

I conclude by saying that this is, as the minister has indicated, and as I think others who probably disagree with some of my contribution would concede, a problem with no easy solutions. I am firmly of the belief that this is the best solution that is currently available. It is the solution that breaks the back of the people smugglers. I have spoken to people in my electorate face to face who were desperate in seeking to get out of their country but who were abused by the people smugglers; who found themselves on the open seas when their boat broke apart. I've seen at that individual human level what that model can do to vulnerable people. I want to see that model stopped. That is why I support this motion. We should not let this debate be distracted by the political point scoring. We should be voting on this motion on the basis of the policy merits. On that basis, I support this motion and hope this House does too.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's be clear: successive governments, be they Liberal-National or Labor, have ideologically and doggedly pursued a secret, cruel and punitive immigration detention centre. For 30 years those on both sides of this place have enforced these policies, which have caused death, injuries and untold harm, violating Australia's international legal commitments and diminishing us as a nation and each of us on a human level. Today we see the continuation of these harmful policies.

I do not support the redesignation of Nauru as a regional processing centre. The 65 people seeking asylum who are currently held on Nauru do not deserve to face another 10 years of limbo being held in cruel, inhumane and degrading conditions. I met Betelhem Tibebu, human rights activist and survivor of offshore processing on Nauru, last year when the contract, which is based on a despicable business model, was renewed with the American prison company MTC in late 2022, the very one we are further facilitating today. She said: 'The conditions on Nauru are horrible. We lost our future, our dreams were stolen, and now this contract. People should be signing resettlement papers, not detention contracts. It is ten years and people are still there. They should be free, not hiring a new company, not redesignating a country, but giving people a proper life and medical treatment.'

In this context, in light of today's debate, let's talk about what's really urgent: 31,000 people, after more than 10 years, are still living on temporary protection visas and safe haven visas in our community, despite the Labor government's commitment made over eight months ago to provide permanent pathways to residency for these people. This is also after an election campaign commitment made by the Labor Party to end indefinite detention, bringing fair processing times back to within 90 days. What action have we seen on this? None. Yet today we've been asked to prioritise this motion as urgent. How can it be any more urgent than the issues that I've just fundamentally outlined?

Australians need and deserve the truth about the harm—financially, personally, legally and reputationally—that the immigration system has caused. I back calls from survivors and advocates like Behrouz Boochani, who, ironically, was in Parliament House today and who called for us as a parliament to be courageous. He called for a royal commission to investigate the real cost of this cruel regime. Only a royal commission can compel evidence that we may not wish to hear, but we must, whilst also providing an environment where those who have lived with the consequences of this system can speak their truth. The community chose independent representatives in this place and the other on the basis that we could pursue the conversations that neither of the major parties wish to have. A royal commission, free of the shackles of party politics and with a clear conscience on this issue, is what is warranted. It is beyond time for us as a parliament to turn the light on the Labor, Liberal, and National parties' rotten and cruel policy of indefinite, arbitrary detention of people who have sought Australia's protection and for that policy to come to an end and not to be extended for another 10 years.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike many people in this House, I believe I can speak from a very lived experience of being a refugee and being processed in offshore detention centres. I agree with the government that there must be some sort of processing in place for people who are seeking asylum, similar to what I had gone through before I arrived in Australia. I spent four years in refugee camps—Hong Kong camps, Philippines camps—waiting to be processed, waiting for a new life and waiting for safety. I know too well the hardships of waiting to be processed, and of sleeping on the floors, sharing rooms with hundreds—if not thousands—of refugees, but we were processed by the UNHCR, and we applied and waited to be accepted to come to Australia, so I know it's not easy. It's a very difficult and challenging issue. Immigration and refugee policies have often dominated headlines and been used as political leverage on all sides of politics. However, it's important to remember that behind the headlines of refugees and asylum seekers are lives at stake—there are families, mums, dads and children, like my mum and myself.

Now that I represent the diverse electorate of Fowler, I know that many in my community who have gone through the same process still have loved ones who have fled Syria, Iraq and Iran, and who are eagerly waiting to be processed—to this day. I agree with the government's stance that we need to make sure that those who enter our country are legitimate refugees, and that we do not encourage people smugglers who are profiteering off desperate people. But I do question the government's decision to sign a $420 million contract with an American prison company to run 'garrison and welfare' on the island. I believe this company, Management and Training Corporation, has previously been accused of gross negligence and security failures.

There have to be other solutions and models for processing people who are seeking asylum. The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law says it costs $3.4 million to hold someone offshore on Nauru. The Refugee Council of Australia suggest offshore processing has cost the government $9.65 billion from July 2013 to the 2021-22 financial year. I support some form of processing, but in a fair way, because we do need to ensure genuine refugees can get the opportunity to be resettled. Continuing to use Nauru for offshore detention in its current state, keeping 65 people who, I believe, have been in detention for a long time—nearly 10 years—just does not make sense. The government has told us that those left on the island either don't qualify as refugees or they have been flagged as some sort of risk. I ask: why, then, are we still spending millions of dollars to keep them detained by an unscrupulous company? Both sides of politics and all sides of major political parties have used refugees and asylum seekers in scaremongering to our electorates. Refugees, like myself, have contributed greatly to this society—I am here, today, in this House. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre reports that since 2013 there have been 14 deaths as a result of offshore detention on PNG and Nauru. There is overwhelming documentation of serious abuses, including child sexual abuse, medical negligence and high levels of self-harm, under the offshore detention system.

This is costly to our economy at a time when many Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. The government has had since October to find a better solution. I don't believe redesignating Nauru as an offshore processing facility is the way to go. I ask that the government really consider a new model and a new way to process asylum seekers.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Refugees and asylum seekers contribute social, cultural and economic strength to our country, and communities across Australia are eager to welcome them and ready to lend a hand to rebuild their lives, understanding that these are people who have been forced to flee their homes out of threat of persecution. Today is a shameful day for this new government, who have chosen to suspend parliament in order to uphold the inhumane practice of offshore detention that tortures, degrades and vilifies refugees and asylum seekers. As we heard, Labor introduced mandatory detention 26 years ago, and the LNP turned it into mandatory offshore detention four years later. Both have upheld the practice and share responsibility for these crimes against humanity. And I want to say, just because a policy is 'settled' does not mean it is right.

The Greens are the only political party committed to drastically improving Australia's approach to refugees and asylum seekers. Today Greens senator Nick McKim introduced a bill to evacuate all asylum seekers who are languishing in Australian offshore detention centres. His bill would bring them back to Australia until they have somewhere that is safe and long term to live.

I've also been inspired today by an address delivered inside this very building by refugee Behrouz Boochani. He was one of many refugees the previous immigration minister touted would never come to Australia. So, it was incredible to hear him speak in support of closing the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres, ending offshore detention, and for the permanent resettlement in Australia of all refugees who are currently on temporary protection visas. I speak in solidarity with him and the thousands of lives that have been destroyed by successive governments.

All sides of politics should act with basic humanity and compassion and should fulfil Australia's moral and legal responsibilities to provide fair, transparent and consistent treatment to those who are vulnerable, persecuted or displaced from our global community. This is what Australians want. According to Amnesty International and their Australian Human rights barometer of last year, Australians want to end offshore detention. Seventy-four percent of respondents agreed that if people are found to be refugees then they should be settled in Australia, as opposed to settled or detained offshore. A total of 60 per cent of respondents agreed that the federal government spends way too much money on keeping asylum seekers in detention.

At a time when Australians are facing extraordinary economic hardship, the Australian government's decision to award a $420 million contract to a United States private prison operator is not only a desperate attempt to continue operation of the government's offshore detention program; it is a huge waste. Let's be clear: these private operators are profiting off of suffering and misery. Our offshore detention camps are a stain on our national conscience, and history will judge us. Today we have had the opportunity to undo decades-long adherence to cruel and inhumane practices against some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, and I'm endlessly disgusted by this decision of the government. I would like to finish with a strong message to those refugee communities in my electorate and across this country that I won't stop fighting for you and your rights to safety and freedom.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor's been in power for fully nine months, and what have we got? Not legislation to fix the plight of the tens of thousands of refugees on various temporary visas. What we're being asked to vote on today is legislation for Nauru to remain a regional processing centre for another decade. And there is still no plan to medically evacuate the 150 people remaining in those two detention centres and to allow them to reside in Australia while they engage with resettlement options. Why do they need medical evacuation? Because we have broken them. Many of them are so broken that they're immobile and nonverbal. We did that, as a country. The parliament did that.

Three-quarters of Australians say that has to change. The Albanese government is spending $632 million this financial year to keep refugees offshore. That's more than $4 million each. That compares with less than $4,000, on average, according to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, to administer arrangements in Australia for those living in the community on bridging visas—not to mention public money going to a private US prison company accused of pandemic profiteering and the unlawful use of solitary confinement. If the inhumanity isn't enough, look at the cost to the taxpayer. On that basis alone, we should close offshore detention. If the government insists on keeping it—which it does—I say that we must have mandatory short processing periods and no more indefinite detention. It is neither human nor economically responsible.

As I said publicly earlier today, I support a royal commission into this whole miserable business. If we want to truly stop the boats and break the business model of the people smugglers, we must develop a regional solution with our neighbours, especially the key transit countries, Indonesia and Malaysia, with record numbers of refugees worldwide and at least a million refugees from the conflict in Myanmar alone in our own region. I hear the minister and the opposition on the many variables here, the national security issues and the risks to those travelling. I have stood on the shore at Christmas Island; I have seen those bodies pulled from the water. But I speak for those many constituents in Goldstein who have raised this when I say that I do not support this tick and flick to blindly extend the life of this flawed system—I cannot.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject, I should say outright, the words the minister spoke at the despatch box today to find the extension of this miserable program. I also reject the words of the opposition. There is simply no willingness to address this issue properly. It is to continue something that is inhumane. The words that have been said before me by the crossbench truly represent the feelings and views of so many in our community. You are wrong when you say and believe that this is mandated and has support from the Australian community. Like with so many other issues, communities are incredibly dissatisfied with major parties and their lack of courage when it comes to addressing these big issues.

Let's be clear: we have had less than 24 hours notice from the government to address this issue. We have had no information as to what alternate proposals or solutions have been considered. Has there been any consideration of an inquiry into offshore processing and the effectiveness of Nauru? We only have words in this place to say that we stopped the boats. I was disgusted, I've got to say, to hear an echo of the opposition's talking of leaky boats and deaths at sea. That is the language that has got us to 20 years of appalling policy. It is time to be brave and generous. That is not what we've got here. We make a mockery of our national anthem every time we extend offshore detention processing and refugee policies. We sing, 'For those who come across the seas, we've boundless plains to share,' and yet, your policy is that, if you come across the sea, you will be turned back and sent somewhere else. So we make a mockery of our Australian anthem.

We know that this system is inhumane, and it must stop. The Australian public will judge the major parties, the Labor Party, the Liberals and the Nationals, for this inhumane treatment of those seeking our assistance. We know this problem is going to get worse. We know we are going to have a global problem of displaced populations due to climate impacts, and yet this head-in-the-sand view of let's continue with an inhumane policy.

Finally, the Labor Party went to the election with a promise to process those seeking asylum within 90 days. It's been months since the election, and there are still people lingering in Nauru and PNG. There is nothing in this commitment from the government today to say, 'We will extend Nauru.' I ask the minister, who is in the chamber today: will you commit to a limit on how long any kind of detention and processing will take? Your platform said—when you went to the election—within 90 days. Do you commit to the Australian parliament that those seeking refuge and asylum in Australia will be processed within those 90 days and be freed as an international obligation?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, in accordance with the resolution carried earlier today, I require that the debate be extended for a further 15 minutes.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate may continue, and the member for Warringah can continue her address.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the House because I think this is an issue that we should never have had a curtailed debate on. I think that is definitely something many in this place would agree on. It's an issue that is incredibly important and that so many in our communities feel strongly about. It is so disappointing that, with no facts or figures or real information, we are presented in this place this decision to extend something so inhumane for another 10 years with no proper justification to do so. So, like many on the crossbench, I urge and I ask the government to call for a royal commission into offshore detention and processing of refugees. It's time we shone a light on what is really happening and the private and disgusting deals of the business model. The government talks a lot about the business model of people smugglers, which I abhor, but there is also a business model of offshore processing companies, and that needs to stop.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like many of my colleagues on the crossbench and the people we represent, I held high hopes that a change of government might lead to careful, considered reform in the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, whether that be the speedy resolution of people languishing on TPVs or shared visas or indeed a careful reconsideration of indefinite offshore detention. I certainly didn't expect that we'd be here today being asked to ram through this designation, locking in Nauru as, in the minister's words, a regional processing centre for another 10 years—not an interim couple of months; 10 long years.

I spoke earlier about my dismay, when I opposed the SSO, which has us now in this managed debate in order to effectively rubber-stamp our approval on another decade of Nauru. Here we are, with an extended but very short debate on this most contentious, most fraught policy, which has seen us in twists and turns in this nation for such a long time. Preventing vulnerable people from falling victim to people smugglers and attempting dangerous journeys by boat to our shores is a matter of the gravest importance and one that people in this House today have spoken to with genuine conviction, including, indeed, the minister herself, who must bear the responsibility of this—an onerous responsibility. I don't take that lightly.

I acknowledge the work of the member for Clark. Indeed, I stood in this place twice to second his bill, because I genuinely believe that we need to spend our time, our money, our brains, our heads and our hearts on exploring a better way. I sincerely hope that the minister, with all of her responsibilities, takes the Bali Process to the fullest extent that she possibly can as she represents Australia. People held in indefinite offshore detention are experiencing, right now, physical, emotional and mental harm. Today, as before, we heard from Behrouz Boochani, a man with courage and clarity, who has chronicled the despair of people in indefinite offshore detention. To hear the words from the member for Fowler, a member of parliament who knows exactly what it's like to be a refugee—that is the most compelling witness you could hear.

We've heard too about our dismay—and I share it—that the government has just re-signed a contract worth $420 million with a US prison operator to run this offshore detention centre in Nauru, and I'm sincerely concerned about that for all the reasons my colleagues have outlined. Surely, if we're spending money to that degree, we can think: how can we collectively as a region do this better?

I appreciate that the Minister for Home Affairs has issued me an invitation to speak to her about these issues—about this broader cooperation. It is difficult, I acknowledge. You carry that responsibility, and I don't envy you for that responsibility, because it is an onerous one. But I welcome the opportunity to speak with you more about this—how we can collectively as a region do better. We must do better. We must have proper debates on things that matter so much to us—not just us, as members of parliament, but the people we represent and, more importantly than that, those people all around the world who are seeking asylum, who are seeking our help, who are escaping the most horrendous situations.

I'll be voting against this motion because over and over again my constituents contact me about this, and so often I throw my hands in the air and say: 'If only I could do more, I would. I rarely get the chance.' Today is such a chance to speak to this motion, to make clear on the record, in Hansard, that to put a rubber stamp on 10 more years of Nauru without putting up any protest or any argument to look for something better would be failing them.

So, Minister, I look forward to having further conversations with you. I'm sorry, deeply sorry, that we are in this position today, debating an issue of such national and international importance in such a rushed manner.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This instrument designates the Republic of Nauru as a place where asylum seekers who arrived in Australia after July 2013 must be taken while their claims are assessed. The relevant legislation has been allowed to lapse by this government. Now we're told that we should wave this through, that we should give a compliant nod to the continuation of a sad and shameful arrangement. Nothing to see here, just 65 individuals who have waited nine years for an answer, nine years of mistreatment, isolation and medical neglect.

Since 2013, 14 people have died in our offshore detention. Hundreds of children and adults have sustained permanent psychological injury from their treatment by our government. This morning in this house we heard Behrouz Boochani describe the inhumane treatment he endured at the hands of our government. It is absolutely perverse that we discuss this instrument today in that context. It is absolutely perverse that we speak of the processing of humans, that we call these 'regional solutions'—solutions?—when we have no humane answers for these people. This government asks us to trust that it will end offshore detention on Nauru and PNG, that it will find homes for these refugees. Yet it has just renewed a contract with a US private prison company, MTC, which has been described as trafficking in human captivity for profit and which has been accused of pandemic profiteering and unlawful use of solitary confinement. Less than two weeks ago, this government gave MTC a $350 million contract to extend offshore detention on Nauru until September 2025.

Minister, you have given us less than 24 hours notice on an issue that you have known about for months. How can we possibly trust this government to deal effectively and sensitively with an issue it has known about for years? How can any of us in this place in any conscience support a vote to continue offshore detention on Nauru?

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to reject this motion, and I reject it on three grounds. I reject it on the process, on the economics and on the basis of humanity. On process, many of my colleagues have outlined already that to have less than 24 hours to consider something that is really important is an unacceptable use of the parliament. We could certainly have been given a lot more notice to engage in something that's really important to people's lives and to our communities. On economic grounds, others have mentioned that there are $350 million worth of contracts to support Nauru. We are operating in a very constrained budget environment, as we all here know, and when I look at what $350 million could do in so many different communities around this country, it still beggars belief that this is the money and this is the reason that we're spending it. Most certainly, I reject this on the basis of the humanity. Others across the crossbench have raised that Behrouz Boochani already spoke to us this morning, and it was an incredibly moving morning. One thing that he said which really stuck with me was that refugees are carrying invisible violence—not even capturing that, as one of my colleagues said, 14 people have died in offshore detention. Refugees are carrying this violence around with them, and we have created this out of this country.

I know that this is a complicated issue. As I said, I don't envy the minister's responsibilities in this area, but the Australian people are asking for more humanity. They don't want black-and-white, simple solutions—an easy tick-box answer. The Australian people have said that there is more nuance there. They are welcoming an open and careful debate about what compassionate but also responsible policy in this area could be. I think that is what my community says. So I think this action is really what the Australian people were rejecting at the last election. One-third of the country didn't vote for the major parties for exactly the reasons that we are seeing today. It's because this is simplifying the issue and turning peoples' lives and humanity into a sort of tick-box exercise: 'I'm posturing about what I care about.' So I reject this on behalf of people of Wentworth who are desperately passionate about being humane to refugees. I reject it on the basis of Kerryn Phelps who stood in Wentworth before me and was one of the people who championed the medevac legislation that was the humane response to allow critically ill asylum seekers and refugees off Nauru.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.