Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today.

What we had again today was a Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs seeking to ensure that a ludicrous proposition would come true. It is almost impossible to believe that we now have a situation where the immigration minister is a proponent of a bill which will discriminate between those who arrive by sea and those who arrive by air. We have a position now where those people who arrive by sea to claim asylum and who are regarded as unlawful noncitizens upon arrival will be taken to offshore processing in Nauru, Manus Island or wherever else the minister can argue for, with conditions that we do not yet know, where they will not be able to have a review by the RRT, and they will not be able to have all of the things that we provide onshore.

With respect to children in detention, the minister ensured some time ago, with the pushing of her backbench, that children and families in detention would be removed. Now the position is that all of that is to be swept aside. You could call that either disingenuous or mischievous, or say that she has tried to hoodwink the backbench to bring this one back. But let me give a salutary warning: they are not easily hoodwinked. I suspect that she is now in a pack with them, trying to negotiate her way out—and it is not going to be easy. What the minister agreed to last time, and what she has now completely ignored, is that they were assured that those asylum seekers would have Ombudsman oversight, they would be processed within 90 days, and women and children would be out of detention.

That is the criteria, that is the high-water mark, and this minister is not going to be able to meet it. We have heard in the media already today that there is some suggestion that time limits are going to be imposed. But what are they going to be? More importantly, what do you do with those people who are going to be left to languish in Nauru? Currently, there are still two people on Nauru who have received adverse security assessments. What is she going to do with them? Process them within 90 days and return them to Australia?

This minister is making policy on the run. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 is really all about the Prime Minister trying to substantiate his position in terms of Indonesia and the West Papuan issue. It is not about good policy, it is not about dealing with unlawful noncitizens arriving in this country, and it is not about dealing with refugees in any fair or sensible way under Australian law. It is all about trying to deal with a flawed domestic policy and with Indonesia’s complaints.

This bill does represent a flawed policy. It is wrong. There is no argument about that. The opposition know that, the minor parties know that and the government backbenchers know that. I suspect the minister is going to come back with a couple of bits to support the backbench. What they should be doing is pressuring her to throw out the bill, because it can be regarded by many as containing serious breaches of Australia’s obligations under international law, particularly under the refugee convention.

This bill also represents deficient foreign policy in terms of the perceived attempt to appease Indonesia over the situation in West Papua. There is no clearer message about this bill than a quote from the committee report that looked into it which said that the bill is ‘an inappropriate response to what is essentially a foreign policy issue’. If this government were serious, it would send its foreign policy minister to Indonesia to talk to them rather than come back with this failed attempt. The legislation is about seeking to pretend Australia has no border and dumping people in other countries. Labor will be voting no on this bill. We think that this bill is irredeemable, that this legislation is wrong in substance and that its motivation is unforgivable. (Time expired)