Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That, for the purposes of section 198AB of the Migration Act 1958, the Senate approves the designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country.

At the last election, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to be strong on borders without being weak on humanity. Regional processing is about both. It is about being strong on borders because we know that regional processing breaks the business model of people smugglers, who seek to market an outcome. In doing so, it ultimately saves the lives of vulnerable persons who would otherwise be exploited onto leaky boats to attempt a dangerous voyage at sea. That's something which also risks the lives of defence and Border Force officers, who have to deal with the often tragic consequences of those ventures. I appreciate that some in this place may think differently about this issue, but regional processing has been settled policy by both sides of politics for over a decade for precisely the reasons I've described.

Regional processing 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. The panel was charged with making recommendations on how best to prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Australia by boat. Its principal recommendation was the introduction of legislation to 'support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements as a matter of urgency, including Nauru'. In discussing the declaration of Nauru under the Migration Act in 2012, my colleague the then minister Chris Bowen said at the time:

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 then, and they are true now.

The government has been transparent in its position on regional processing. We implemented it when in government previously, we remained committed to it in opposition and we went to the election on it. That's because, fundamentally, regional processing breaks the operating model for people smugglers. It takes away the product they are trying to sell. In doing so, it stops vulnerable people risking their lives on dangerous voyages on leaky boats. It stops deaths at sea. It's as simple as that.

It is tough. It sends a message that persons 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, country of origin or another country where they have a right of entry. Every person who has attempted to enter Australia this way from mid-2014 onwards has been either returned or turned back.

The government has been both determined and focused in its conduct and support of Operation Sovereign Borders. We have not politicised this issue or allowed others to do so. We have viewed it as an important undertaking to be pursued with the seriousness that the issue demands. That is the approach that we are taking today by seeking the parliament's support for a resolution to redesignate Nauru.

In doing so, it is important to note the legal framework under which this declaration is made, and I'll take a few minutes to set that out. The power conferred on me by section 198AB(1) to designate that a country is a regional processing country is contained in part 2.8B of the act—and of course that power is conferred on the minister rather than on me personally. Section 198AB(2) provides that the only condition for the exercise of the power conferred on the minister by section 198AB(1) is that I think it is in the national interest to designate the country to be a regional processing country. Section 198AB(3) provides that, in considering the national interest for the purposes of section 198AB(2), the minister 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.

There are three key documents that have facilitated the minister's consideration regarding Nauru as a regional processing country. These are, firstly, the memorandum of understanding between the Republic of Nauru and Australia on the enduring regional processing capability in the Republic of Nauru signed by the former minister on 24 September 2021; secondly, a statement of arrangements that are in place or are to be put in place for the management of persons; and, thirdly, advice received from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been consulted regarding the designation.

In determining that it is in the national interest that Nauru be redesignated as a regional processing country, the minister has considered the following factors. Firstly, the ongoing operation of regional processing arrangements will deter people smugglers from exploiting and encouraging vulnerable persons to risk their lives that sea. I note the need to prevent loss of life at sea was a primary object of the subdivision at section 198AA. As I've stated above, regional processing breaks the people smuggling model.

Secondly, regional processing also 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 is that persons should be able to be taken to any country where their claims can be properly assessed.

Thirdly, regional cooperation is the only matter in which the challenges of irregular migration can be addressed. I note the work through the Bali process that continues to acknowledge the transnational challenges of people smuggling and irregular movement.

Fourthly, Nauru has been designated as a regional processing country for a decade and has, for a number of years, accepted transfers under the sovereign borders framework with significant infrastructure and administrative processes in place. I note in the past, however, that there have been real issues and concerns with the provision of services on Nauru but that there have also been uplift in these services, particularly those relating to the health and wellbeing of persons on Nauru. In particular, the efforts that this parliament has made to ensure medical evacuation, clinical service provision and as-appropriate escalation arrangements mean that service provision is very different now than in the past. In addition, it is also important that persons on Nauru are not in detention. Where there have been individual circumstances requiring examination and assistance, the minister has also made it clear that we have the highest expectations of care and that there are appropriate channels for advocates and others to engage in if there are concerns.

Fifthly and finally, the permanent resettlement of many persons from Nauru to the United States, Canada and New Zealand demonstrates the ability of regional processing arrangements to ensure durable, permanent pathways for resettlement while ensuring that people smugglers are denied their objective of marketing Australia as an outcome of their evil trade. I might say that this government has made good progress in resettling those persons who remain on Nauru, and we intend to keep doing that.

These considerations are in addition to the requirement under section 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, when the Prime Minister spoke of the need to be strong on borders without being weak on humanity, he also spoke of the need to respond pragmatically to policy that works. This issue, like so many issues, of the past two decades, has been subject to ruthless politicisation. These issues are not best dealt with in an environment of partisanship and posturing. They are serious issues that require difficult choices, and their solutions are ones that carry immense responsibility and gravity. Ultimately, there is a higher purpose in stopping people dying at sea. The preservation of life while ensuring persons are resettled appropriately is at the very core of regional processing and Operation Sovereign Borders. The minister is determined every day—as is the rest of the government—to pursue that objective where required in turning back boats and returning persons. The continuance of regional processing is essential to fighting the people-smuggling trade, and its deterrence value means we don't enable people smugglers to exploit persons in undertaking dangerous ventures. We need to separate the politics of the past on this issue from clouding our minds to what needs to be done to prevent the re-occurrence of these issues.

Saving lives through difficult choices may be tough, but it is also humane and it has been shown to work. I hope that this resolution proceed without the rancour that has been associated with these debates in the past. I acknowledge there may be some who disagree, and to them I say: consider the alternative—an alternative this country knows only too well, measured in the lives of those lost forever at sea. For that reason alone, I commend the resolution to the chamber.