Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the debate here in the chamber about this very important matter. The resolution that's before us deserves the support of the chamber. I want to acknowledge, before I move to my prepared remarks, Senator McKim's authentic care embedded in the speech he made. But I also want to note some alarmist language. This is the problem I often find as a member of the Labor Party, which finds itself, happily, in government; it's a contrast with the rhetoric of the Greens party, who seem to fight against the way the world is, and seek to describe it in the way they would seek it to be.

When you're in government, you have to make tough decisions—with compassion, with humanity—and protecting our borders is a core task for any government that is worthy of governing the nation of Australia. Senator McKim speaks very passionately, and uses the words 'human rights' and 'human dignity'. But we also have the protection of human life. There's little dignity and there are few human rights for the people who foundered in a vessel off the coast of Western Australia, at Christmas Island. For those of us who were here in parliament at the time, and for Australians right around this country who saw those images, that was the moment that meant things had to change. So, while I acknowledge Senator McKim's contribution, I think it's fanciful to believe that without the policy that has been implemented and maintained for 10 years, there would not have been incredible loss of life.

I also want to speak about the contribution made by my good colleague in this place Senator Paul Scarr, with whom I enjoy sharing work on committees in the interests of Australia—particularly in the area of financial services. But Senator Scarr today has made a number of assertions about attempts to hide the facts about what's happening here and why this resolution is before us. Indeed he declared, in a somewhat accusatory tone which harks back to the division that we don't need along political lines on this issue, that the minister would no doubt have had all this information in the incoming brief. Well, for the record, let's be clear that that was not the case. So Senator Scarr's arguments cannot stand.

I would have hoped that we might have had this debate without harking back to the divisions of previous debates on this particular issue. In fact, I am of the belief that we need to separate the politics of the past on this issue from clouding our minds as to what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence of the very issues that ended up leading Australia to establish this policy. The reality is that while what we're debating today is a routine designation, there's nothing routine about four different ministers failing to get this matter right in the last government—or perhaps that is actually the reveal of what they used to do; there was so much they got wrong, so often. Sadly, this was an issue that they failed to deal with in government before they left.

This is the sequence, and I just want to put it on the record—I'm sure Senator Scarr will review this and be interested in the facts.

Minister Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs at the time, in January 2021, when his department was first warned about the lapsing instrument. That was the first signal. The second flare that went up was when then Minister Andrews was the Minister for Home Affairs under the Liberal National parties as the government of Australia in May 2021. Her department was warned a second time about the lapsing instrument with which we're dealing today. There was a third occasion, when then Attorney-General Senator Cash tabled a report in parliament herself in May 2021 warning the instrument had lapsed. But what did any of those three ministers—the now Leader of the Opposition, Minister Dutton, former Minister Andrews and the former Attorney-General—do to sort out this issue about which they now pretend to be so outraged? They did nothing.

But there was a fourth minister who was involved in this. It was a bit of a secret minister, and that was the self-appointed Minister for Home Affairs, who was also the Prime Minister, Minister Scott Morrison. So the reason we are here and in this position is really the consequence of failed governance by the former government.

I want to make it clear to all Australians that regional processing is settled policy. It was initially recommended, as I said, in the moment after Australians witnessed that incredible loss of life and things had to change. Three people were gathered together to deliver a report to guide the development of a policy to prevent the loss of life at sea and to protect Australia's borders. The first one of those was not only somebody who I'm sure Senator McKim would know but somebody who was very celebrated by the refugee community, and that was the refugee expert Mr Paris Aristotle. His voice was very, very important. His perspective and his advocacy were very important in designing the program. He was also working in concert with Professor Michael L'Estrange, who was then the Director of National Security. This is a vital consideration for such a complex and important policy for national security and the protection of life. They were working alongside the Chief of the Defence Force at the time, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. Those three inputs were vital to the development of the policy.

I want to put it on the record, so it's clear for people who are just picking up the threads of this now—who weren't paying attention at that time; who might have been 10 but are now 20—that that panel was charged with responsibility by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to make those recommendations about how best to prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Australia by boat. That was who set this plan in train as a response to our national security and the international call to protect life.

The principal recommendation was the introduction of legislation to support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements, including Nauru, as a matter of urgency. In discussing the declaration of Nauru under the Migration Act 1958 in 2012, the minister at the time, Chris Bowen, said these words, and I think they still ring true for Australians today:

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.

That was widely known and it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 3 October 2012. That was the establishment of regional processing, and it is the bedrock of Australia's fight against people smuggling and unauthorised arrivals.

This is a policy that above all is about protecting human lives and ending the business model of cynical criminals. The last thing any Australian wants to see is masses of people drowning at sea just to sate the greed of people smugglers.

The policy of regional processing is about effective and sensible processing in safe locations in allied countries. Not everyone will agree with that perspective, and it's right that in a democracy a range of voices speak on this issue. But we on the government benches have a duty and responsibility to govern wisely and carefully, in ways that do not endanger lives.

Our policy in 2023 remains unchanged. We, in opposition, supported regional processing under Prime Minister Abbott; it's a matter of fact. We, in opposition, also supported regional processing under Prime Minister Turnbull. Labor, in opposition, supported regional processing under Prime Minister Morrison. And I stand to affirm that we continue to support regional processing while we are in government for the reasons that I have outlined. We support it because it breaks the back of the people-smuggling operation. We support it because it ensures orderly and efficient processing of persons arriving by sea. We support it because, fundamentally, it stops criminals putting vulnerable people on dangerous boats and it saves those lives. We support regional processing because it stops deaths at sea.

I'm not saying it's not a tough policy, but it is a fair policy. That's why Australians endorse this policy. Under Operation Sovereign Borders, those who attempt to enter Australia in a dangerous manner will be turned back. The government's been both determined and focused on its conduct and support of Operation Sovereign Borders because no country should allow those without a valid visa inside their borders without valid processing. I think this speaks to Australians' sense of fairness—the fact that we are a nation of immigrants and that many people are drawn to our shores for the opportunities that we have here and the rich democracy that we get to participate in. They will welcome more people to come, but, the reality is, they want that to be done in a very orderly way.

I want to be clear about the instrument to which my colleague Minister Watt spoke in some detail, including what it does and the considerations that the minister undertook in her production of this resolution and its arrival here before the Senate. The lapsing of the current designation of Nauru as a regional processing country has had, to be clear, no impact on the resolution of actions under Operation Sovereign Borders. How did it occur? The lapse occurred due to multiple failures in the Department of Home Affairs, many of which occurred prior to this government taking office, and I've outlined four interactions with four former ministers under the previous government.

The reality is that the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs has written to the minister confirming that the department had been asked by this incoming government to confirm that all legal authorities and permissions were in place to underpin Operation Sovereign Borders and that the department incorrectly assured the minister that all legal authorities and permissions were in place. The reality is that the government, despite that failure from the department, was able to continue operations relating to Nauru using other powers, including the Maritime Powers Act in the event of a transfer of a person to Nauru being required, and for ongoing funding arrangements under other powers. These facts are vital to make it clear that the contribution of Senator Scarr was, in fact, in error.

I want to conclude my contribution this evening by indicating that offshore processing in Nauru ensures that those who make the dangerous and illegal journey to Australia are free in the community and they have access to health care and other essential services. If the health care in Nauru is insufficient to deal with the complex needs of a patient, then we will support evacuation off Nauru for required treatment. People in Nauru are not in detention, they're free to walk about in the community until they are resettled in third countries. And 1,150 individuals have so far taken up that opportunity, and have resettled in countries as far away as the US, Canada and New Zealand—among other nations.

Labor, in government, is very committed to continuing a sensible and non-partisan approach. And, of course, today we seek the Senate's support by resolution to redesignate Nauru. As a nation, we have a settled policy; it's working, and it has been working for 10 years, to dissuade those who would ply an evil trade in people smuggling. As the Prime Minister said clearly in the course of the last election, we need to be strong on borders, but we can do it without being weak on humanity. I urge senators to support this resolution.