Hayes, Chris, MP

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (09:56): I stand with my Labor colleagues on this matter. We oppose the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. I want to put this in context. It is true that under the former Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, decisions were made in 2013 to ensure the security of borders and to send a message to people smugglers that it would not be easy to put people on boats and bring them to Australia for permanent settlement. On 19 July 2013, we made a decision that anyone who came to this country by boat, seeking asylum, would never be permanently settled in Australia. That is a matter of record. I know that was tough, but it is something that occurred, and we still stand by it. On 30 October this year, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced that the government was preparing legislation to give effect to that Kevin Rudd policy. He said: … this bill will reflect the Government's long standing position and as we understand it, the bipartisan position initially set out by Mr Rudd and since then confirmed by Mr Shorten. And that position is, and I repeat, that irregular maritime arrivals who have been sent to a regional processing country, that is Papua New Guinea and Nauru at the present time, will never be settled permanently in Australia. Up to this point, the statement of Kevin Rudd and the statement of the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, are still at one. But that is not the legislation that is before the House. That is not what was in the policies of Labor or in the comments by made by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, only a few days ago. What the government has bought to this House is something totally different. The bill before us amends the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations and makes all applications for visas invalid where the applicant is part of a regional processing cohort. The designated regional processing cohort is defined under this bill as persons who are unauthorised maritime arrivals and after 19 July 2013 were taken to a regional processing country and are at least of 18 years of age at the time, or who are declared a transitory person. This is a very broad definition, but it goes on. It also includes asylum seekers who are currently in the regional processing centres at Manus Island and Nauru; those living in onshore detention in Australia in places like Mita, Villawood, Maribyrnong; those living in community detention in Australia and on bridging visas and on temporary arrangements; those who have voluntarily returned to their own country of origin from either Manus Island or Nauru; and those few refugees who have been offered and accepted resettlement options, including in Cambodia and Papua New Guinea. The interesting thing—and where this really changes—is that by legislating that all applications by these people are invalid, the bill implements a lifetime ban on any visa under any circumstances for these people to travel to Australia into the future. That is travel to Australia to visit families, that is travel to Australia for tourism purposes, that is travel to Australia for business, or travel to Australia for study. Any of those categories are ruled out by that. When I started my contribution, I talked about what Kevin Rudd had indicated in 2013 and what Malcolm Turnbull had indicated on 30 October this year. They were both talking about permanent resettlement in Australia. This bill is not about permanent resettlement; this bill is about prohibiting anybody who is covered by those definitions from ever setting foot in this country. This has nothing to do with permanent resettlement; this is about stopping people from ever contemplating visiting Australia. I do not know at what stage those in the party room decided to change what the Prime Minister said, or whether the Prime Minister just does not control that party room, but clearly what this bill has in it is not what the Prime Minister indicated on 30 October was going to be in the legislation coming before this House. Human Rights Watch, understandably, has called this proposal malicious and unnecessary, and I totally agree with that. I understand that from time to time you are going to have a need for travel bans and you may want to stop people coming to our shores in a range of different circumstances. Travel bans should apply to all those people who are likely to cause harm to our community and to those who commit or incite violence. But it should not apply as a blanket ban to anybody, particularly when their only crime might be fleeing violence and persecution. These people are already prevented from coming here. They are already being detained. They are already being processed, in many instances, offshore on Nauru or Manus Island. They are not being resettled in Australia. This is just value-adding to their punishment. I will get to the reasons the government cites as to why they believe this is necessary a little later, but I further believe that it is highly unlikely that these measures contained in the bill satisfy Australia's obligations under international law. Australia is a signatory to the refugee convention, and part 2 of article 31 states that: The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. Clearly we are applying conditions upon people who are already detained. We are putting into perpetuity that they can never set foot in this country. It does not matter about whether they could apply for permanent residency; there is no question that they could not apply for permanent residency. We accept that. We support that. But what we do say is that restricting any opportunity to come to this country under any circumstances, including temporary reasons for visitation, is just value-adding to the level of persecution that is currently imposed on people. In this parliament we make laws. In making laws we often trample on rights. We understand that. When we do that we need to have a clear purpose in mind. It is incumbent upon a parliament such as this when taking any legislative action to properly identify the circumstances that the law is intending to either remedy or address. In other words, we need to determine the circumstances justifying the special actions or conditions we intend taking. Given that it is conceded that the turn-back policy has largely been responsible for stopping the boats, particularly when coupled with the policy of not allowing permanent resettlement in Australia of any asylum seeker who arrived by boat, the question remains: what does this bill seek to achieve? What is the object of this bill? According to the minister and others out there spruiking this legislation, this is all about sending a message to people smugglers. Given the fact that boats have stopped—boats have been turned back and we do not see any current arrivals—I think people have got the message that we are serious about border protection. That is something they want to keep relying on—that they are sending a message to people smugglers. They also say that they want to send a message to people currently on Manus Island and Nauru who are waiting for this government to change its policy. There is no indication that the government, nor the opposition, is in any way going to change its policy on border protection. So I do not know where this message is going to go. They also say that they are closing the back door so that when an asylum seeker settles in another country they cannot then make their way by legal means to Australia. We do hope, and I am sure the government hope—and I trust they are working towards finding another place for regional resettlement—they are not trying to create second-class citizens. John Key, the New Zealand Prime Minister, made that point. He was quite happy to engage with this government in terms of regional resettlement, but when asked he said that he was not happy to put specific citizenship conditions on people the subject of this so that they would be treated as second-class citizens in his country and could never apply under any circumstances to come to Australia. He was upfront about that. He said he would have no truck with creating second-class citizens in a country such as New Zealand. Yet the government wants to send a message to any resettlement country that this is something they should be considering for resettlement. They also talk about preventing the 14,000 people in Indonesia getting on boats. I would have thought that a far better way of doing that was not closing off the level of aid that was going to Indonesian agencies to look at this. There is no doubt that there are a lot of people in Indonesia. No doubt many people would like to come to a country like Australia. We do need to apply a regional position to this. We need to ensure that we are playing our role in assisting countries. Earlier this week we were supposed to receive a visit from the President of Indonesia, Mr Joko Widodo. I dare say that this would have been a topic of discussion—there is no question about it. The proposal here simply does not seem to have any rhyme or reason to it. The boats have stopped. The message has got through to the people smugglers. Now we want to reinforce for those people currently detained or being processed on Manus Island or in Papua New Guinea that they can never come here for a family reunion, study or anything else in the future. Australia has had many refugees come to this country who have gone on to do great things. Hopefully, many of these refugees, when they find their country of resettlement, will do many great things; they may be doctors, lawyers, politicians, community leaders et cetera. Under this act, they will even then require special dispensation from the minister in order to apply to come here. This is just beyond belief. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference issued a press release about this legislation. They called it deeply disappointing. His Grace Bishop Vincent Long, the Australian Catholic Bishops Delegate for Refugees and, by the way, a former boat person himself, said: Seeking asylum even by boat is not illegal. It is a basic human right. Yet not content with demeaning them, the Australian government now want to introduce laws that will ban them from ever coming here. The motives for these measures, in light of the current situation on Manus Island and Nauru, and in light of the bigger challenges facing Australia, are questionable at best and sinister at worst. Domestic advocates and international agencies have been appalled by the conditions under which asylum seekers live and the effects on their health, spirits and self-respect. To single out and punish further a small number of people who came by boat, even if they are found to meet the refugee definition is deliberately cruel and un-Australian. It betrays the tradition, status and character of the country that we are proud of—a richly resourced country with a big heart for migrants and refugees. I urge all Australians to reject these cruel and unnecessary measures. I stand with the bishops on this. I think they have called it for what it is. We should reject this legislation. (Time expired)