Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

He gets a bit obsessed, Mr Deputy Speaker, so we give him a bit of leeway. And this is what they said about people who had been left in Nauru:

The nature of symptoms shown maintains their depression will produce an inevitable cycle of further deterioration. The most important symptoms in this regard are hopelessness, worthlessness and self-blame, cognitive impairment, withdrawal and sleep dependence. Instead, frustration and anger have turned inwards against themselves, contributing to the risk of self-harm and suicide. While the group considers the level of risk with regard to mental health, it is clear that the current environment and circumstances are dominant contributors to their condition.

The shadow minister says, 'They will not be in detention; it will be an open centre.' The report states:

The fact that the centre operates as an open centre makes little difference to the mental health of the residents.

It goes on and on. For the opposition to say that Nauru was a humane solution, that Nauru was a solution which was good for asylum seekers, is the height of hypocrisy.

Then they say that it would be a good solution because it would break the people smugglers' business model. I invite the shadow minister to take any opportunity that he chooses to tell the House or the Australian people where people transferred to Nauru under the opposition's proposal who are regarded as genuine refugees will be resettled. Which country? Name the country. Will you go to the UNHCR, which did not cooperate with Nauru last time and which said that it will not cooperate with Nauru this time, despite the claims of the opposition? Where would they be sent? The answer is that they would be sent to Australia—unlike the Malaysian agreement which means that people transferred to Malaysia would not be resettled in Australia in the terms of the agreement. It breaks the people smugglers' business model in a way the previous government could never do.

There are some members opposite who recognise that. We know that the member for Cook moved a motion in parliament last year supporting the so-called Nauru solution. We know that there were two members of the opposition who were paired from that vote, and they still lost that motion. They say that the parliament is sovereign. They still lost the motion on Nauru, but apparently that is a different standard. We saw the members for Pearce and McMillan not vote in that division, and the shadow minister says: 'There is nothing in that. They are okay. It is not because they did not support the Nauru option.' The member for McMillan is a good man and I like the member for McMillan a lot. He is a decent man and he is an honest man. We saw on 17 June—

See this speech in context