Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too will vote against the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. I rise to speak in opposition to this bill because this is bad policy. This is not good policy; this is policy that has been designed to divide. It has been designed for political purposes only, not for an outcome for the people who are on Nauru and on Manus and the many refugees that we deal with. I also oppose this bill because this is another example of a lazy government, trying to pander to the more divisive elements of this parliament—the conservative elements—while avoiding the very real and pressing issues in relation to offshore processing. I will also vote against this bill because this goes beyond our natural human nature of humanism. As we just heard from the member for Grayndler, we are talking about human beings. These are not just figures or numbers; these are people just like you and me. They are people who have families just like ours. This is an issue which this government, for too long—even previously when they were in opposition—has been using as a political football, and that is wrong. It is just not right.

This bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to make it impossible for any person who is found to be a genuine refugee and is subsequently resettled in a third country to ever be granted a visa to enter Australia. I think of my own state of South Australia, a very multicultural state. It is a state that has people from every corner who have settled there, including refugees; migrants—migrants from your background and my background who migrated around World War II after World War II—and people who came by boats, such as the Vietnamese migrants who came as refugees. We resettled over 100,000 Vietnamese boat arrivals and refugees in the late seventies and early eighties, and we did it in a way where the issue was not used as a political football, because both parties knew it was the right thing to do. Both parties under Fraser and under Hawke understood the importance of not making this a politically volatile issue.

As I said, this bill would prevent any such person from ever getting a visa to come to this country. In South Australia, our governor, who represents Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in South Australia, came by boat to Australia and then subsequently went on to South Australia. We have many people who have gone on to do bigger and better things and are absolutely essential to this nation today. What is to stop someone being processed and going to a third country, getting citizenship, becoming a citizen of that country, and going on to become a governor of one of the US states or Canada—and then we will say no to them. This is the sort of stuff that just does not make sense.

This would mean a lifelong ban on anyone who became a citizen of another country. It could be a spouse visa that they are applying for. It could be someone who is an Australian citizen, born here, who meets someone overseas and decides to get married and bring that partner here to this country. Will we deny them that right? That is what this policy will do. It will deny them that right.

In addition, this bill gives the minister a broad discretion to make the determination to waive these provisions in the public interest for an individual a class or a person specifically through a legislative instrument. This means that it would shift exclusive control over access to Australia by former asylum seekers to the minister himself. This is harsh. It is harsh on those people that would have a legitimate reason, under the laws that we currently have, to enter Australia and gain a visa or be given a visa to come to this country. That is a scary thought, looking at the calibre and attitudes of some of the cabinet ministers in this government.

We decided unanimously to oppose this bill. We had a discussion in caucus, and we decided to do so because it is a wrong bill. It is not the right thing to do. It is wrong. And it is a lazy policy. It is misdirected, and the government has failed to make any case for it. When we look at the different reasons they are giving for wanting to bring this policy into fruition, we hear different things. One day we hear it is about sending a message to the people smugglers, but then again we hear every day that the boats have stopped. So why are we sending them a message when this has actually stopped, when the problem they are talking about continuously and blowing their trumpets about—stopping the boats—has been solved?

On another day, they say that it is to send a message to the people currently on Manus Island and Nauru who are waiting for government policy to change. They are still here. There has been no resettlement that I have seen for them anywhere else. I think that is the real issue. We should be looking at those people who are stuck on these islands without any prospects. They have been incarcerated indefinitely. And that is wrong. It is the wrong thing for human beings to lock up another human being, without a criminal offence, indefinitely. If we think about that, what are we doing in this place?

My priority would be: let's look at the resettlement of these people as quickly as possible to ensure that we do stop doing the damage that is being done to those people psychologically and mentally, as we heard the previous speaker talk about.

On another day, they say it is to send a message to people currently living in community detention and to those who are voluntarily returned to their country-of-origin because they were deemed not to be refugees. That is fine; we expect people who have been found not to be refugees to return to where they came from. But let's say there is a change in regime in that particular country, and all of a sudden they find themselves in the position where they are from a different political party, perhaps a different cultural background, and they are being persecuted and are basically people genuinely seeking refugee status. They go through the UNHCR system and go on the list. Does that mean we will deny them refugee status? On other days, they say it is basically to send a message to the people who accept a resettlement option, including those who may perhaps go to Cambodia or Papua New Guinea. This bill does not make any sense. It makes no sense whatsoever.

As I said, the bill proposes to prohibit people coming to Australia by boat from ever being able to apply for a visa of any kind. But what about—there are other examples; elite athletes, for example. Sometimes we fast-track elite athletes so they can represent Australia at international sporting events like the Olympics. What about former refugees that wish to perhaps reunite with family or visit family to see their grandchildren or brothers or sisters.

What about business owners who want to visit Australia for business purposes, because they have settled in another country and are doing quite well? They may wish to discuss the expansion of their companies into the Australian market. If you look around the world, we have many, many successful refugees who have done well in the business world. In politics—Henry Kissinger was a refugee after World War II. He ended up in the US.

This just does not make sense. This is in no way consistent with the position that was announced by Labor in 2013. If passed, this legislation will create an entire generation of second-class citizens in third-party countries. It raises a number of issues that the government has failed to address with this particular bill. For example, we have heard about how this proposed bill will affect our current arrangements with New Zealand.

Currently, New Zealand citizens are eligible to apply for a special category visa, subclass 444, which entitles them to visit, study, work and stay in Australia. So, should New Zealand take genuine refugees from Manus or Nauru and these people become, let's say, New Zealand citizens, these new New Zealanders would not have the same rights as other New Zealanders when it comes to travel to Australia. And we heard the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, make it very clear when he said, 'We have no intention of having separate classes of New Zealand citizens.'

So any discussions that have been taking place with New Zealand —and I am unaware of any; we have not seen anything on the table—John Key will not accept for this reason. As I said, he has been quoted saying they have no intention of creating a two-tier citizen system. It has also been reported that Mr Key has ruled out an agreement where refugees granted New Zealand citizenship would be unable to travel to Australia.

He is not alone in his criticism. The UNHCR's regional representative in Canberra has raised concerns about the proposal, along with many others. Ben Saul, Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney, has said that the bill may breach Australia's international law obligations.

Again, I go to the point that the purpose of this bill is to play politics. Firstly, they thought that they might be able to wedge the opposition, which was not the case; secondly, they thought that they might divert from the real issues. What are the real issues? The real issues are health, education, jobs, our pensioners—we are not discussing any of that in this place, because we have a diversion tactic taking place. A diversion tactic is what is used in many dictatorships around the world. In Third World countries, when they cannot offer their people anything, they use diversion tactics with nationalism and a whole range of other things.

This is exactly the same tactic that is being used. Let us divert away from the things that matter to the Australian public. Let us not have them talking about the 700,000 pensioners who will lose part of their pension in the coming few months because of the changes to the assets test and to deeming rates. Let us not talk about the health cuts that are being made. Let us not talk about cuts to Gonski education funding. Let us get people excited by dividing them over a particular issue.

That has worked very well in the past. We remember 'children overboard' and how divisive that was. This is no different. It is about time that, as elected members representing the Australian parliament, we got back to the job of ensuring that we are doing the right thing, that we are not using refugees as political footballs—as they have been used in this place for the last 10 years—and that we are governing for the people of Australia, who put us here.

I also have to make a point of the enormous contribution that refugees have made to this nation. If I look at my own seat, I have over 200 nationalities—people from every corner of the world. Some have arrived by boat, others have arrived as business migrants and others arrived after World War II from Greece, Italy—from Europe. They have all made a contribution. We are one of the most egalitarian places in the world, and what the government is doing today is trying to divide us and to have different tiers of people.

It is important that we get back on track and ensure that refugees are not used as political footballs. They are human beings. They are people like you and me, who have families and who are escaping dreadful circumstances. Look at Syria. It is absolutely devastating. They have no choice but to flee and leave, and we are deciding to play politics with them. That is what is happening. It is a disgrace. I am disgusted at this policy and I am very pleased that my colleagues have said that they will oppose it and vote against it.

See this speech in context