Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I did—the minister for immigration. Anyone who would think that the minister for immigration is going to exercise discretion with respect to people who may make a worthwhile contribution to Australia has rocks in their head.

Examples of how this bill would prevent former refugees from visiting Australia include doctors visiting Australia to perform surgery or for a medical conference; politicians undertaking a political exchange, study tour or visiting Australian sister cities; and elite athletes competing in upcoming sporting events like the Commonwealth Games. It could even affect future Australian bids for Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, particularly given that there is now a recognised refugee Olympic team that competes in the Olympics. Further, this bill would prevent former refugees from visiting family members in Australia; those visiting the Great Barrier Reef, Uluru or other tourist spots on a tourist visa; and business owners or employees visiting Australia to discuss the expansion of companies and businesses into the Australian market. It is 'Fortress Australia'. It is going back to the dark old days of a very deep and divided Australia, a very dark and dreary place in terms of immigration policy.

Rather than playing petty politics, muddying the waters about rumoured third country deals and doing One Nation's bidding, the government should really be focused on securing credible third country resettlement options. Basically the government have dropped the ball when it comes to the treatment of people who are asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, their processing, and finding third country resettlement options. They did this partly because they have had two incompetent immigration ministers. Also, they tried to do this to punish people and to put pressure on the crossbenchers so that they would agree to temporary protection visas and other reforms to the migration laws that were made in the last parliament. This is petty politics.

I know that Prime Minister Turnbull does not believe in this stuff. I know that he does not believe in this legislation. I certainly know that the people of Wentworth do not support what the Prime Minister and this government are doing with this bill. I know that because my electorate of Kingsford Smith borders Wentworth. A lot of people from the northern end of my electorate have written to me—in fact, most people who have written to me are from the northern end of my electorate—about this issue. They certainly do not support the government's proposed legislation. In fact, I have had many, many emails and letters from people opposing this bill, but I am yet to receive one email or letter that supports what the government is doing. This is petty politics and it is done for one reason—to try and divert attention from a bumbling, foolish, chaotic and dysfunctional government.

In terms of the details of the bill, the bill amends the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations to make any application for a visa invalid where the applicant is part of the regional processing cohort. They are people who have been designated unauthorised maritime arrivals under section 5AA(1) of the act; who, after 19 July 2013, were taken to a regional processing country at any period of time; and who are above 18 years of age on the first or only occasion after 19 July 2013 when he or she was taken to a regional processing country. The definition covers asylum seekers who were over 18 years of age when they were taken to Manus or Nauru after 19 July 2013 and are currently in a regional processing centre in Manus or Nauru; currently living in onshore detention in Australia; currently living in community detention in Australia; have voluntarily returned to their country of origin; or have accepted a resettlement option, including in Cambodia and Papua New Guinea.

The bill gives the minister a discretion to make a determination to waive these provisions in the public interest for either an individual or class of persons specified by the legislative instrument. Ministers do not have a duty to consider whether to exercise discretion in any given circumstance. Again, I point to the fact that the immigration minister is Peter Dutton, and no-one has any confidence that that minister would ever exercise discretion in favour of a former refugee, no matter what the circumstances.

The Turnbull government have been unable to articulate a consistent policy and rationale for this bill. In fact, one of their MPs was quite embarrassing today on the doors trying to explain it, trying to say that there were no holes in the policy of the current government. Why do they need this policy then? When she was asked why this policy was needed if there are no holes in the current policy and it is working, she could not answer the question and fled with her tail between her legs.

The reasons for this policy change each day and differ according to each member of the government to include, on different occasions, that it sends a message to people smugglers to stop the boats; that it sends a message to those currently on Manus and Nauru who are waiting for government policy to change; that it closes 'the back door'; that it prevents 14,000 people in Indonesia getting on boats; and that it will secure additional third country resettlement options—despite the fact that they have not named any and despite the fact that New Zealand, as a result of this legislation, has specifically ruled this out. I presume that many other nations with leaders who have any sense of international law, who have any sense of credibility in their own citizens, would never agree to a third country resettlement option based on the back of legislation such as this.

The impact of this bill is to permanently exclude any person who comes here by boat from ever entering Australia. This would include travelling to visit family, and tourism, business or study. This goes beyond the stated aim of enacted law and Labor's policy that asylum seekers who arrive by boat will not be settled in Australia. There is no credible evidence to suggest that this bill is required to secure a third country resettlement option for this regional processing cohort. In addition, there are a number of issues that the government has failed to address in statements about this bill, including how the new arrangement will interact with our current arrangements with New Zealand. 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. New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, as I mentioned earlier, has been quoted as saying, 'We've got no intention of having separate classes of New Zealand citizens.' It has been reported that Prime Minister Key has ruled out any agreement if refugees granted New Zealand citizenship would be unable to come to Australia—and for good reason.

The Australian government has a robust compliance program in place to prevent, catch and remove people who overstay visas. There has been no suggestion that this program is not equipped to manage future risks associated with issuing short-term visas to members of this cohort.

The UNHCR's regional representative in Canberra, Thomas Albrecht, has raised concerns about the proposal. Australia is a signatory to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and part 2 of article 31 states:

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.

It would be directly flying in the face of an international covenant that Australia has signed up to, if this legislation is passed.

A host of academics, lawyers and people who work in this field have raised concerns with this bill under Australia's international law. It has holes all over it—more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese. It is bad legislation. As I said in my opening remarks, it has been done for one reason: to try to dig a bumbling Prime Minister and government out of the chaos and dysfunction that they have got themselves into. It is bad policy, it is bad humanity and it is bad for Australia. It should be opposed.

See this speech in context