Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The minister will be unsurprised to learn that I cannot bring myself to support the motion before the House. That's for three very, very important reasons.

For a start, offshore processing is immoral. We have a moral obligation, as a country of integrity that respects law. When someone approaches or reaches our shores and claims to be fleeing for their life or claims to be fleeing persecution, we have a responsibility to take them in, to give them protection, to hear their claim and, if their claim is accurate, to give them permanent refuge in our lucky country.

Secondly, offshore processing is illegal under international law, and that is beyond dispute. For a start, it is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute to forcibly remove any person to a third country and to keep them indefinitely in inhumane conditions without charge. The government would say that the people who are on Nauru live on an open island and can move freely about the island, but that really is to mischaracterise what goes on Nauru. It is a little speck near the equator in the middle of nowhere. It is stiflingly hot. The people who are there by the actions of the Australian government have no opportunities, no future. It is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute, and I would add there is any number of international agreements that Australia contravenes with its current response to asylum seekers. They are agreements that were signed up to and ratified by people in this place who thought they could trust future governments, future politicians, to honour those agreements because they mattered then and they matter now.

The government would say, the minister would say, that the current regime of Operation Sovereign Borders and offshore processing works and has stopped the boats. But the end does not justify the means, in particular when there are other approaches we should be considering and exploring. Four months ago was an opportunity for us to come into this place and debate and explore the possibility of other responses to irregular immigrants, to ask ourselves, 'Are there other ways of stopping the boats, stopping drownings at sea, which have integrity and which are consistent with international law?' But we haven't done that.

I lament to reflect that I've brought into this place an alternative—my own refugee bill. I brought it in on two occasions and on both those occasions it received no support from the government of the day or the opposition of the day, even though it is an alternative approach that would be consistent with international law. It is consistent with the members of the UNHCR that I have consulted. It is consistent with the lawyers at the Kaldor Centre, when I've consulted with them.

In essence, we should be talking about taking this opportunity to end offshore processing and to instead establish a genuinely regional solution in the Asia-Pacific, a genuine regional response consistent with international law and overseen by the UNHCR. That is what I have proposed twice—that we have an Asia-Pacific asylum seeker solution, one where participating countries would establish reception centres where asylum seekers in the region or moving through the region would register and have all their essential needs met. They would have a roof over their head. They would have food. They would have medical attention. They would have legal representation. They would have schools for their kids. It would be something that is humane and consistent with international law. They would be reception centres where asylum seekers could register their claims, and they could also register preferred destination countries. If that destination country's quota allows it, those asylum seekers would be processed and settled there. All this would be consistent with the principles of family unity and the best interest of the child, all the time compliant with all the international agreements we have signed up to.

I don't want to take the time of the House for too much longer; I know a number of my colleagues are keen to say a few words. In summary: this was an opportunity to think afresh. This was an opportunity to end offshore processing. This was an opportunity to invent a humane and legal response, one that would just as effectively destroy the business model of the people smugglers. I agree with the opposition, I agree with the government and I agree with what has been said; the villains in this are the people smugglers and the way they prey on some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. I do not defend them one bit. I agree with the government and the opposition that we must do everything we can to disrupt them, to shut them down and to protect people, almost all of whom are genuinely fleeing for their lives. But continuing offshore processing is not the way to do it. We should be the exemplar among the community of nations by showing there are other ways to do this which have integrity, which are consistent with international law and which are consistent with the countless international agreements we have signed up to in good faith but, for years, we have been patently in breach of.

See this speech in context