Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Minister, why is the offshore processing bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 passed by the House last night, so important for saving lives and breaking the people-smugglers' business model? What compromises have been put on the table to assist the bill's passage through both houses of parliament?

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

I thank the member for Fraser for his question. It is a very important one as we wait for the vote in the other place, as we wait to see whether we can put an effective deterrent in place against people smugglers. The member for Lyons's private member's bill is the best chance of legislation to pass this parliament that would allow offshore processing. This bill is a compromise. It is a private member's bill that would allow for the implementation of the Malaysia agreement and the opening of a detention centre on Nauru. It is in line with the compromise offer made by the government to the opposition last year. The coalition says, of course, it is the party of offshore processing. Today they have an opportunity to be the party that votes for offshore processing.

I am asked what compromises were put on the table to see this bill passed. They have all been put on the table by the government. The only change we saw from the opposition yesterday was an attempt to stop one of their own MPs crossing the floor to support the bill. The only change we have seen from them has been an attempt to block a bill being passed, not an attempt to see a bill passed and implemented as law. The coalition's amendment is explicitly designed to try to stop the implementation of government policy.

Does the opposition seriously suggest that future governments should be authorised to send asylum seekers to Iran, Afghanistan, the Congo and Somalia—all signatories to the refugees convention—but not a regional neighbour prepared to work with Australia and the UNHCR to improve protection outcomes and provide a deterrent? We heard a lot from the opposition yesterday about the treatment of children and we heard a lot of contradictory and false things from the opposition yesterday about the treatment of children. But there were some opposition members raising, I am sure, legitimate concerns about the treatment of children in the Malaysia agreement. For those members who raised those legitimate concerns, they are justified to go to the Leader of the Opposition today and demand that he immediately drop the tow-back policy—that he immediately abolish his policy of returning boatloads of people, potentially full of children, to a country which is not a signatory to the refugee convention, with no protections guaranteed or negotiated at all. That is their policy. That is the policy they repeat constantly—

Mr Laming interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bowman is warned.

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

and opposition members are entitled to demand its dropping immediately on the basis of those concerns.

The Malaysia arrangement provides a massive disincentive to make that boat travel to Australia. The Nauru detention centre alone does not. That is why, after Nauru was opened in 2001, people continued to arrive in Australia. The SIEVX arrived after the opening of the Nauru detention centre, with the drowning of 353 men, women and children. We want a real deterrent in place. That is why we are passionately arguing this in this House and the other house.