Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Let me state at the outset that Labor fundamentally believes in the international humanitarian protection framework, the heart of which is the refugee convention. It is for this reason that we were concerned about the government's move at the end of 2014 to remove the reference to the refugee convention from the Migration Act. We also support complementary protection as an important part of the international protection framework. Complementary protection became Australian law in March 2012 as a result of the then Gillard government and the minister at the time, Chris Bowen. We supported the introduction of complementary protection in government. In opposition we have continued that support by opposing this government's attempt to repeal complementary protection, and we again oppose moves to water down complementary protection by opposing this bill today.

In May 2014 the government, as part of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, implemented the statutory refugee framework by codifying within the Migration Act the refugee convention and the existing state of case law in Australia. The effect of this change was to remove all references to the refugee convention from the act and to seek to limit the role of international court decisions in the development of Australian law. Labor opposed these moves at that time. We continue to hold the view that the refugee convention should play a critical role in Australian law and that references to it in the act were appropriate and represented good legislative practice.

The government said that its amendments in late 2014 codified in the act the obligations which exist under the refugee convention and codified the state of Australia's law in respect of refugee assessment processes. There was, however, no justification for taking this step. The government's stated reason for this was that, as jurisprudence develops in this area, they would want to have Australian courts' decisions determine the progress and path that our law takes rather than the decisions of international courts and other countries.

Labor's concern—which we made clear at the time—was that, in seeking to codify the law in this way, gaps would appear. By codifying the refugee convention and the case law there was a significant risk of creating new problems in our law, particularly in relation to considerations of behaviour modification and how that would apply to those seeking protection, or to the reasonableness of finding alternative locations within the country of origin. I note that considerations of this kind are exactly those that the government is now seeking to align across the statutory refugee protection framework and the complementary protection framework through this bill, which, of course, is of great concern to us.

There was no good reason for removing the refugee convention from the act, other than a sense of false nationalism which says that we do not want international courts to have a say on the development of our law. That is plainly silly. The government's justification was always an inherently flawed argument. International courts will always have a role, because our courts, in turn, will always refer to them, even with the legislative arrangements the government has now put in place.

At Labor's national conference last year, we stated that a future Labor government would restore all references to the refugee convention in the Migration Act. This bill before us today is effectively a consequential amendment to the removal of the refugee convention from the Migration Act, flowing that into the complementary protection framework. Accordingly, and consistent with these previously articulated positions, Labor opposes this bill.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and other Measures) Bill 2015. I say from the outset that I had not intended to speak on this bill, but the events of the past few months, over the summer break—particularly in Europe, but also within our own country—have leant upon me, if you like, to add a contribution, because I think this ties into many other issues in Australia at the moment, including strong, secure borders. I say also that, as I move around my community, this is not an idle, one-off type of thought process. I am constantly approached by people who are increasingly concerned about what is happening in other parts of the world and what is happening in Australia. If they are concerned about our security and our future, then we should be, here, in this place.

The bill, I think, is relatively minor, as it addresses a fairly narrow issue, but it does lead to this broader discussion. The bill itself is aimed at changing the conditions affecting people who are not refugees, as determined under our Migration Act, but claim to be at risk of persecution if they are returned to their country of origin. The bill will clarify if the risk to the person is ubiquitous within their source country—that is, whether they are at threat at every point within that country or only at threat of persecution if they return to a particular point. It will exclude people who would be safe to return home if they were prepared to take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour. It will enable them to be returned to their country of origin if suitable protections are offered and rule out the claim of risk if it were deemed to be indiscriminate. The government has moved to act in this area because the recent court decisions have effectively lowered the threshold in Australia in assessing these claims. However, this issue is closely connected to the whole concept of secure borders, as I said at the beginning of this address.

To those first comments and the disaster that seems to be engulfing Europe at the moment: I do not claim to be a great foreseer of the future, but the day that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, came out and said that Germany would accept 800,000 immigrants from Syria, I said this would be the beginning of the end for her. I believe that, as this decision is unravelling in Germany at the moment, that is being underlined every day. As the Indonesians used to say to us at the height of the boat arrivals in Australia, 'You leave the sugar on the table; you leave the attraction.' And, of course, Germany saying, virtually, that they would take anyone who could reach their borders became an attraction to many millions of disaffected people who live not only in Syria but right through northern Africa and other areas of the Middle East.

Incidentally, Germany said that, while they would accept up to 800,000—with no understanding of how they would actually shut off the number at 800,000—they did not commit to full resettlement of that number; I think it was around 150,000. This heavy influx of population, this type of migratory pattern, is likely to lead to civil unrest. It has led to drownings, certainly in the Aegean Sea. It leads to unease in the community and, eventually, an inevitable backlash. Action born of compassion—I have no doubt the actions of the German Chancellor were born of compassion—is leading, unfortunately, to distrust and violence, not only within Germany but in Europe generally. I think this is only the beginning. It probably puts the whole fabric of the EU at risk.

It is worth considering the New Year's Eve riots in Germany, particularly around Cologne. We are seeing the pictures on our television. We have heard the locals have a say about how intimidated they are and how frightened they are for their future. It is difficult to see the German authorities being able to put that genie back in the bottle, as it were, so it is going to be a very difficult time for Germany and for Europe. We saw the attack on Charlie Hebdo 12 months ago in France, the attack on the train passengers that was foiled by two off-duty US army personnel, the widespread attacks in Paris in December—tragic, terrible attacks—and the New Year's Eve eruption of violence within Germany and other places.

It is not just short-term issues that the European community is concerned about, but the rapid changes that are occurring within their societies. Already more than 46,000 people have arrived in Greece this year—46,000 people in a month. Germany is thought to have had more than one million arrive in the last two years. This massive uncontrolled migration is simply unsustainable and it will alter the concept of what it is to be an individual country within the EU. Who would have thought that we would see the reintroduction of border controls between European nations? Who would have thought that Sweden would be attempting to send 80,000 would-be asylum seekers home? Who would have thought that Denmark—

Debate interrupted.