Government ministers have struggled to identify who would be affected by the proposed lifetime ban on refugees in offshore detention travelling to Australia, with the health minister, Sussan Ley, contradicting the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, on Q&A.
Ley was asked if the policy would affect people in Australia on bridging visas. She replied: “No, because the people who are affected by this are those on Manus and Nauru now.”
When the host, Tony Jones, interrupted to say that Dutton’s office had said it would affect those on bridging visas, Ley revised her answer and said “the reason for that is they would have been processed on either Manus or Nauru”.
“There are very few people who have been processed in Manus and Nauru who are now in Australia,” she said.
Ley also praised conditions in offshore detention. “You have to see the camps and understand their lives and really appreciate that the generosity that we are offering them is well above many other countries,” she said.
What would you say to supporters of the govt’s proposed legislation to ban refugees? Wickham & @sussanley #QandA https://t.co/IQcdqSjQbz
— ABC Q&A (@QandA) October 31, 2016
On Tuesday the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, clarified that people in Australia for medical treatment would be affected by the ban if they were part of the “same cohort” as those in offshore detention. Only those whose claims were processed in Australia would be exempt, she suggested.
On Sunday the government announced it would prevent refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru coming to Australia even on a tourist visa, unless they were children when placed in offshore detention.
Bishop told ABC’s AM program her understanding was the law would apply to those in offshore processing centres, including those who had sought medical treatment in Australia because they were part of the same cohort.
Bishop said the proposed ban would not affect people whose asylum claims had already been processed in Australia, including those on temporary protection visas and bridging visas.
The foreign affairs minister said people who were not refugees should return to their country of origin, refugees on Manus Island could resettle in Papua New Guinea, and those on Nauru could resettle there or in Cambodia.
“There are others we will seek to resettle in one of a number of countries ... We are in the process of negotiating with a number of countries.”
Bishop denied the refugee travel ban was motivated by “domestic political considerations” including the rise of One Nation.
“We must never allow the criminal people-smuggling syndicates to get back into business, that’s what the legislation is aimed to prevent,” she said.
Asked about UN high commissioner for refugees concerns about the ban, Bishop said the policy was consistent with other bans in the Migration Act
Dutton has cited advice from the attorney general’s department, Australian government solicitor and immigration department to insist the ban is legal.
Immigration lawyer Robert Manne told AM that without the full details it was “extremely difficult” to know whether the law would result in cancellation of bridging visas.
“It’s hard to see what possible purpose could be served from cancelling the visas of people brought back from Nauru and Manus Island, many of whom have been recognised as refugees.”
Labor’s agriculture spokesman, Joel Fitzgibbon, said on Q&A that Ley’s failure to correctly answer the question was “the beginning of the unravelling” of the policy.
Bill Shorten has said it seemed “ridiculous” a refugee would be banned from coming to Australia as a tourist or on a business trip, but Labor has said it will wait to see details before it takes a position on the ban.
Several Labor MPs came out against the government’s proposal on Monday, but the Greens have called on Labor to commit to oppose it.
Guardian Australia contacted Dutton for comment.
