If the Government's announcement of temporary protection visas sounds familiar, it's because they are a relic of Australia's past abuses of refugees' rights, writes Graeme McGregor.

Today, the Government has introduced to Parliament a Bill that would see new refugees in Australia granted temporary protection visas (TPV).

The TPV, while permitting a refugee to reside in this country on a three-year rolling basis, sees the right to protection reviewed at least once every three years, with the possibility of return at any point.

Under the bill, TPVs will be granted to people who are unauthorised arrivals (so those who came to Australia by either air or sea) and are found to engage Australia's protection obligations (basically all people in detention or on bridging visas). Any person in this group will not be eligible to apply for a permanent protection visa.

This means that everyone detained on Christmas Island, including those who were awaiting transfer for offshore processing, will be processed onshore and will be eligible to apply for TPVs. People who are already detained offshore on Nauru and Manus Island will be processed as per regional resettlement arrangements.

If this policy sounds familiar, it's because TPVs are a relic of Australia's past abuses of refugees' rights. The first time around, TPVs were shown to inflict serious harm on refugees' mental health, with higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress, compared to those with permanent protection.

Many refugees arrive in Australia suffering anxiety, depression and trauma. TPVs just make these problems worse.

Ironically, for a policy apparently designed to prevent deaths at sea, TPVs have also been shown to increase the number of women and children who risked the trip to Australia by boat, because TPVs do not allow refugees to reunite with their close family.

In 2005, Amnesty International revealed the story of Mohammad, a refugee who had fled two years of torture and imprisonment in Iraq. Placed under a TPV in Australia, Mohammed could not be reunited with his wife and three children. They drowned, along with 11 other members of his family, after their boat sank between Indonesia and Australia. Mohammed said life on a TPV was "just a bigger prison".

TPVs hinder people's ability to contribute to Australian society, the way so many previous generations of refugees have - including the newly appointed Governor of South Australia.

The deliberate uncertainty imposed by a TPV on a refugee's residence led to a higher risk of discrimination in finding stable, well-paid work. What employer would give a position of responsibility to someone who may be deported at any time?

This led to an increased risk of poverty and welfare dependency.

Under the Bill, refugees who receive a second form of temporary visa, a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa, will be obligated to live in certain parts of Australia as a condition of their protection, violating the Refugee Convention, which requires refugees to be offered freedom of movement, like everyone else.

The Australian Government has, rightly, faced significant resistance to the reintroduction of TPVs in the Senate. When the previous government introduced the "no advantage" rule, it deliberately stalled the processing of asylum applications. Instead of just restarting the proven processing system and offering existing permanent protection visas to those escaping war and persecution, Minister Scott Morrison continued the halt on processing and offered Australia an unwelcome choice.

If the Senate votes for TPVs, Minister Morrison has said he will permit asylum seekers detained in notoriously damaging conditions on Christmas Island, to apply for temporary protection in Australia.

Those already detained in Papua New Guinea and Nauru will be denied that opportunity.

Those eager to see some compassion for asylum seekers have cautiously welcomed the offer as the lesser of two evils. Surely it is better that asylum seekers live in Australia, under the debilitating effects of a TPV, than in cruel, humiliating detention centres offshore?

Amnesty International does not accept this. The human rights of innocent women, men and children fleeing persecution should not be used as bargaining chips in a political gamble.

This is not about pragmatism. The Government has chosen to craft two policies that inflict serious harm on innocent people. Now, they are asking us to choose between these policies, as if no other option exists.

Other options do exist. The Government can offer permanent protection to all those found to be refugees. They can end the abuses of offshore detention, an unworkable policy practised by no other government in the world. They can increase their humanitarian intake and work with other countries in the region to improve conditions for refugees and asylum seekers, reducing the demand for people smugglers.

They can introduce humane policies that tackle people smuggling while protecting, not abusing, the victims of that trade: refugees.

This is the real choice that senators need to make.

Graeme McGregor is refugee campaign coordinator for Amnesty International Australia. View his full profile here.