Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

On 13 April the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs announced the government’s intention to introduce legislation that will see all so-called unauthorised boat arrivals subject to forcible removal to offshore processing centres either in Papua New Guinea or on Nauru. I want to quickly say that, whilst I will be using the word ‘unauthorised’ where I cannot easily avoid it, as it has come into common usage, it is actually a derogatory term. I do not like it. It is part of this government’s campaign of using language to denigrate those who come here seeking our protection.

The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 means that all persons arriving on mainland Australia in an unauthorised manner by sea—even those airlifted to Australia at the end of a sea journey—on or after 13 April this year will now be treated as though they have not landed in Australia at all. These asylum seekers will then have any applications they make for protection processed under laws that exist on Nauru or in PNG, not under Australian law. They will not have access to legal assistance or review that is provided in Australia.

This bill has been listed on the Notice Paper for debate and then withdrawn a number of times since the April announcement, because a number of people within the Liberal Party room have struggled with this bill. To their credit, they have been prepared to stand up and argue that what this bill sets out to do is wrong. It is to the government’s shame that this bill has only now been brought on for debate. Whilst media attention has recently been on government members who are standing up for decency, I make the point that this bill reverses some of the changes that everyone in this House and in the Senate agreed to about 12 months ago. For instance, 12 months ago, everyone in this parliament voted to ensure that kids are no longer held in detention. This bill will put children back into detention.

Let us just step back for a moment and have a look at the background of asylum seekers in Australia. Refugees living in Australia have come here in one of two ways. The vast majority have been resettled here through our humanitarian offshore resettlement program. These people have fled from their homes to another country, have been assessed by the UNHCR and have been found to be refugees. These people have been resettled in one of a number of countries, one of them being Australia. Our intake of refugees under this process is notionally around 12,000 per year. The second way in which people become refugees living in Australia is by coming here one way or another and, once here, seeking protection—in other words, seeking asylum. Of this second group of people, some come here with paperwork—for instance, a visitors visa or a student visa and, once here, claim asylum. Others come here without paperwork, usually by boat, then claim asylum. It is this last group of people that the government describes as unauthorised.

In doing some research for this speech I tried to get an idea of the number of people involved. I tried to find out how many people are currently in the country and have applied for asylum. I tried to find out how many of these people arrived with a visa of some sort and how many arrived without paperwork. It is very hard to get solid stats in this area. The DIMA website notes that 3,200 people applied for a protection visa in Australia in 2004-05. All of these must have arrived by air as there were no boat arrivals in that year. I understand that about 1.5 per cent of those seeking asylum in 2003-04 arrived by boat. On 9 May 2006, Minister Vanstone stated that unauthorised boat arrivals—people without a visa—in the last four years represented three to four per cent of all asylum seekers. The highest period of recent unauthorised boat arrivals was in 2001, with 4,137 arrivals. In the same year, 12,355 asylum claims were lodged onshore in Australia. The point I am making is that, even at its height, the number of people arriving by boat was always a small proportion of those who came to Australia and then claimed asylum or sought our protection.

This bill focuses on those who arrive here by boat. I cannot see the logic of using the means of arrival as some sort of justification for treating asylum seekers in different ways. Once initial investigations and tests have been carried out—health checks, security checks et cetera—why distinguish between those who arrive by boat and those who arrive by aeroplane? The only way of seeing any logic in this bill is by looking at it from the point of view of what it does to appease our neighbours—and I will talk about this further in a few minutes.

I want to set out for the sake of completeness just what a refugee is. The United Nations 1951 convention, to which Australia is a signatory, defines refugees as people who are outside their country of nationality or their usual country of residence; are unable or unwilling to return to, or to seek the protection of, that country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and are not war criminals or people who have committed serious non-political crimes.

People who claim asylum and are processed offshore are treated differently to those processed onshore in the following ways: obviously, the first difference is that, under the new arrangements, those who arrive by boat—and, therefore, by definition, are treated as offshore claimants—are forcibly removed to a declared country such as Nauru or Manus Island, while those processed onshore are detained on Christmas Island or in a mainland detention centre; detention in offshore centres is discretionary under the act and is subject to the memorandum of understanding between Australia and the host country and any visa conditions issued by the host country—detention in Australian centres is subject to the Migration Amendment (Detention Arrangements) Act 2005; those processed offshore have no access to legal assistance, the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Australian courts for judicial review; recognition of refugee status does not automatically qualify an applicant for an Australian visa—refugees can be resettled in a third country; and people processed offshore receive no professional assistance with their applications and may receive limited or no access to legal advisers, media, visitors and charitable or religious assistance.

Jennifer Pagonis, spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has raised serious concerns that these new measures will see asylum seekers ‘taken offshore for assessment of their claim, with Australia’s responsibilities to bona fide refugees deflected elsewhere’. Ms Pagonis also recently pointed out that Article 35 of the 1951 refugee convention obliges the government to consult with the UNHCR on all policy development relating to refugees. The first time the high commissioner saw this legislation was the day after it was tabled in this chamber.

The human rights implications of the bill are perhaps best summed up in a statement released by John von Doussa QC, the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and the Human Rights Commissioner, Graeme Innes. I think it important to read at length from their statement, which states:

The commission is concerned that the proposed changes breach Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child including the obligation to act in the best interests of the child (Article 3(1)) and the principle that children should only be detained as a measure of last resort (Article 37(b)).

…            …            …

The proposed changes do not address the possibility of excessive or indefinite detention. There is no set time for offshore processing of claims for asylum and no set time in which a person who is determined to be a refugee must be resettled in a third country.

This potential for asylum seekers to be detained for an excessive period raises serious concerns about arbitrary detention, in breach of Article 9(1) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. It may also result in Australia being in breach of its obligations under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which requires that asylum seekers are not penalised for arriving illegally.

It also states:

The practical effect of the present Bill is that children, once again, will be detained in conditions which endanger their well-being and mental health. Being held in an offshore processing centre is, without doubt, a form of detention.

And there is no argument here. Let me restate what this bill will do. This bill will see women and children back in detention; it will see people potentially facing indefinite detention. This bill will deny asylum seekers who arrive by boat any access to community or religious groups and the moral and practical support that these groups can give. This bill will deny asylum seekers access to proper legal assistance and the Refugee Review Tribunal. I am aware that the government is moving amendments to this bill, but the only acceptable change to this legislation would be to throw it out completely.

I said earlier that it is difficult to see the logic of this bill unless one looks at it from the point of view of appeasing our neighbours. On 18 January this year, 43 West Papuans arrived in Australia by boat, directly from West Papua, and claimed asylum. By March 2006, 42 of the 43 had been granted a protection visa by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The 43rd asylum seeker was initially denied a protection visa but was granted one just recently after he appealed the decision.

It is clear that this policy was hastily developed in response to Indonesian displeasure at Australia’s acceptance of the 43 asylum seekers. I fully recognise the importance of our relationship with Indonesia. However, we need to remember that the strongest foundation of that relationship is mutual respect. Just as Australia has respected the laws and policies of Indonesia in recent legal cases such as Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine, so too must Indonesia respect Australian law as it exists in relation to asylum seekers, regardless of where the asylum seekers come from. Setting aside the glaring inhumanity of this policy momentarily, it is extraordinarily bad foreign policy to allow another nation to shape our approach to such an issue. It seems quite clear to me that that there are people in West Papua or, as Indonesia calls the area, the Papuan Province who are being persecuted. The evidence is in the success of the 43 West Papuans who in a fairly short time frame have recently been granted refugee status in Australia.

Amnesty International reports that operations by the Indonesian security forces have resulted in gross human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and arbitrary detention. I think that we should deal with the essential problem, not try to find ways around it. As unpalatable as it may be, we should be talking to our Indonesian friends and encouraging them to stop their people from persecuting others. By ignoring the guts of the problem—the violation of human rights by some Indonesian security forces—and simply trying to work around the problem by denying asylum seekers from West Papua, or anywhere else, the chance to seek refuge in Australia, we are not contributing to any real or lasting solution in West Papua. We are not helping anyone in the long term by ignoring the real problem and simply seeking to work around it by dealing with the fallout of the problem.

The government knows just how detestable this legislation is. The government knows that it is turning its back on decency here and it simply does not care. Once again, it has employed the cynical tactic of rushed policy development, introduced with virtually no consultation with relevant stakeholders. I collected over 200 signatures in my electorate in just a few short days from people who want this legislation voted down. Amnesty International Australia has sent a petition with over 10,000 signatures stating that remote and offshore detention is not acceptable, children should not be held in immigration detention, persons deemed by Australia to be refuges should be given protection in Australia, this responsibility should not be passed to other countries and the Australian Navy should not be used to return asylum seekers to places where they may face persecution.

A Just Australia has sent a letter to me and, I assume, all MPs, pointing out the federal government’s document Values for Australian Schooling. A Just Australia asks us to test this legislation against these stated values. The values that this government has set out for Australian schools to adopt are: ‘care and compassion’—care for self and others; ‘doing your best’—seek to accomplish something worthy and admirable, try hard and pursue excellence; ‘fair go’—pursue and practise the common good where all people are treated fairly for a just society; ‘freedom’—enjoy all the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship, free from unnecessary interference or control and stand up for the rights of others; ‘honesty and trustworthiness’—be honest and sincere and seek the truth; ‘integrity’—act in accordance with principles of moral and ethical conduct and ensure consistency between words and deeds; ‘respect’—treat others with consideration and regard and respect another person’s point of view; ‘responsibility’—be accountable for one’s own actions, resolve differences in constructive, non-violent and peaceful ways, contribute to society and to civic life and take care of the environment; and ‘understanding, tolerance and inclusion’—be aware of others and their cultures, accept diversity within a democratic society and be included and include others. These are excellent values, but how can we reconcile these values with what this legislation is trying to do? How can we stand up in front of our kids and teach these values and then turn around and pass this legislation? Like A Just Australia, I cannot reconcile this legislation with these values.

I know from listening to those who work closely with refugees that there is a high incidence of mental health problems amongst detainees. This is bad enough in itself, but think about the ramifications this has for how these people can live and contribute to society once they are released from detention, whether that society is ours here in Australia or another society in another country. It is not humane or sensible to put people into a situation where they are likely to suffer mental health problems.

This morning I and a number of other MPs—including you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick—had breakfast with the Royal Australian College of GPs. As I was leaving I had one of those very quick conversations that you wish you had the time to explore more deeply. It was with a doctor who is interested in this bill. She is appalled at the thought of sending asylum seekers to places like Nauru. She told me that the health facilities on Nauru are just not good enough. She told me that, if an asylum seeker there gets appendicitis, they are not flown out for proper treatment—they just do not get treated properly. If the government is not convinced about the immorality of sending asylum seekers away from our shores, then it should consider the health issues. We should not deliberately put people into a situation where we know that their health will suffer when we can quite easily do a whole lot better.

I would like to take a moment to respond to those who question my opposition to this bill when the ALP supported the excision of Christmas Island and other islands in 2001. Those places are Australian territory but are geographically a long way from Australia. They are close enough that, to a desperate asylum seeker, they appear reachable by boat from Indonesia. They represent a very different proposition to trying to reach the Australian mainland. At the time when these areas were excised, which was a move supported by the ALP, the boat operators—people smugglers—were at their busiest. These people smugglers were not necessarily interested in the plight of the asylum seekers, but they were aware of an opportunity to make a quick profit. They were not above offering a leaky boat to people desperate to get away from very difficult circumstances. A number of asylum seekers were succumbing to the temptation. They were probably aware that Christmas Island is a lot closer to Indonesia than Australia but probably did not fully appreciate the distance involved and were putting their lives seriously at risk. So there was some logic to that excision.

I am utterly disgusted by this legislation. I am embarrassed and ashamed to see our once proud reputation for upholding principles of human rights further sullied by this amoral government. Australia’s program of taking refugees through UN processes has an excellent reputation. We offer a range of settlement programs, but this fine reputation is being spoilt by our dreadful treatment of those who come here to seek asylum. I condemn this bill completely and urge all members to look into their consciences and their hearts before voting on it.

See this speech in context