Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the sentiments that have just been put so eloquently by the previous speaker, the member for Pearce, and to voice my own opposition and indeed my disgust at the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. As I will outline, I oppose these harsh and unfair measures on a number of levels. I am opposed to their motivations, I am opposed to the sheer lunacy of the proposals, I am opposed to their violation of international law and I am opposed to their disregard for human rights. I would like to first make one point very clear: if the government think that this legislation only affects asylum seekers who arrive on our shores by boat, they are sorely mistaken. This legislation affects all Australians. This legislation affects who we are as a nation. It is being done in our name.

I had an encounter recently at one of my regular street corner meetings. I was approached by a young man who stated that he did not have one particular issue to raise with me. He did not come to raise a Centrelink or immigration case or to seek assistance on any other individual matter. He came to the meeting just to tell me of his disillusionment. He told me how he did not feel that this government was representing his views. He did not believe that the core beliefs at the heart of this country were being represented or indeed promoted by government policy. I believe that this bill is a classic example of this. This appears to be a common sentiment within the Australian electorate and certainly within my local community. Let me be clear: I do not think that we should all vote against this legislation just to make us all feel better about ourselves; I think that we should vote against it because it will permanently scar vulnerable human beings, because it is both unjust and illogical and because it is cruel and inhumane and out of step with Australian values. I will also say this: the great privilege of being in government—the reason why we all aspire to sit over there—is that you have the wonderful opportunity to improve our country. You have the opportunity to make Australia a fairer and more decent place. You have the chance to make us all feel prouder to be Australian. Yet sadly this legislation, like so many other government proposals, does the precise opposite.

On Wednesday, 14 June this year, 32,000 signatures were tabled in the Senate opposing this migration legislation. I have checked the website of the Getup campaign, and the current number of signatures received in opposition to this legislation is 87,347. I am afraid that the government is not representing public sentiment on this issue. A recent Newspoll found that 74 per cent of respondents disagreed with this bill, especially its motivation of appeasement. Males, females, singles, marrieds, young and old, low-income earners and the unemployed all opposed this bill overwhelmingly. Many Australians do not want to see children in detention centres. They do not want to see ridiculous laws that abolish Australia’s borders. And most importantly, they do not want to see the important changes to Australia’s migration legislation achieved last year dispended in the name of flawed and confused ‘diplomacy’, if we can even call it that at all. This proposal highlights a government which has no respect for Australia’s sovereignty, no respect for international law, no respect for the protection of human rights and no respect for any notion of fairness or decency.

I would like to talk about the sheer lunacy of this legislation. As of 13 April 2006, all Australians arriving by boat will be treated as though they arrived in an excised place. This will effectively excise the whole of Australia from our immigration zone. The government’s approach is ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd. We cannot approach border protection by pretending that we have absolutely no borders at all. So let us be perfectly honest about this: this legislation is stupid. This is not just my view. It is the view of many who have looked at this legislation. Let us study the words of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s report on this bill. Their first recommendation stated:

… the committee recommends that the Bill should not proceed.

This legislation is absolutely extreme. How do you possibly justify that locking children up is not okay in Australia but is okay in Nauru? The basic truth is that you cannot. This was the sentiment overwhelmingly conveyed to the Senate committee, which found:

Overwhelmingly, the view among those who provided evidence to the committee was that the Bill should be opposed in its entirety. Indeed, the committee notes that every submission and witness, besides the Department, expressed opposition in absolute terms to the Bill and its broader policy objectives.

However, it was not just the valuable committee process that highlighted the lunacy of this legislation. The Prime Minister himself did so. Let me take you back to Monday, 17 June 2002, when he stated:

I want to make it clear that there is no intention to excise—and never has been—any part of the Australian mainland. That is an absolutely ludicrous proposition.

Although it is unusual, on this occasion I agree with the Prime Minister wholeheartedly: this is indeed an absolutely ludicrous proposition.

By now we are all aware that this government does not much care for international law, but I would like to speak on the human rights conventions that this bill could violate if it passes through this parliament. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued a press release on 19 April which expressed this opinion:

If this were to happen, it would be an unfortunate precedent, being for the first time, to our knowledge, that a country with a fully functioning and credible asylum system, in the absence of anything approximating a mass influx, decides to transfer elsewhere the responsibility to handle claims made actually on the territory of the state. This is even more worrying in the absence of any clear indications as to what might be the nature of the envisaged off-shore processing arrangement. If it is not one that meets the same high standards Australia sets for its own processes, this could be tantamount to penalising for illegal entry.

This legislation could breach many different examples of international law. It could breach the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the obligation to act in the interests of the child and the principle that children should only be detained as a last resort. It could contravene the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as it fails to act in accordance with the principle of nondiscrimination, breaches the rights of the covenant and exposes asylum seekers in offshore processing centres to the risk of arbitrary detention. It may violate the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, in particular article 31 of the refugee convention, which provides that asylum seekers should not be penalised for arriving illegally. Offshore processing disrespects the cornerstone of this convention, even if it is not found to be illegal.

This legislation could undermine the fundamental human rights principle of nonrefoulement by not allowing for any form of independent merits review. As I mentioned earlier, the bill is likely to breach Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 37(b) of this convention states:

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

Furthermore, it may undermine other obligations relating to the rights of the child including, to name but a few, article 3—in all actions concerning children ‘the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’—and article 20—unaccompanied asylum seeker children are to be given special protection and assistance by the government—and article 22, which says children seeking refugee status are to receive ‘appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment’ of their applicable rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This is an example of even more international conventions being ridiculed by the Howard government. Yet it is already clear that this is not something that overly troubles this government. Sadly we now live in an era of government complacency where issues affecting international law and even the basic principles of humanity seemingly cease to matter to those sitting opposite me. The government’s readiness to violate these principles is absolutely appalling. What makes it appalling are the consequences. Let us all be clear: people will suffer as a result of this legislation, people’s lives will be shattered, they will be permanently scarred and many will pay with their sanity. This is what is at risk.

I would like to read some excerpts from correspondence I have received from various constituents on the issue of human rights. I think that their words express Australia’s outrage more eloquently than mine ever could. One wrote:

I would like to see Australia become a global leader and promoter of human rights and I am concerned that these proposed changes may do just the opposite ... Sadly, with the Liberal Government in power it seems human rights are under constant attack.

Another wrote:

Please, on my behalf as my elected spokesperson in Parliament, do not let these new changes pass without fighting for justice, compassion and humanity.

Yet another said:

As a nurse and a parent I find this proposal cruel, draconian and in contravention of our human rights obligations. As an Australian I also find it embarrassing to belong to a country which manages such important issues in such a petty, narrow minded and ignorant manner.

And yet another said:

Accepting human rights abuses in order to improve our regional relationships goes against the values that the Howard Government wants new migrants, school children and the general community to live by—respect, decency, compassion and the strength to stand up and defend our values.

I want to turn now to an issue that this parliament deliberated on just last year. I have spoken on many occasions in this parliament about my beliefs that children do not belong in detention and that Australia should not tolerate a system inclusive of indefinite detention. What this bill effectively says is that it is not okay to hold children indefinitely in detention on Australian soil but it is okay to be responsible for their detainment offshore in places like Nauru. I would like to express my own belief, and the belief of many within my electorate, that children should not be detained. The important changes to the government’s immigration policy won last year will be lost. Labor was so pleased to see that children would not be placed in detention again, but now these amendments are on the line. Children can be held in detention again, indefinite detention will return and case-managed mental health care is over. These changes are all appalling. The soon to be moved amendments mean that the bill will now state:

(1A)   The Parliament affirms as a principle that a minor ... will only be detained as a measure of last resort.

and also that:

Note: The Minister has the power to direct officers of the Department to take all reasonable steps to work with any country ... with a view to having this principle upheld.

The sad truth is, though, that this amendment does not actually mean anything in practice. Australian law is not enforceable in a foreign country. Australian principles do not actually equate to anything at all in Nauru. The minister already has the power to direct her officers and department, but she and her department have no power on Nauru. The only way to ensure that this is carried out in practice is to process asylum seekers under Australian law in Australia.

We here who will vote on this bill are making a very important decision. Each individual in this House must decide whether or not we abandon the principles that we upheld 12 months ago. This House decided 12 months ago that Australia values mental health and that people in detention should not be made to forsake their sanity because of poor mental health conditions. We decided that people should not be detained indefinitely and we decided that children should not be locked up. The members who vote in favour of this bill are saying that those values do not matter anymore. The members prepared to vote in favour of this bill are therefore prepared to compromise some of the core values of our nation, and I certainly will not be joining them.

One could be baffled as to why the government is willing to set such a harsh precedent when so few asylum seekers enter Australia by boat. Unauthorised boat arrivals attract more attention than any other form of migration, but individuals seeking asylum within Australia in 2003-04 who arrived by boat were approximately 1.5 per cent of total unauthorised arrivals. In 2004-05 no individuals seeking asylum arrived by boat. Yet the government is prepared to risk Australia’s human rights record and sovereignty, and all for what?

I would like to turn to the real reasons why the government is introducing this bill. The government is gutlessly attempting to appease Indonesia at the expense of asylum seekers and Australia’s broader human rights record. When Australia has objected to Indonesian criminal law in the past, Indonesia indicated that it was their legal system and so Australia respected their sovereignty. But when Indonesia objects to Australian laws, this government just changes them. We modify our legal approach to asylum seekers to appease just one nation. Australia should not change its laws just to please Indonesia or any other country. The Prime Minister has shown a weakness the Australian people find deeply upsetting. Many of my constituents have written to me on this particular issue. I would like to share what one of them had to say. They wrote:

This proposal sends a clear signal to foreign powers that Australia is willing to change the laws governing its refugee protection system when pressure is applied to it by a foreign nation. The Australian Government causes us to hang our heads in shame at the very thought that our country could be so gutless and ingratiating.

I could quote many pieces of correspondence carrying the same sentiment. Australia must respect our neighbour to the north, but it is about time we encouraged respect for our own nation and our own laws. The introduction of this bill just shows that our immigration policy is not being run from Canberra; it is being run from Jakarta. Labor believes that immigration is an especially important portfolio of the federal government. Conversely, the government seems happy to outsource the formation of these policies to Indonesia. I for one can never vote in support of that.

I absolutely believe that Australia must encourage a strong relationship with Indonesia and that it is in all of our best interests to do so. But this relationship must be strong, honest and based on a mutual respect. Australia does not have to be an inferior partner in that relationship. As sovereign and strong independent states, Australia and Indonesia should be able to maintain a relationship that encourages respect and allows for differences in opinion. I believe respect must be the foremost foundation of our relationship, but such respect requires a certain degree of autonomy and the willingness of Australia’s government to stand up and fight for what is inherently right.

I would like to briefly turn to the issues of scrutiny raised by this bill. Over the past few months we have heard claims of sexual abuse, mismanagement and drug abuse taking place within Australia’s detention centres. Now is surely not the time to be abolishing an important overseer and scrutineer of Australia’s immigration. The minister’s department has been embroiled in one bungle after another. Sadly, this legislation represents what is one of the largest bungles of all.

There is not a single change that can be made to Australian law that will allow the government to change the way a policy is implemented in another country. That is, once you start with the proposition that you are going to put people in another country, it is all over. Australian law stops.

Although the Immigration Ombudsman will be able, theoretically, to investigate an action regarding an immigration matter regardless of the location of the action, the ombudsman will first need a visa to enter Nauru. This is a significant limiting factor that can prevent the scrutiny that we require. I would also add that a huge number of my own constituents regularly visit detention centres and offer another form of scrutiny. They hear when there are cases which are alarming and bring them to each other’s attention. I do not think many of them will be able to undertake that role in Nauru though. The whole idea of offshore processing is that you put people beyond the reach of Australian law.

The only conceivable reason this bill is being introduced is to appease Indonesia. This is not how any good government should run foreign affairs. It will cast asylum seekers beyond the reach of Australian law and reinstall children’s detention and indefinite detention. The safeguards that have been installed to try and make the government’s policy more humane—most importantly, case-managed mental health care and a Commonwealth Immigration Ombudsman, as well as safeguards regarding children in detention and indefinite detention—will sadly be completely stripped away. I must strongly reaffirm that I for one absolutely cannot support these changes.

I was recently at a forum of high school students, where somebody explained leadership in a way that was so articulate that I would like to repeat it here today. She stated that leadership was about standing up and being the voice that you long to hear, standing up and being the voice that you and your community long to hear. The community have made their views on this bill very clear. The academics and the experts have all made their views very clear. Now every member of this House has a stark choice: do they stand up and vote against a proposal which has the wrong motivations, which is indecent and inhumane by its very nature and which is clearly absurd, or do they instead vote for legislation which most people cannot even bring themselves to argue in favour of? Will members choose to be true leaders of their local communities or instead blindly follow the Prime Minister down this ridiculous path? I am clear that I will continue to absolutely oppose this legislation and I encourage all members to do likewise.

See this speech in context