Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 excises the Australian mainland and Tasmania from the Australian migration zone for people arriving by boat without a visa. Nauru will be used to detain asylum seekers, and asylum seekers arriving by boat will have no access to legal or appeal proceedings in Australia. I think that is rather horrendous.

Australia’s history in relation to refugees and asylum seekers has been somewhat sullied over the last few years, and I think it is very important to look at who asylum seekers are and why they are seeking asylum on our shores. For a start, asylum seekers are men, women and children who have the same feelings and needs that we do. They are people who have been subjected to the most horrendous conditions: war, and many forms of torture. They face death and persecution on a daily basis. That they hop into leaky boats and come across the seas to Australia shows just how desperate they are. They are not criminals. They are not people who are trying to circumvent systems. They are people with real needs who are suffering. They come to Australia in this way as a last resort.

Unfortunately, the Howard government’s record in this area is something that is less than we, as a nation, can boast about. They have politicised the whole process—something that previous governments had moved away from. There is always political gain to be made in blaming victims, particularly in this area. Previous governments have recognised the need to work together to provide asylum to people who come to our country seeking solace. This government has been very inept in the way that it has addressed the issue of asylum seekers and, as I mentioned, has politicised it at every level.

The government’s 2001 election strategy revolved around the Tampa. The government is on the record as publicising the event where women and children jumped from a boat to save their lives by saying they were thrown overboard. They have vilified asylum seekers and refugees in a way that would make Goebbels blush. To be quite honest, I see asylum seekers and refugees as some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I am very ashamed to have been part of a parliament that has adopted this approach.

We have a fairly interesting history when it comes to refugees. The first people of English descent who came to Australia were refugees from the prison system in the UK. From 1838-39, hundreds of German Lutherans came to Australia. From 1938-39, there were 6,500 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. From 1941-45, we had thousands of Asians fleeing Japanese aggression. From 1945-53, 170,000 European victims of war and oppression came to Australia. In 1975, there were 1,800 East Timorese, following the Indonesian invasion. From 1975-85, there were 95,000 Vietnamese refugees. There was concern in the community at that time, but the approach by the government and opposition of the day was very different from the approach that we have seen under the Howard government. That was a time when people came in boats to Australia and Australia recognised their needs, embraced them and took them into our society. And some of those refugees are some of the most successful people in Australia today. In 1989, we had 20,000 Chinese students who were permitted to stay after the Tiananmen Square massacre. In 1999, we had the 4,000 Kosovo refugees who were given temporary sanctuary in Australia and whom we have spoken about in some detail in the past. I feel that as a nation we have suffered because of the Howard government’s actions. We have been a compassionate nation in the past, but this will be seen as a very dark era in our history. History will judge the Howard government’s actions in this area very poorly.

I will go to the main points of the debate. We should not be appeasing Indonesia. That is exactly what this legislation is about: appeasing Indonesia. We should respect Indonesia. Indonesia is one of the countries that are very important to Australia. It is a country that we need to have a strong relationship with, but that relationship should be equal; it should not be subservient. This legislation, I believe, found its roots in the fact that 43 Papuans arrived in Australia on 18 January this year by sea, and 42 of those were later found to be refugees. In response to the immigration department’s decision to grant visas to the 42 Papuans, the Indonesian government promptly withdrew its ambassador from Australia. Following this, the Australian government released the proposed legislation being debated today.

We are an independent nation. We need to look at these issues on a basis that is in line with our culture, our laws and our history. We should not be adopting the approach that we have in this legislation. It is a very short-term approach that fixes a diplomatic, foreign affairs situation, rather than a long-term approach—one that is considered, will benefit Australia and will raise our standing in the world and our recognition as a nation. Our immigration policy should be based on Australia’s interests and obligations to international law. Our immigration policy should not be based on appeasing Indonesia. Labor will not support a policy motivated by this at the expense of fulfilling our international obligations and humanitarian responsibilities. That is why we are not supporting this legislation. We realise we have international obligations. We realise that there are humanitarian responsibilities. We know who those asylum seekers are and we know the issues that have forced them to flee their countries.

Asylum seekers who arrive by boat should have the right to access the same Australian legal system as asylum seekers who arrive by other means. Just because you come into Australia on a plane does not mean that you should be treated differently to asylum seekers who hop into leaking boats and are so desperate that they are prepared to come to Australia in that way. Asylum seekers on Nauru will not have access to the Australian legal system provided to asylum seekers detained at our airports or to people who come to Australia on another visa, overstay the visa and apply for asylum once they are here. Asylum seekers who arrive by boat should not be punished and discriminated against.

Members on the other side of the chamber have talked about people who come on boats as queuejumpers. I do not accept that in any shape or form. If I was in a situation where I was as desperate as many of these people who are hopping on those leaking boats are, I would do exactly the same. Do not tell me that a person who arrives at an airport and seeks to circumvent the process deserves to be treated any differently. That is a non-argument.

Labor believes all asylum seekers should have the right to access Australian appeal processes, the Refugee Review Tribunal and Australian judicial review. To deny this is to deny basic human rights. Women and children should not be put in detention. The government recognised last year that children should not be kept in detention, and legislated accordingly. At the time, I would have liked the government to have gone a little bit further. There were some issues that I did not think had been addressed fully, surrounding the impact of detention on mental health and the ability of somebody in detention to know that they need to have an independent medical assessment. But, in comparison to this legislation, the previous legislation was a golden piece. A little over 12 months ago, in that legislation, we moved that children be removed from behind barbed wire. Here we are, 14 months later, putting them back again.

Every single piece of information that I have read on the impact that keeping children in detention has on their psychological wellbeing and their development is negative. I do not know how a government can legislate to treat children in this fashion. These children will be crippled by the time they are released from detention. They will not be allowed to develop in the same way as the young people who are in the gallery today. They will not learn in the same way. When and if they are released, they will not be able to be integrated into our society in the way that we would like them to be or that they would like to be. The Howard government has gone back on a promise. This legislation will once again condemn children to live behind barbed wire, to indefinite detention and denial of basic civil liberties. In 2004 a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquiry into children in immigration detention centres found that the government’s policy of detaining children:

... failed to protect the mental health of children, failed to provide adequate health care and education and failed to protect unaccompanied children and those with disabilities.

Detention is no place for child. They are not criminals; they have not done anything wrong. The government have acknowledged that in the past but now, to appease Indonesia, they will once again immorally detain children. I will not support policy that denies basic human rights and liberty to children.

This legislation amendment means that asylum seekers will, once again, be sent to languish in limbo, indefinitely, on Nauru. Under the new policy, asylum seekers granted refugee status on Nauru cannot automatically apply for Australian visas and can be resettled in a third country. That is what this government wants. They want them to be settled in a third country. Are we not abrogating our responsibility? If these asylum seekers are identified as genuine refugees, should we not be welcoming them into Australia rather than locking them up behind barbed wire or asking another country to accept them as refugees? The government’s policy has shown that genuine refugees have been left to languish on Nauru in the past, and under this policy it will be much worse.

The new legislation means that case managed mental health care will not be available to asylum seekers on Nauru. There has been case after case of detainees suffering mental health problems, including numerous cases of self-harm and suicide attempts. That is what we, as a nation, will be sanctioning when this legislation is passed. This government needs to rethink the legislation and what it is about. It is not about a political quick fix. It is not about winning the next election. It is not about appeasing Indonesia. Rather, it is about offering asylum to people who are refugees. These are people who are fleeing atrocities.

Revelations about the botched handling by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in the past have shown the unbelievable detention of Australian citizens such as Cornelia Rau. The deportation of Vivian Solon, an Australian citizen, proves that it is necessary for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to oversee asylum seekers on Nauru. This legislation will deny this. This is bad policy designed to appease Indonesians at the expense of human rights for asylum seekers who have arrived on our shores. The Pacific solution is an illogical policy. It is a policy to which we are returning. It is a policy that has cost taxpayers more than $240 million since its implementation in 2001. This money would be better spent on services to resettle these people in our community after initial processing on the mainland.

The government is abandoning our international obligation to the 1951 refugee convention and our responsibility to offer protection and humanity to asylum seekers seeking our protection. It is a mean-spirited, poll driven government that lacks moral integrity and the backbone to be independent and stand up for Australia. It is a government that kowtows to Indonesia rather than approaching Indonesia as an equal partner and negotiating so that both nations are held in respect. The government’s latest initiative to holding people in detention when they enter Australia reverts back to the treatment of the first European Australians.

See this speech in context