Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I take this opportunity to speak to the second report of the inquiry into migration detention, Immigration detention in Australia: Community-based alternatives to detention—Report, May 2009. At the outset, I place on record my personal appreciation of the excellent work of the secretariat to that committee and also to the leadership of the member for Melbourne Ports, who was the chair, and the deputy leadership of the member for Hughes. I believe their contribution to the work of the committee resulted not only in a very balanced and fair report but also to what I believe is largely a bipartisan report. Certainly there might be elements within the report on which there has been some disagreement—I accept that—but broadly, if one were to look at the entire report, I think it would be fair to say that there was far more agreement than disagreement by members of the committee.

Last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration began an inquiry into a wide range of issues to assist the government in rebuilding public confidence in the integrity of our immigration detention system and to build a more humane system consistent with Australia’s international obligations. The committee’s first report,Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning—criteria for release from detention, released last December, covered the first two terms of reference of its inquiry—firstly, the criteria that should be applied in determining how long a person should be held in immigration detention and, secondly, the criteria that should be applied in determining when a person should be released from immigration detention following health and security checks.

It was particularly pleasing on that occasion that the committee achieved a very high degree of apparent agreement. The committee at the time of the December report included Deputy Chair Danna Vale, the member for Hughes; Senator Alan Eggleston; Mr Petro Georgiou, the member for Kooyong; and, the opposition spokeswoman on immigration and citizenship, Dr Sharman Stone, who is also the member for Murray. A dissenting report was submitted by the member for Kooyong, and by Senator Alan Eggleston and Senator Hanson-Young, urging the government go further and calling for broader access to judicial review of detention, but otherwise the committee endorsed the direction the Rudd government had taken on these issues. Recommendation 12 of that report explicitly supported the Rudd government’s approach to immigration detention reform. Recommendation 12 stated:

The Committee recommends that, as a priority, the Australian Government introduce amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to enshrine in legislation the reforms to immigration detention policy announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

The Committee also recommends that, as a priority, the Migration Regulations and guidelines are amended to reflect these reforms.

Further, recommendation 12 of the report commented on the government’s policy changes. Paragraph 4.85 of the report states:

The Committee is highly supportive of the announced values and considers they need to be reflected in Commonwealth law. The Committee agrees that the Migration Act in its current form does not reflect the spirit nor provide any legal guidance on the implementation of the Minister’s detention values.

Paragraph 4.86 states:

The Committee considers that legislative change to enshrine these reforms is vital and should be introduced as a priority. Similarly, development of the accompanying regulatory changes and appropriate guidelines must be considered a priority.

Unfortunately, having unanimously supported the committee’s recommendations in its first report in December, the opposition have taken the politically expedient path of backing away from the committee’s recommendations. Of course, this is part of a broader pattern. The coalition did not oppose the closure of the Pacific solution in December 2007, after we came to government. We did not hear from them in August last year when we introduced regulations to abolish temporary protection visas. Only now does the coalition apparently have a problem with Labor’s reforms. Only now, without any proof whatsoever, does the opposition spokesperson on immigration claim that changes they supported are encouraging asylum seekers, which brings me to the second report.

The second report was tabled last week. The second report considers community based alternatives to detention and particularly examines the conditions and material support for release into the community, including appropriate options for community based alternatives to secure detention. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration inquired into international experience, considered the manner in which such alternatives may be utilised in Australia to broaden the options available within the current immigration detention framework and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these alternatives with current options.

It is both unfortunate and disappointing that the committee was unable to adopt a bipartisan approach to the committee’s second report. Rather, we have seen the four Liberals on the committee take four mutually exclusive positions, with the deputy chair, Danna Vale, the member for Hughes, agreeing with the majority report. As I acknowledged earlier, I believe that the member for Hughes was very genuine in her approach to ensuring that we had a bipartisan report at the end of our inquiry. We had a dissenting report from the member for Kooyong—and we just heard him speak on that dissenting report; we had a minority report from the opposition spokesperson on immigration, Dr Sharman Stone; and we had a complete abdication of any responsibility from Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Discerning just what the opposition policy may be is anyone’s guess. The opposition spokesman on immigration has been eager to play politics with the issue of immigration detention. Having supported the government’s reforms in December, political opportunism has again reared its head. It is extremely disappointing to hear the member for Murray completely misrepresent the recommendations of the joint standing committee and say, as she has done both in parliament and in her minority report, that the committee has recommended the release of asylum seekers prior to the completion of identity, health and security checks. That is clearly not the case and it is clearly not the intent of the report. If the shadow spokesman on immigration is assuming that ‘immigration status’ in recommendations 2, 3 and 8 means identity, health and security checks then she is mistaken. The ‘immigration status’ comment in those three recommendations refers to whether a person meets the refugee or asylum seeker criteria, not whether their identity, health and security have been determined. It is disappointing that the whole question of immigration status has been politicised and this whole report has been used for politically expedient reasons.

Can I make a few personal remarks as a result of my experience as a member of the committee. I and other members of the committee have had the opportunity to visit detention centres around the country. We have read scores of submissions from individuals and organisations who have had direct knowledge of refugee issues. We have heard the personal stories and listened to the extensive evidence presented to the committee from scores of expert witnesses on refugee matters. It has been a lengthy inquiry, but I do not recall a single submission supporting the policies and processes relating to refugees that were applied during the Howard government years. Even coalition members of the committee called for changes towards a much more humane policy—and we previously heard the member for Kooyong arguing that very case in relation to children. I believe that there was a very genuine attempt by all members of the committee, having heard all the stories, to try and implement a policy which we would feel proud of, which was humane but which, at the same time, would not place Australia at any further risk than it had previously been subject to. I believe that the report from this committee does exactly that.

I will finish on a point relating to the statistics concerning people who are in detention at the moment. We have, on last count, 790 people in detention. Of those, 299 are from Afghanistan, 120 are from the People’s Republic of China and 106 are from Sri Lanka. That makes up over 500 of the total number of people in detention. The remaining people in detention come from all over the world, so the numbers for all other countries are relatively low. If you look at those statistics carefully—putting aside the 120 from the People’s Republic of China as those people do not generally come over here on the leaky boats that some have described—the clear majority of people who are seeking asylum in this country have come from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. These are both war torn countries. They are both countries from which it is understandable why people would want to leave and look for a safe haven. If we are going to stop people coming to this country, the answer lies not in putting a fence around our country or in having harsh measures with which to deal with them when they are here, which achieves very little, but rather in trying to ensure that assistance is provided from their own country so that there is no reason for them to want to leave in the first place. It is interesting to note, when you look at the number of refugees that are now in detention centres that have come from Iraq, which was also a war torn country, that they have dropped markedly. It would seem to me that that is because things are stabilising somewhat in that country and, therefore, the reason for them to want to leave is simply not there.

Finally, I say that detention is not a cost-effective way of dealing with these people. Whilst they may have arrived in this country unlawfully, when all is said and done there is no evidence to show that they have at any time presented any form of risk. I believe the report, as I said, is fair and balanced. I certainly support the report’s recommendations. I pick up the comments from the member for Kooyong earlier and say this with respect to children: I do not believe any member of the committee wants to see children in any form of detention. I think the member for Kooyong would accept that that is genuinely the view of all members of the committee. Trying to find a solution to all the different cases that the committee was confronted with, and to put it in the form of a recommendation, is not simple. I guess we have to rely on the terminology that, if children are to be placed in detention, it should be as a last resort. Perhaps the key words here are as a last resort and for the shortest term possible. That is certainly the intention of the committee members, and I would expect that that is the intention of the minister. I commend the report to the government for its consideration.

See this speech in context