Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The issue of mandatory detention for asylum seekers has been much debated and much criticised since it was first implemented by the Labor government in 1992. It is a negative and punitive system of dealing with those who come to our shores seeking asylum. Apart from the all-too-apparent negative effects on people incarcerated in detention prisons, the system is administratively demanding and extremely costly. The original intention when mandatory detention was introduced by the Labor government in 1992 was to act as a deterrent to those seeking to come to our shores. Originally it was aimed at a very small number of people arriving by boat. Ten years after the implementation of the policy there were 5,000 boat arrivals—so much for its deterrent capacity. Similarly, the policy of temporary protection visas was introduced as a deterrent. In the five years prior to temporary protection visas being introduced there were 3,103 boat arrivals. In the five years following the introduction of temporary protection visas there were over 11,000 arrivals. It is time we looked at these policies in the cold light of day and worked toward a durable solution—like my colleague the member for Denison has just outlined—so that we can deal with the problem of people fleeing the threat of death and oppression in their own countries without imposing further punitive measures on them.

Examining the operation of detention centres may have the positive impact of demonstrating the futility of locking people up for long periods of time in a prison-like system that leaves them further traumatised and does little or nothing to resolve the bigger issues of asylum seekers in our region. From 2001 to 2005 I worked with others in this place for hard-won changes that were made to the system of mandatory detention, including an agreement that 12,000 refugees living in the purgatory of the temporary protection visa system would be given permanent visas, the Ombudsman would regularly report to this parliament on why people continued to be held in immigration detention and families with children would not be placed in immigration detention centres except as a last resort.

Those policies were implemented and then we saw the Labor government come in on the promise of a New Directions in Detention policy. The government acknowledged that 'detention that is indefinite or otherwise arbitrary is not acceptable'. We had this promise, but according to the most recent Australian Human Rights Commission report, 2011 Immigration detention at Villawood, they say that there are:

… 6819 people, including 1030 children, in immigration detention in Australia – 4304 on the mainland and 2515 on Christmas Island. More than half of those people had been detained for longer than six months, and more than 750 people had been detained for longer than a year.

This parliament should ask questions about why these practices are still continuing today. There is no justification for holding asylum seekers in detention centres once basic health and security checks are completed. It is clear that the checks are not being completed in a timely manner, and this has led to overcrowding in detention centres with all the attendant problems.

I support this motion in the hope that it will publicly air and stop the cruel and odious practice of indefinite arbitrary detention of asylum seekers. The government appears to have completely abandoned its New Directions in Detention policy. We simply cannot continue to support a policy of indefinite mandatory detention with its terrible human cost to this nation and to our reputation in this parliament. Instead of resourcing the Department Of Immigration and Citizenship to carry out health and security checks, what do we see the government doing? As my colleague the member for Denison said, we see them spending huge amounts of money to build new detention centres and, of course, to refurbish other facilities such as Northam in my electorate to hold increasing numbers of detention detainees.

See this speech in context