Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Yesterday morning, I walked out to the point at Cornelian Bay here in Hobart, just behind the Cornelian Bay cemetery, and had a chance to look again at the modest memorial that has been erected there to all of the people that perished in the SIEV X disaster in 2001. Honourable members would remember that some 353 men, women and children—I think there were an estimated 146 children on SIEV X—drowned that terrible night. They drowned alone. It wasn't until the next day, we understand, that civilian Indonesian vessels that were in the area, fishing boats, were able to save a small number of people. What a chilling reminder of the horror of Australia's asylum seeker history. And it's not that SIEV X was the only horror to recount. In fact, our history is peppered with numerous instances of horrors and scandals.

For example, also in 2001, the merchant ship the Tampa picked up some 433 men, women and children from an asylum seeker boat that was also sinking. There was the scandal when the then Prime Minister, John Howard, dispatched almost 50 Special Air Service soldiers by boat to board the Tampa to ensure it would not bring those unfortunate souls to Australia. Also that year there was the children overboard scandal, when the then Howard government made a point of telling the Australian community that asylum seekers would stoop so low as to throw their children overboard in an attempt to facilitate them being rescued by Australian authorities.

But we don't have to just focus on 2001 and the Howard government. What about just last year, when the government repealed the medevac legislation—legislation that mandated nothing more than sick asylum seekers in offshore detention being brought to Australia for critical medical help? But, just when you thought the government had stooped as low as it could get, it stooped even lower by repealing that very sensible law that just ensured that sick asylum seekers could get medical attention.

I regret to say that neither major party has clean hands here. I've just rattled off a number of episodes involving coalition governments, but let's not forget it was the Keating Labor government in 1992 that actually invented mandatory detention—a creation of the Labor Party—and it's the Labor Party these days that is in lock step with the coalition government when it comes to continuing support for mandatory detention, continuing preparedness to use offshore processing and full support for measures like tow-backs, as dangerous and as inhumane as they are. So no-one's got clean hands here when it comes to Australia's response to asylum seekers.

Turning my mind to the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 that's before the House, numerous organisations have lodged complaints about this bill. Numerous organisations have made it very, very clear what's wrong with this bill. In fact, I would refer honourable members to, if they read nothing more, at least read the summary of the Bills Digest, which notes:

The Bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 5 August 2020.

It said:

Submissions to the inquiry raised numerous concerns with the Bill. Common themes identified in submissions were: that the measures contained in the Bill are unnecessary and disproportionate in relation to the security risks posed in immigration detention; that the Minister’s power to prohibit items is unreasonably broad; and, specifically, that prohibiting mobile phones in immigration detention will unreasonably limit detainees' rights to privacy and political communication, and contact with family members and legal representatives. Stakeholders also expressed concern about the expansion of coercive powers such as strip searches.

The Bills Digest also notes:

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised concerns that the amendments unduly infringe detainees' personal rights and liberties because the powers will apply to the entire detention population, not just high-risk detainees. It also raised concerns about: prohibited things being determined by the Minister instead of specified in the Act; broad discretionary powers being provided to the Minister; and the delegation of administrative powers.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that the Bill's measures were likely to engage, and could limit, a range of rights, including the right to privacy; right to humane treatment in detention; right to protection of the family; right to freedom of expression; children's rights; and the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

I could go on. The point I'm making is that a number of parliamentary inquiries have looked at this bill in detail and have taken evidence and submissions from numerous highly regarded organisations, and there has been an almost universal condemnation of this bill, and agreement that this bill must not be supported. I want to put on the public record absolutely clearly here that it does not have my support. It didn't have my support in 2017, when the coalition government first tried to progress these matters; it doesn't have my support tonight; and it never will have my support.

To my mind, the problem here is that this bill continues the practice of treating asylum seekers as criminals and the practice of treating detention centres as jails. That's where it just completely loses all touch with reality. The fact is that it is not illegal to seek asylum in another country. The people who are coming to Australia seeking our protection have committed no crime and are committing a crime; they are not convicted of any crime. So why on earth would a succession of governments remain committed to treating them like criminals and continue their determination to turn these detention centres—which, frankly, should be open centres; these people should be in community detention—into jails? I would remind members, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, that article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 states very clearly that everyone has a right to seek and to enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. I will say that again. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 clearly states:

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

But that's not the only place to find such sentiments. Obviously, the right has developed and it's enshrined in the refugee convention of 1951.

The fact is that Australia is morally obliged, and obliged through international agreements which we've signed up to in good faith in years gone by in international law—morally and legally obliged—that when someone comes to our shores by whatever means, boat or aeroplane, we give them immediate protection and then, as quickly and effectively as we can, we hear their claims and determine the accuracy or otherwise of those claims. Of course, we have found that the claims of most asylum seekers who have made it to Australia have been absolutely accurate; and, when they are absolutely accurate, we are morally and legally obliged to give them permanent refuge in our 'lucky country'. That's what we should be doing. We have no right under any convention or international law or agreement to treat these unfortunate souls as criminals and to lean on policies of deterrence and punishment.

At this point I'll echo the comments of the member for Melbourne, who spoke just before me. He elaborated on these points very effectively. The fact is that our response to asylum seekers is a policy that has long been based on deterrence and punishment. There is no humanity in it. There is no humanity in taking someone's mobile phone away from them so they can't keep in touch with their family, so they can't keep in touch with legal representatives when they want to or need to and so they can't even go to the media when they are being mistreated in these detention centres.

Moreover, our governments have got to stop acting illegally themselves. All too often, the criminal in this whole sorry saga is the government of the day. I would remind members of this House that, as a signatory to the Rome Statute, we are committing crimes against humanity every time we detain someone indefinitely without conviction for any offence. I will make that point again. According to the Rome Statute, the Australian government is committing a crime against humanity every time we lock up an asylum seeker in inhumane conditions indefinitely without conviction for any offence.

I did not support this bill in 2017 and I don't support it tonight. I do not believe that the changes that have been made around the margins of this bill from the 2017 version have made it even remotely acceptable. I agree with the member for Melbourne: it's not amendable, it's trashable; it's a garbage bill; there is no way this bill could be amended to make it supportable. I urge the government and the opposition to think afresh about alternative responses to asylum seekers.

In recent years I moved a private member's bill that proposed a legislative framework for an alternative response to asylum seekers—one that was consistent with international law and relied on a genuine regional approach, overseen by the UNHCR, with quotas for countries to accept people from regional processing centres. That bill received no support from the coalition government at the time and no support from the Labor opposition at the time. But the point is that, until the government and the opposition start to genuinely consider alternative approaches, we will continue with this immoral and illegal policy framework based on deterrence and punishment.

There are so many better ways we could be doing this. To start with, we should stop regarding asylum seekers as a security challenge, a matter for Border Force, and understand that this is a global humanitarian challenge. As one of the richest, luckiest and most fortunate countries in the world, there is no country better placed than Australia to be a global leader in this space, a global leader in developing alternative responses to asylum seekers—responses that are consistent with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention and our obligations under the Rome statute.

Every time we trash these international agreements, we dishonour the men and women who occupied these benches before us and signed up in good faith to these international agreements. We are an international pariah when it comes to our nation's response to asylum seekers. Indeed, it is a dark stain in this country's history book—a dark stain that will take a long time to erase, if it ever can be erased. But we could start in one small way tonight by voting down this bill. I call out to the Labor Party. Your supporters are expecting you to vote down this bill and, from the speeches, it sounds like you will. And I say to the government: why on earth are you progressing this unless you want to be cruel by design to the people who were coming to our country in good faith thinking that we are a rich, lucky and law-abiding country and we will give them refuge? And what do we do instead? We lock them up indefinitely. We take their phones away. We don't care about their mental health. If they're unfortunate enough to be on Manus Island or in Nauru in those camps—you call them open camps; I call them gulags—and to be sick, we are so cruel we won't even bring them to Australia for medical treatment.

I will end my remarks there. This bill does not have my support. It didn't in 2017, it doesn't tonight, and it never will.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context