Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

How we treat the most vulnerable among us reflects the values we uphold as a society. This Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024, now in its fifth iteration since 2017, falls short of these values. Despite minor amendments, it remains deeply flawed and its passage would compromise the rights and dignity of individuals already in highly precarious situations.

This legislation aims to expand the search and seizure powers of detention offices, including confiscating mobile phones. These measures allegedly address safety concerns, yet the evidence does not adequately support such sweeping powers. Instead, it risks exacerbating the situation for detainees, who are already detained for an average of 513 days—nearly 1½ years—sometimes without any criminal conviction.

The Human Rights Law Centre has highlighted how these expanded powers will isolate detainees further, cutting them off from their families and legal counsel. I understand the government's arguments about bikie links and such, but human rights still apply. Mobile phones are lifelines for detainees, many of who are held in facilities far from loved ones. Confiscating personal devices disrupts communication, delaying access to legal support critical for challenging detention or ensuring accountability.

Existing laws like the Migration Act 1958 already grant detention offices powers to manage risks, including searching for and seizing contraband, while police are equipped to handle serious crimes. Claims of endemic criminality among detainees lack sufficient substantiation. While some do have prior convictions, some pose no security risk. They are not all the same. For those who do have a criminal history, provisions may well be warranted, but they must be specific and targeted, not catchall. Even the Human Rights Commission report into the Yongah Hill centre, which this bill leans heavily on, notes the complexity of different cases and different environments.

It's important to manage the risks that staff face in detention facilities—that is absolutely true—but these provisions lack oversight and could easily be misused. Past inquiries into similar legislation, such as the mobile phone ban bill 2021, concluded that current frameworks are sufficient. Yet this bill broadens powers, permitting invasive strip searches and arbitrary confiscations under vague terms like 'order' and 'safety'. Such measures, disproportionately targeting asylum seekers, are inconsistent with Australia's human rights obligations.

As the member for North Sydney perfectly articulated, Labor's support for this bill is a significant shift from its previous stance on provisions to prohibits items like mobile phones in detention facilities. For example, in both 2017 and 2020, Labor senators voiced strong opposition to the bill's provisions, stating:

… the government has not demonstrated any attempt to address these risks in less restrictive ways than those proposed in the bill.

They also emphasised the critical importance of detainees' access to communication, asserting:

… the evidence highlights the importance of mobile phones in allowing detainees to communicate with their legal representatives and external support networks.

I couldn't agree more.

Labor's support for this new iteration of the legislation directly contradicts its earlier positions, raising questions about the party's commitment to detainees' rights and the principles that it previously championed—not to mention the fact that the crossbench was briefed on this today, in the last sitting week of the year. What a surprise! And, while the bill claims to provide safeguards, the alternative communication options it proposes, such as landlines or shared internet terminals, are inadequate. Landlines in detention centres are few and communal, restricting timely or private communication. Internet access is scarce and must be booked in advance, making urgent legal matters nearly impossible to address.

Access to communication is not a privilege. It is a basic right, particularly for those seeking asylum or justice, and providing dumb phones is not enough. Stripping detainees of the right to communication risks silencing voices that hold power accountable and amplify stories of mistreatment.

At its core, this bill reflects a troubling willingness to compromise human rights in favour of administrative convenience. With detainees already subjected to significant restrictions, adding further layers of control risks stripping away their dignity entirely.

Instead of punitive measures we should focus on strengthening oversight, accountability and transparency within detention centres. Evidence based policies are the solution to safety concerns, not sweeping legislation treating all detainees as threats.

This bill echoes the failed approaches of past administrations, prioritising control over compassion. Australians have a responsibility to uphold human rights and fairness, and this legislation fails that standard. I will not support it.

See this speech in context