Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017. Labor will support the bill in the House. We understand the government will make an amendment as agreed with Labor. The immigration and border force portfolio is a very complex and dynamic remit with many areas integral to the integrity, security, prosperity and safety of this country. It includes stronger borders, preventing people smugglers and stopping deaths at sea—areas of policy Labor is strongly committed to—as well as the visa system, skilled migration, customs, the administration and collection of tariffs, travel, tourism and many more.

Given these broad portfolio matters, the issue of transparency and accountability in the work undertaken by the department, staff, contractors and service providers is absolutely critical. It is especially important to the trust that Australians have in the integrity of our immigration and humanitarian programs. The Department of Immigration and the Australian Customs and Border and Protection Service merged in 2015 to become the current department with its operational arm being the Australian Border Force. Given this merger, the secrecy and disclosure provisions in part 6 of the legislation then covering Border Force were adapted from the now repealed Customs Administration Act into the new legislation. At the time, Labor supported the ABF Act, inclusive of part 6. Since 2015, there has been both confusion and criticism with part 6 of the ABF Act—about what information is protected and what information can be disclosed.

The ABF Act, as currently written, essentially protects all information, which has led to a lack of disclosure of information by concerned individuals and stakeholders. Some stakeholders refer to the 'chilling effect' the act has on the public disclosure of information. The appropriateness of this, and concerns raised by stakeholders about an inability to disclose any information, was one of the main driving forces behind Labor including an examination of part 6 of the act in the terms of reference of the recent Senate inquiry into serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in the Nauru regional processing centre and similar allegations in the Manus regional processing centre.

It is important to clarify any real or perceived confusion about whether information is or is not protected. Labor agrees people should have the right to disclose non-sensitive information where appropriate and when required. Given this, we welcome the legislation before the chamber today. The practical application of this bill is to more narrowly define information that is protected from disclosure. This narrowing of the definition clarifies people's capacity to disclose non-protected information. It is also important to clarify the matter, given instances in which this information could lead to actions against an individual.

The bill adds three new permitted purposes for which personal information can be disclosed under the legislation. This includes matters of intercountry adoption, the protection of national security and defence of the country and the location of missing persons, all measures which Labor is very committed to and supports. The legislation amends the ABF Act 2015 in a number of ways. As per the current act, protected information is currently defined as 'information that was obtained by a person in the person's capacity as an entrusted person'. It is a very broad definition and covers all information obtained in the capacity of entrusted person. Under the legislation, that person could be the secretary of the department, the Australian Border Force Commissioner or an Immigration and Border Force Protection worker.

The proposed amendments narrow the scope and change the protected information to a new definition called 'Immigration and Border Protection information'. Subsection 1 of section 4 of the Immigration and Border Protection information includes disclosure that could reasonably be expected to prejudice security, defence or the international relations of Australia such as high-level data and information on human trafficking exchanged with other countries. The next subsection talks about the need to prevent detection and investigation of or conduct of proceedings relating to an offence or a contravention of a civil penalty provision, including information obtained by the interception of communications under a warrant. The next subsection talks about the protection of public health or endangering the life or safety of an individual or group of individuals such as through revealing the biographical details of individuals in witness protection programs. The next subsection deals with disclosure of information 'which would or could reasonably be expected to found an action by a person (other than the Commonwealth) for breach of a duty of confidence'. For example, details of aviation operations which are commercial-in-confidence. The next one talks about disclosure which could cause competitive detriment to a person, including commercially sensitive information about commercial entities such as names of suppliers, prices paid for goods and, finally, anything prescribed under information of a kind prescribed in instrument under subsection (7), which I will refer to later on. In this amendment, the narrowing, I think, is beneficial for public trust and integrity in the system. Of course there are some offences associated with the legislation as well, including unauthorised disclosure of information carrying imprisonment as a punishment for up to two years.

The executive memorandum of this bill argues that the amendments are made in terms of these provisions because they are ineffective and reduce operational administrative inefficiencies. Subsection (1) creates a new definition of duty of confidence, immigration and border protection information and intelligence agencies. That is subsection (1) of section 4. The amendments make a difference to public integrity and trust in the system. The new subsection 4(7) I mentioned before creates new powers for the secretary of the department to prescribe the kind of information to be defined as immigration and border protection information by way of a legislative instrument. That legislative instrument is disallowable, and we would agree with that—that is, if the secretary is satisfied that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective work of the department or otherwise harm public interest. Given the complexities of the immigration and border protection portfolio, it is reasonable that issues may arise because of unforeseen changes in circumstances which make it necessary for information to be protected from disclosure and for that action to be taken quickly.

Labor is not convinced that this power should rest with an unelected public official, albeit someone of the standing of the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. This is a concern that was shared by the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry, Ian Macdonald, who, in the public hearing into this bill said that he felt 'uncomfortable with this power resting with the secretary'. Labor is strongly of the view that the minister should be personally responsible and accountable for any decision to protect from disclosure any additional information that should be covered by this legislation, and which is certainly not covered by the definition. If they are going to add additional information, it should be the minister and not an unelected secretary of the department.

Labor anticipates that the minister will move an amendment to the legislation before the House today to transfer this responsibility from the secretary to the minister, and Labor will support that amendment. This is not a decision that should be delegated to the department. Labor supports transparency and accountability in immigration and border protection decision-making. The minister should always be accountable and willing to justify any decision to protect from disclosure additional immigration and border protection information.

Part 1 of schedule 1 of the bill will have a retrospective application backdated to 1 July 2015 which should give some comfort to stakeholders and advocates who have spoken about the Turnbull government's failure to manage the immigration and border protection portfolio. This clarifies that only information that would cause identifiable harm if disclosed is to be protected under the ABF Act. The new narrower definition of immigration and border protection information will, I think, reassure individuals who may otherwise erroneously believe that they have committed an offence. I also note that there have been no prosecutions under the current ABF Act for release of protected information. The ABF Act also makes amendments to the Customs legislation and other types of legislation.

Unlike the current government in their failures to consult or welcome scrutiny, Labor will always consult with relevant stakeholders, advocates, experts and others when developing policy and legislation, given the potential legislative impact those changes may have on people. With that in mind, we referred this particular bill to a Senate inquiry in relation to it. The Senate inquiry is due to report on 12 September, before the Senate looks at it but after the House will deal with this legislation. Whilst awaiting the final report, we note the 13 submissions that have been received by that Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. A public hearing was held last Friday.

Submissions made to the Senate inquiry generally welcomed the proposed amendments to the ABF Act to narrow the scope of information which could be protected and to offer greater clarity about the types of information that can be publicly disclosed. The Refugee Advice and Casework Service, commonly known as RACS, confirmed in their submission their support for the bill and said that the bill:

… would bring a greater degree of transparency to the immigration detention system.

The submission also said:

By substituting 'protected information' with 'Immigration and Border Protection Information', the Bill decriminalises the disclosure of a range of information that may be crucial for avoiding harm.

The Law Council of Australia stated in its submission that it:

… welcomes any attempt at ameliorating the secrecy provisions in the Act in order to address concerns over the encroachments on freedom of speech.

The Human Rights Commission expressed a view that the proposed amendments are better than the current ABF Act, stating:

When compared to the current law, it strikes a better balance between recognising the need to protect sensitive government information and the importance of allowing legitimate public scrutiny.

Additionally, during the public hearing on Friday, 8 September, Doctors for Refugees provided testimony stating their support for the intent of the bill, despite serious reservation about the provision of health care provided to asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru. This includes the willingness of Australian based medical practitioners to speak out about the availability and provision of medical care.

I note concerns raised by submitters, including concerns as to the power of the secretary of the department, as I referred to before, and the processes of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in marking information with appropriate security classifications; and questions as to why the department would have the need to protect the information. In particular, I draw the House's attention to a submission made by the Australian Information Commissioner which recommends:

… that the Department undertake a Privacy Impact Assessment … on this proposed change if one has not been undertaken.

During the public hearing on this bill, the department confirmed that, in preparing this bill, they did not undertake a privacy impact assessment. This is despite the Information Commissioner, in his submission, arguing:

Conducting a PIA would assist in identifying any privacy impacts associated with the handling of the relevant personal information due to the change in definition.

According to the commissioner, a privacy impact statement would also:

… provide an opportunity to undertake proactive steps to mitigate any potential impacts.

I urge the government to undertake such steps in the future.

Regrettably, the Australian public is all too aware of the failings of this government with respect to the operation of the Immigration and Border Force portfolio. The failures are not different. As in other areas of health and education, there has been report after report from the Auditor-General in relation to the dismal handling of this portfolio in terms of offshore processing and the mismanagement of the department by the current minister and the previous minister. There has been mismanagement of offshore processing and of welfare and garrison support contracts, the subject of two scathing ANAO reports. The government sat on its hands as to negotiating third-country arrangements, particularly for Australian-funded offshore processing centres.

We support the US refugee resettlement deal. We want all eligible refugees to have the opportunity to resettle, including refugees who are currently in Australia for ongoing medical treatment. The government seem to have put all their eggs in one basket with the US resettlement deal, and we urge them to look elsewhere for other third-country arrangements. We have consistently called on the government—in the interests of accountability and transparency, on which they seem to have had a change of heart here—to release details of the US refugee agreement and any side agreement they had in relation to the Costa Rica arrangements. The government have come to the party here. They've made changes in terms of protected information. We urge them to show the same degree of transparency and accountability on the US refugee resettlement deal and the Costa Rica arrangements that the current Prime Minister came to with then President Obama.

We want refugees off Manus and Nauru and into third countries as soon as possible, but we will hold the government to account in terms of transparency in the onshore as well as the offshore immigration system. When it comes to their handling of this, the minister and the secretary of the department should always be able to account for and should account for inaction. And that's what happened. The subject of this legislation before the chamber was looked at by the Senate inquiry which I referred to earlier. In September 2016, Labor initiated that inquiry because of the failure of the Turnbull government to act on serious allegations raised in the Nauru files aired by The Guardian. The chair's report, conclusions and recommendations from that Senate inquiry were handed down on 21 April this year. It's been 155 days and counting of complete and utter inaction on those recommendations. During those 155 days, we've seen more and more examples of failure by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to manage his secretary and the department

It seems to me that a 'tick and flick' approach is simply not good enough. I saw that exposed last week with reports that about 2,000 departmental staff were overpaid for leave, and this went unnoticed by the minister for immigration for two years. The minister blamed a systems error for the overpayments while forcing staff into an inflexible repayment scheme owing to his own failure to manage the department. This occurred while morale within the department is said to have collapsed and workers and their representatives, the unions, are still locked in a dispute with the Turnbull government over pay and conditions that's lasted for four years.

Labor is increasingly concerned about the Turnbull government's failure to manage offshore processing centres and to treat asylum seekers fairly and with dignity. Recently the immigration minister callously cut financial support and housing for asylum seekers transferred from Manus Island and Nauru for medical treatment. There are up to 400 people, potentially, who could be caught up in this decision. The cuts began without warning two weeks ago. In the interests of transparency and accountability and in the spirit of this particular legislation that we've got today, we ask the government not to purposely make people destitute and homeless. The government can only exacerbate health conditions of asylum seekers who were originally transferred to Australia for treatment. The immigration minister has completely failed to make a case as to why these people haven't been allowed to apply for resettlement in the United States while receiving medical treatment in Australia. The long-term issue of these people being in Australia could have been avoided entirely if these eligible refugees had been allowed to apply to be resettled as part of the US refugee resettlement arrangement whilst still living in Australia, as recommended by that Senate inquiry I've referred to.

Labor is committed to holding the government to account and to increasing transparency in onshore immigration detention and offshore immigration processing. The bill before the House today eases some of our concerns in relation to these issues, but it's simply not good enough. The government needs to do better—certainly in terms of the provision of medical care to refugees who need it on Manus and Nauru. There've been a number of medical reports of asylum seekers and refugees in regional processing centres experiencing significant delays in the medical transfer process or having their recommended procedures being unavailable on Manus and Nauru. I wrote to the immigration minister to seek an assurance that medical transfers would be available when recommended by medical professionals, including women's rights to reproductive assistance. My letter drew the attention of the minister to recommendations 1 and 2 of that Senate inquiry. I will read them for the record. Recommendation 1 is:

The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, as a matter of urgency, commission an external review of its medical transfer procedures in offshore processing centres.

Recommendation 2 is:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake to seek advice in relation to whether improvements are required to the medical treatment options available to asylum seekers and refugees in the Republic of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, particularly mental health services.

Today I again remind the House that the Turnbull government has yet to respond to these recommendations, and I urge the minister to respond to the Senate recommendations and to read the report and act on those recommendations.

Pending an anticipated amendment, Labor will support the bill before the House. Labor is committed to improving transparency and accountability, and we want to make sure that appropriate information is protected but that there be adequate disclosure provisions there. It's critical to the trust Australians have in the integrity of our immigration and border protection policies. Given this, we would welcome the amendments we anticipate today, including the narrowing of the definition of information that is protected from disclosure. We will continue to hold the government to account, and I urge the government to respond to the Nauru files Senate inquiry's recommendations and to my letter as soon as possible.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017. I welcome it alongside the legal, medical and aid organisations and an organisation in my own community, the Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group, who are looking forward to the improvements it will bring to existing law relating to the transparency that we have in Australia's offshore detention system.

As a former journalist, I've been particularly concerned with the Turnbull government's lack of transparency in the operation of offshore detention centres. My community has always been an extremely outspoken one when it comes to issues of refugees and asylum seekers. I've received hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of letters protesting not only the conditions of Australia's offshore detention centres but also the secrecy that the Australian offshore detention regime has been shrouded in.

I'm pleased to see that this parliament is taking bipartisan steps—albeit modest ones, by the Law Council's assessment—towards ensuring that Australians know what is happening in offshore detention, that refugees and asylum seekers are afforded freedom of political communication in line with the common and international law that we operate under and that individuals working on Manus and Nauru are able to more freely speak about what they see. This bill tangibly means that individuals who've been involved in Australia's offshore detention system as contractors or employees of the DIBP, such as Save the Children, social workers, psychologists, doctors and lawyers, will generally be able to speak more freely about their experiences and what they've seen with less fear of prosecution.

The bill narrows the type of information which, if recorded or disclosed, would make a person liable to prosecution under section 42 of the act. It repeals a very broad phrase, 'protected information', and gives a more precise and specific definition. For instance, it defines that 'information the disclosure of which would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia'—such as high-level data and information on human trafficking exchanged with other countries—is covered. It specifies that information 'which would or could reasonably expected to cause competitive detriment to a person', including commercially sensitive information about commercial entities, such as names of suppliers or prices paid for goods, is now defined.

This bill begins to stop the government's total suppression of so-called whistleblowers and staff speaking out about Australia's offshore detention regime, and that is a good thing. The Chairperson of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, Malcolm Evans, said:

This is why we think independent monitoring is so important—transparency is one of the greatest protections here. Where there's a lack of transparency, naturally there will be concerns things are not as they ought.

As a former reporter, I would say transparency is vital, and this is a good step at improving the level of transparency in offshore detention. Under the current legislation, you can't guarantee that whistleblowers would have been spared from retaliation. I'm particularly pleased that the bill has a retrospective commencement date, meaning that those who've spoken out in the past may well fall under the concessions in this bill.

The Turnbull government's mismanagement of offshore processing centres and welfare and support contracts has been the subject of two scathing Australian National Audit Office reports, so, clearly, greater transparency is very welcome. My community was outraged, rightly so, at the release of the Nauru files, where 26 former Save the Children workers on Manus and Nauru detailed what they saw and described allegations of sexual assault and self-harm in the Nauru detention centre. One of the workers stated:

You feel you can't talk about it even though you know you should talk about it.

The files, which the government shrouded in secrecy, included reports of genital mutilation against young women, people sewing their lips shut, self-immolation, sexual violence and gross mishandling of incidents by private contractors.

In September 2016, Labor initiated a Senate inquiry to investigate these allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect, because the Turnbull government had failed to act. The government's total inaction for the past 3½ months on the chair's report conclusions and recommendations is extremely disappointing. Let's remember the Australian Border Force Act has previously been used by the Abbott government to attempt to prosecute Save the Children staff after they revealed serious allegations of abuse of women and children. In future, with this amendment, I hope this means that can't happen again.

In looking at the bill before us today, I note that in total, there were 13 submissions to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Senate inquiry into the bill, generally welcoming the amendments to narrow the scope of information which should be protected and offer greater clarity about the types of information that can be publicly disclosed, a belated step but certainly a step in the right direction.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the anticipated amendment that has been foreshadowed by the shadow minister—that is, the minister, not the secretary of the department, should have the power to prescribe which information is protected. It should certainly be the case that the minister should be personally responsible and accountable for any decision to protect from disclosure any additional immigration and border protection information not already covered by the definition. We certainly look forward to that amendment being moved and we would support that amendment.

Having said those things about the bill, there are other things that this issue raises. We must not forget that this government has systematically maligned asylum seekers and refugees and mismanaged offshore processing in Manus Island and Nauru. Whether we liked it or not at the time Manus Island and Nauru were set up as regional transit processing facilities. They were never meant to be what they've become, a place of indefinite detention, because the government failed to secure third-country resettlement options. No-one in this chamber can possibly feel that people should still be on Nauru and Manus Island four years on. The Prime Minister and immigration minister should be exploring every possible alternative.

I note that New Zealand Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern, will renew the country's offer to take refugees from Manus Island if she is successful in the election later this month. It is not enough to assume that the US agreement is the sole answer, but this minister has tried to shirk responsibility wherever he can. This is, after all, the minister who said that Australia is 'not responsible' for the hundreds of asylum seekers on Manus Island after the Papua New Guinea's Supreme Court ruled that the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island is illegal. The minister needs to listen to the UNHCR, which last month said that PNG and Nauru remain unsuitable as places of resettlement, not least because of the lack of medical and psychological services. In fact, it is the provision of medical services that goes to the heart of the concerns my community raises with me—the impact that indefinite detention is having on people. The Blue Mountains branch of Grandmothers Against Detention of Refugee Children have been extremely vocal in fighting for fairness and humanity in our offshore detention centre, as have Justice For Children. I have with me a petition of more than 600 signatures that has gone to the Prime Minister, collected mainly in the Blue Mountains, but from as far afield as Dubbo and Bondi. These grandmothers remind the government that we are signatories to international agreements which need to be respected.

Another group in my electorate wanting to see more humane treatment of people is the Uniting Church. Members of the Springwood Uniting Church last week sent me a petition addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, expressing their outrage at the minister's decision to withdraw income and accommodation support from up to 370 babies, children, women and male asylum seekers brought to Australia from Nauru and Manus Island on medical grounds. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our community, with more than 20 of the women victims of sexual assault. The minister is making their struggle and their recovery worse by now impoverishing them and making them destitute and homeless. The government's decision to cut financial support and housing to these asylum seekers is a new low, even for them. By purposefully making people destitute, making them homeless, the Turnbull government can only be exacerbating the very health conditions they were originally transferred to Australia to be treated for. I can't fathom why these same people have not been allowed to apply for resettlement in the US. why have they deliberately being excluded from that agreement? The minister has failed to really explain why.

I encourage the congregation of Springwood Uniting to keep raising issues like these. The Blue Mountains branches of GetUp! and Amnesty International have also communicated their concerns and have joined the chorus of almost a thousand of my constituents who have taken the time to personally contact me about the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. In fact, the only other issue that has garnered more correspondence in my electorate is the government's mishandling of the National Broadband Network—that speaks volumes for how appalled so many in the community are.

People and groups in my community, such as the Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group, have been at the forefront of providing assistance to asylum seekers and refugees arriving in Australia. They welcome this amendment to the Australian Border Force Act. The Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group is a group made up of grassroots members of my community who provide practical assistance to those in detention at Villawood and those who are released from detention. They provide financial support to asylum seekers and refugees in our community. They find employment for asylum seekers and they help them find homes. When people are given work rights they often get a job through the Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group. They rely on the goodwill of people in the community to assist them to furnish the homes that they find. They provide English lessons and tutors, and they provide friendship and support for a group of people who are often demonised and isolated. They provide lifts to medical appointments, they help them navigate complex government bureaucracy and much more.

There is also a refugee cricket team, Oceans 12. One of their matches earlier this year was on Anzac Day, with the Navy cricket team. The comment from the captain of Oceans 12 was that it was strange to be playing cricket against a Defence Force team as most of the players were more used to being afraid of defence forces in their own countries rather than being seen as equals. This is the sort of community building that the Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group does, and I'm proud to be a member of it. I will always consult them about amendments to bills and gauge their response.

The Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group has welcomed this bill as a good first step in increasing transparency in Australia's offshore detention system. They will continue to fight for fair and humane treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, and I will stand alongside them.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the comments from the member for Macquarie and thank her for the work that she is doing in this parliament. The purpose of the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 is to introduce amendments to the 2015 Australian Border Force Act, legislation that sought to stop the unauthorised disclosure of information that could harm the national or public interest.

I support this bill. The minister and, in turn, the government are showing that they are listening to the concerns raised by the community and by professionals working in the sector. And they have responded in a positive way to those concerns by addressing the problems raised. I acknowledge the work of the government in doing this and say thank you.

However, there are still problem areas, and I ask the minister and the government to bring this same approach to the issues raised in a number of submissions made to the recent Senate inquiry. These issues include that the power to make a legislative instrument should rest with the minister, rather than with the department secretary. I understand that we'll have an amendment to that effect shortly. I note that the government is this afternoon circulating further amendments to the bill, and that these amendments will provide for the minister to make this legislative instrument; I acknowledge that.

There are other recommendations that new provisions and powers introduced in the bill could be used in a way that negates this purpose of distinguishing between information that does or does not need to be kept secret. There is also a provision for an external or independent arbitrator for complaints and breaches of offshore and onshore operations. Later in this speech I will share with this parliament some of the emails from my constituents responding to the pending closure of the regional processing centre in Manus Island in October, and particularly in response to the government's announcement of new visa conditions for those asylum seekers who have been brought to Australia and have been living in the community.

But first I would like to talk briefly to some of the work of Save the Children Australia. They made a number of submissions to the inquiry. Save the Children consider this bill a step in the right direction in decriminalising certain public interest disclosures pertaining to immigration regulation. Save the Children was contracted by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection from August 2013 to October 2015 to provide education, recreation, child protection and welfare services to asylum seekers and refugees in Nauru. In the course of providing these services, Save the Children and its employees were subject to the Australian Border Force Act as well as other legislation, such as section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, that criminalise certain disclosures by those contracted to government.

Save the Children Australia welcomes proposed amendments to the act to allow for lawful disclosure of information in the public interest in Australia. It says it is appropriate for the government to extend confidentiality requirements to organisations contracted to provide services on its behalf. It notes the need for a careful balance between the maintenance of confidential information on the one hand and disclosures where the public interest demand it on the other.

Save the Children Australia's note of caution is that the bill introduces some new powers and provisions that could be used in a way that negates their stated purpose of distinguishing between information that does and does not need to be kept secret for legitimate governmental reasons. In particular, it says the delegation of power to the departmental secretary to make an instrument should rest with the minister instead. It argues this broad discretion should be used to prevent the lawful disclosure of a wide range of information, so I welcome the minister's attention to that.

I also refer to the submission made by Rural Australians for Refugees—RAR. Rural Australians for Refugees is a network of groups. They describe themselves as 'everyday people throughout regional Australia aiming to bring about change to the way Australia treats refugees and those seeking asylum'. RAR was formed in 2001 and currently consists of more than 70 groups across all the states and territories. Groups develop activities that suit the strengths of their members and their communities. Some are focused on providing support to newly arrived refugees, as the member for Macquarie has just outlined. Some have chosen community education and awareness programs, while others advocate their concerns to government and the public. Many of the groups do all three.

The RAR national president, Marie Sellstrom, is from Mansfield in my electorate. Indeed, there is a strong connection between Indi and the RAR national executive, with the vice president, Ruth Fluhr, coming from the Strathbogie Tableland in North-East Victoria and the secretary, Penny Egan-Vine, coming from Albury-Wodonga. I meet with representatives from local RAR branches and associated networks in Indi on a regular basis, including the convenor of the north-east refugee support network, Freida Andrews, of Benalla, and I thank them all for their ongoing work and representations to my office on behalf of their communities. They are a voice of conscience in my electorate. They call for better communication from the government and immigration authorities. They call for mercy for those who find themselves in such an untenable situation as to need to ask for asylum.

Network members will make a visit to Canberra later this year to plead their case for the support of refugees, and discuss how regional communities can provide their support. I also note that executive members of Rural Australians for Refugees will be in Canberra at Parliament House later this week, and I will be meeting with Marie Sellstrom and RAR national treasurer, Margaret Rasa, on Wednesday morning.

Since its inception, RAR members have been increasingly concerned about what they perceive to be a retraction and diminution of accountability by government in the operation of refugees and asylum policies. They note that over the past 15 years members' legitimate questions have been ignored or met with obstruction and/or outright obfuscation in the name of 'security' or 'privacy' or 'client confidentiality' or 'commercial in confidence'. RAR members have also noted an unwillingness on the part of government to account to taxpayers and the ongoing lack of transparency in response to legitimate questions about the conduct and the costs of private contractors. Why do legitimate questions and attempts to obtain information and access sometimes meet with attack?

RAR says it fully supports the need for special and heightened arrangements to protect Australia's security; however, it does not support the merging of security and secrecy as a means of avoiding security of routine and non-sensitive operational and administrative arrangements. RAR argues that the same standards of accountability that apply generally to the government within our democracy should apply to the operations of refugee and asylum policy.

RAR welcomes the government's amendments to the Australian Border Force Act that it says will remove elements unduly constraining democratic access. RAR seeks a strong amendment that would objectively and specifically support improved capacity for external security of Border Force operations. It suggests specific provision for an external and independent arbitrator for complaints and breaches about the onshore and offshore operations conducted by Australian Border Force. RAR also calls for the removal of the special clause providing protection of commercial interests, believing this consideration is unnecessary and instead may lead to perceptions that Border Force operations belong outside of or above normal government commercial arrangements.

I join with both Save the Children and RAR in supporting the amendments before the House tonight. I welcome greater transparency and accountability in an area that, for too long, has been shrouded in secrecy. It is this secrecy and the lack of information about the treatment of asylum seekers that my constituents find so distressing—and, as a member of parliament, I too find it distressing. I have spoken previously about how important our laws are, but equally important is recognition that we are a compassionate nation and that we show mercy to those in the most dire of circumstances. Tonight, I call upon the government to show this mercy to the most vulnerable asylum seekers caught up in the crackdown on those who have been brought to Australia from Manus Island and Nauru. The government tells us this is a simple policy designed to stop government payments going to those who don't need them. It says these individuals, assessed on a case-by-case basis by the department, are now on a final departure bridging visa with work rights. I am told it applies only to those well enough to live in the community. But I have had dozens—more than dozens—of emails from constituents who say these asylum seekers and refugees face increasing despair and destitution, as the government attempts to force them back to Manus, Nauru or where they have fled from.

I continue to receive feedback from constituents concerned about the closure of Manus Island's regional processing centre at the end of October. To bring one particular example to light, Jill Morton of Bright, who visited Manus and Port Moresby in March, writes: 'Someone needs to stop Australia from dumping these men in PNG. It has become much more unsafe.' She also refers to the recent visit by Senator Nick McKim, and his social media post highlighting the growing number of detainees being transferred from Manus Island to Port Moresby with the understanding that they will not be returned to the detention centre and will be stuck in Port Moresby.

Two of my constituents are regular visitors to those detained at the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation at Broadmeadows. I specifically refer to Marg and Delfina. They have recently taken fresh fruit to detainees—fresh fruit. From today, 11 September, a new set of guidelines prohibits this. The department says the new rules aim to reduce the risk associated with visitors bringing in food that could compromise safety, security and good order of the immigration facilities. Food must be commercially packaged. It must be consumed during the visiting period and any leftover food must be disposed of at the end of the visit. No-one disagrees with the need for rules, but surely those rules are absolutely extreme. My constituent Marg asks: 'Why is this being done? It appears to be another cruel twist in how these people are being treated.' I agree. I ask the government representative at the table to particularly investigate those rules, follow them through and see if we can do something about making sure fresh food is able to be eaten, distributed and kept.

I am heartened, I have to say, by a response in my electorate from the work of the Northern Victoria Refugee Support Network, who have prepared a submission to the inquiry into regional development and decentralisation. They provide arguments, supported by evidence, for decentralising detention, establishing processing centres in rural and regional Australia, developing a coordinated control agency at a statewide level, locating it in a region or a regional area, and successfully integrating refugee communities into rural and regional areas. There's such willingness, there's such a want, and there are such good case studies of refugees coming to rural and regional Australia.

I look forward to continuing to see my community putting their hands up to be part of the solution, and I will not let this issue go. My community will not allow me to let it go. We need to do better, and we must do better. Time is of the essence. I am very pleased that this legislation shows the government has the capacity to change and to do things better. My constituents are telling me that parliament must show leadership. We must represent our regional and rural communities around Australia, and we must bring to parliament their voices, saying: 'Can we demonstrate compassion and support? Can we show how refugee communities can be successfully integrated to build stronger, more resilient communities, particularly in rural areas?'

In closing, I will continue to advocate for a compassionate and sustainable response by this parliament. In November last year I brought a similar speech to a conclusion by quoting Pope Francis, who noted, 'Frightened citizens build walls on one side and exclude people on the other.' This is not the time for fear and punishment. It is the time for mercy, courage and justice.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to follow on from the member for Indi and thank her for her contribution in this debate. The support for the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 is broad across the parliament because everybody is concerned about making sure that we are a country that accepts people on the legitimacy of their refugee application and that everybody is treated in a just way.

The provisions included in this bill that narrow the provisions in the Australian Border Force Act are extremely important in making sure that we get the measures in the law necessary to protect people—particularly vulnerable people at vulnerable stages of life, held in custody or detention by Australian agencies or offshore—and that the policy intent of the provisions set out in the original act are fully realised. They do this by narrowing the provisions to ensure that there are protections and that secrecy or privacy of individuals who are detained is properly protected. But at the same time—as I have raised in a previous public capacity—it is to ensure that information that should be available in the public sphere, particularly around the protection of people and if there are issues around criminal behaviour against individuals, can be properly reported as part of a process to make sure the government, no matter who is in charge and no matter what instrument it is, can be held properly to account.

The provisions in this piece of legislation are relatively straightforward. They narrow the basis of the provisions within sections of the existing act to make sure that it is focused primarily on immigration and border protection information rather than simply protected information, particularly around the conduct of entrusted persons. I think everybody in this place would agree with the broad thrust and focus of this bill for that reason, because it seeks to achieve the original intention of the legislation, rather than going off and doing something different, and to address the concerns that many Australians have and have had in the past. These concerns can now be addressed by narrowing the scope and definition within the legislation.

It fits within a much broader package of making sure that this government and this nation meet their expectations and responsibilities around making sure we treat in a fair and just manner people who are seeking protection as a consequence of facing persecution elsewhere in the world. We face a difficult challenge as a consequence of people seeking asylum in Australia, particularly when they arrive through means that aren't the traditional routes recommended to us by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have to maintain and protect a clear and consistent approach, which allows people to be accepted on the basis of their need and the legitimacy of their application, not on the method or means for their arrival into Australia. At different stages that has been, broadly speaking, a bipartisan approach.

I understand that at the moment the opposition is continuing to support the government. At other points in recent past they have not done so. I hope they continue to do so, because it is in the best interests of Australians and also because it is in the best interests of those people seeking protection. It is so that they know the direct, honest and straightforward pathway to make it into Australia, rather than trying to circumvent processes to get into Australia by other means.

Having spent a lot of time in detention centres as well as refugee camps across the world, I have seen the very real and human consequences of what happens when people seek to arrive in another country through processes and means that may not be consistent with the country that they are seeking to enter, and with which they are prepared to accept. In the end, there are millions of people all around the world who are either displaced or seeking refugee protection as a consequence of the circumstances outside of their control.

We are one of many countries that takes this issue very seriously. There is a need to be able to provide people with protection as a consequence of those circumstances. We need to have a process and a system that people have confidence in. In countries, particularly in countries like ours, they need to have confidence that people are being accepted on the basis of need and the very real risk of persecution, rather than simply the way they self-identify or make their means or process to get to the country. It must be a just system to continue to preserve confidence so that we can accept people into Australia as refugees. This simple bill around refining the content and the detail within the Australian Border Force Act seeks to achieve that.

To follow on from the previous member, I've also had a number of constituents who have continued to raise concerns with me around the operation of Manus Island and the Nauru detention centre and around the conditions that people face. They aim to make sure that they are treated in a fair and just manner. I consistently raise those issues, both in my former capacity and in my current capacity, to make sure people are treated with dignity and respect. I want to stress to all the constituents of the good electorate of Goldstein that this is something that is very much at the fore of the government's mind: making sure that people are treated with dignity and respect, and, in addition, making sure their time in detention is reduced.

That is why the deal with the United States, to get people off Manus Island and Nauru, has been secured: to try and minimise the time people are held in offshore detention. Those people are able to move on with their lives. It's obviously in their interests, because it gives them the opportunity to realise what they were always seeking—to live a life free from persecution—and then to be able to go on and do it in an environment where they are able to live out their hopes and their dreams. This provides the opportunity for the formation of a family and to be able to secure work and opportunity. That should always be the objective when people are facing persecution: not just to protect them and make them safe but to provide them with foundations and opportunity for them to be able to get on with their lives, as we would hope for our fellow citizens.

This has been a long and difficult process, but it continues to be the objective of this government. In addition, it is very much in our national interest to do so. While we are being very supportive and generous to tens of thousands of people who come to Australia as refugees by providing them with support and assistance, there is no national interest on our part in holding people in detention any longer than necessary. When it comes down to it, we need people to move on with their lives as part of the package to maintain a strong protection for border security that the Australian people and the government have confidence in. We equally want people who are in detention centres to spend as little time there as possible. It's obviously financially beneficial to everybody but, more importantly, it's about people being able to move on with their lives.

If there are problems associated with that, we must be free, within the context and while respecting the privacy of individual people, to provide information that's appropriate in the public domain, because the government always needs to be held to account. As someone who has had a longstanding advocacy in this space, as well as holding government to account more generally, I am always cautious about any measure that limits the capacity for information to be reported about government. That's not a partisan point, whether the Liberals, Labor or anyone else is in office. That's a point of principle—in fact, it goes to one of the core reasons I am a Liberal. Whenever you have centralised power, no matter who is in the position to exercise it, we pose the risk that people may choose to limit the information that is freely available to the advancement and the protection of the interests of those in positions of power and responsibility. In many cases, that's at the core of why people flee from countries—because they experience persecution in the first place. That's why this bill and this provision seeks to clarify what has been longstanding practice under the existing bill—to clarify it for everybody so it will continue to operate into the future.

The Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 is one that seeks to be a realisation of government aspiration and policy around refugees, and at the same time makes sure that government can be appropriately held to account for its conduct, no matter who is in office, so that all Australians can look to their government with confidence that they are doing the best, the noble and the humanitarian thing.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Goldstein in this debate on the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017. National security—the defence of a nation's borders and the protection of its citizens—has been a core responsibility of sovereign governments since the rise of nation states. Even earlier, the protection of peoples and the resources that sustained them was a cornerstone responsibility for those forms of government that preceded the modern state. And so it remains for the Turnbull government—this national government—in this extraordinary era of sweeping change and global turbulence.

Today, the task of maintaining our national security is even more complex and more demanding of vigilance and specialist skills than ever before. There are more people on the move right now, globally, across national borders, searching for everything from permanent resettlement either with or without controlled parameters to travel for brief periods for business, for pleasure and maybe even for mischief, than at any other time in human history. Technological change is speeding up every aspect of that intermingling, together with the immense tensions it creates. This is one of the great global challenges of the 21st century, and we have to keep up. We have to be prepared and we have to ensure that, as new challenges emerge, we are alert enough and flexible enough to reorganise and refine our capability and systems to keep Australia safe.

That's why this bill, the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017, is before the House today. It is also why the Turnbull government is undertaking the most significant reform of Australia's national intelligence and domestic security arrangements in 40 years, as announced by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice just two months ago, following a review of Australia's intelligence community ordered by the Prime Minister only last year. This review is a big part of that process of keeping up with an ever-changing security landscape and is so desperately important if we are to take the protection of our citizens and defence of our way of life seriously as a first priority.

The review highlighted how changing security threats and technologies are driving the need for closer cooperation and improved vigilance between and by our domestic security and law enforcement agencies, against a backdrop, it needs to be emphasised, of stellar performance from all of those agencies to date in maintaining our national security. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have successfully intercepted 12 imminent terrorist risks since September 2014. Operation Sovereign Borders has prevented successful people-smuggling ventures for nearly three years. Yet the government remains deeply mindful of the need to reorganise and to refine our efforts whenever compelling advice suggests it is needed to maintain our security at levels that meet the needs and expectations of Australians. Another major result of that review has been the decision to establish an Office of National Intelligence and to transform the Australian Signals Directorate into a statutory agency within the Defence portfolio.

The government will also, as part of the same batch of reforms, establish a home affairs portfolio—a portfolio of immigration, border protection and domestic security and law enforcement agencies—such that there will be an effective federation of agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.

Earlier in the year, in the May budget, the government announced a program worth nearly $60 million to enhance technology that stores biometric data—involving, especially, facial recognition and fingerprints—so that security at points of entry to Australia, especially at our international airports is enhanced. This is crucial national security work, given that an extraordinary 700,000 people arrive in and depart from Australia every week. Yet another major investment is almost $100 million, announced in the 2016 budget, to enhance, again principally through investment in technology, our visa application processes to provide us with enhanced risk assessment of applicants.

A major and very important challenge in this ongoing and evolving effort to keep the country safe is, of course, to ensure that measures are fair and reasonable in their impact and application on the vast majority of decent, honest, law-abiding people. People who cherish the rule of law and the rights we all enjoy, people who hope to enjoy those rights and freedoms by joining our Australian community or people simply visiting Australia from overseas for legitimate business or pleasure—they all deserve to be treated civilly and fairly by our laws and those who enforce them. This is a finely tuned and seriously considered balancing act, where individual freedoms are respected while at the same time our national security regime is robust, innovative and capable, and as comprehensively alert to all threats as it can be.

Information gathering by our security agencies—from individuals, from industry, from other sectors of government, from foreign agencies, from partners—to ensure mutual national security is obviously a key factor, a central factor, in enabling those agencies to keep us safe. Some of that information is highly sensitive and must be carefully managed. We have to ensure that it is only used or disclosed for legitimate purposes. The danger inherent in the mishandling or the leaking of information with the potential for significant damage to our national security, public safety and law enforcement is obvious. In the act being amended here, the penalty for that sort of breach was two years in prison.

On a more personal level, individuals can obviously suffer serious detriment where personal and sensitive information is inappropriately disclosed. Other information may be less sensitive and more appropriate to disclose in an open, democratic society while at the same time we deal effectively with critical threats. The Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 clarifies the secrecy and disclosure provisions in the Australian Border Protection Act 2015 with retrospective application to reflect the policy intent of those provisions which was, and is, to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information that could cause harm to the national or public interest—what is known as 'identifiable harm'. The bill makes clear that the definition of information to be protected includes only certain kinds of information such as that relating to the security, defence and international relations of Australia; the prevention, detection and investigation of offences; the protection of public health and safety; or sensitive personal and commercial matters. This narrowing of the definition with retrospectivity will reassure individuals who may otherwise erroneously believe they have committed an offence.

The bill maintains provisions making it an offence to record or disclose information obtained by a person in their capacity as an entrusted person. That includes people employed by the department either directly or via some form of contracted service. The unauthorised disclosure of information by these people will continue to be punishable by two years imprisonment.

These provisions were originally adapted from the model in place for the former Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, which were reflected in the Customs Administration Act 1985, but that model has not kept pace with developments that have so deeply influenced the increasingly complex and interconnected world we now live in. There was no internet then. Terrorism existed, but on nowhere near the scale that we see today. Freedom of rapid movement around the globe, especially of air travel, was in its relative infancy, given the vast numbers travelling today. There were millions of refugees, but their numbers were nowhere close to those of today, which measure in the tens of millions—managing that flood has been a significant border security issue here and for many other countries and, indeed, whole continents around the world. It was certainly a very different world in 1985.

These provisions are reasonable, necessary and proportionate for providing assurance to the Australian public, to business, to industry and to government partners in Australia and abroad that information provided to Australian authorities will be appropriately handled, to ensure a strong border protection regime. That is in the interest of all Australians and it is also in the interest of the many visitors to our shores. It is for that reason that I am happy to commend the bill to the House.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to sum up the bill and, in doing so, note and thank members on both sides for their contributions. I acknowledge the shadow minister for immigration and border protection, Mr Neumann, who has joined me at the table, and his contribution to the debate.

The Australian Border Force Act 2015 provides an important regime in administering the secrecy and disclosure of information set out in part 6. The Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 clarifies part 6 and related provisions to reflect the original intent of the legislation, which was to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information that could cause harm to the national or public interest. The aim of the measure in this bill is to ensure that immigration and border protection information is provided with the necessary level of protection in a targeted manner but also is able to be disclosed went it is appropriate to do so. This bill provides assurances for the Australian public, business, government and foreign partners that sensitive information provided to the department of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will be appropriately protected without unnecessarily restricting informed public debate. The retrospective application of the bill, back to the date of the Australian Border Force Act that was enacted in 2015, will provide the necessary certainty that only information which would harm the national public interest if disclosed is to be protected and will be regarded as ever having been protected under the ABF Act.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.