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

I continue my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 from where I left off the other night. I was making the point that the measures in this bill are not limited to the worst of the section 501 visa cancellations but that they apply to all persons in detention, including asylum seekers and visa overstayers, most of whom have not committed any serious criminal offences and who present no threat to Australian society whatsoever. They apply to people like the family from Biloela—a Sri Lankan mother, father and two young children—who have been kept on Christmas Island for the past year, at a cost to the taxpayer of millions of dollars, after having been for six or seven years good members of the Australian community where they lived and whose only crime is that they want to stay in Australia. Whether they should be allowed to stay in Australia is not the issue—there are legal processes in place that would determine that—but keeping them isolated on Christmas Island and reopening the detention facility solely for that family is neither reasonable, necessary nor proportionate to the risk they pose. It's an abuse of authority by the minister and a good example of why the minister should not be granted additional, unaccountable powers.

The minister and detention facility operators already have search and seizure powers to deal with the examples of contraband and illegal products used by the government to justify this legislation. Most of the things that the government wants to ban or confiscate are already illegal—the minister has actually used that term—and, as such, would be covered by existing state or federal laws. So it is clear that this legislation is primarily about targeting phones, which officers currently cannot confiscate and which some detainees allegedly use for illegal purposes and criminal activities. If phones are being used for criminal activity, I believe that authorities would already have the ability to confiscate them. Notwithstanding whether that is the case, I have no objection to ensuring that that particular ability is made absolutely clear. However, we know that there are very different cohorts of people being held in detention facilities and, once legislated, the rules about confiscation of items will apply to all detainees, who will be subjected to the discretion of the minister, administrators and staff of detention facilities. That in itself is unsatisfactory. Staff and officers of these centres are effectively being given greater authority than that of trained and sworn police officers.

Secondly, those who have had items, including phones, confiscated will inevitably persuade or force other, vulnerable detainees who have not had their items confiscated to hand over or share the items they need. So, in reality, other detainees will be put at risk unless they are kept separate from the high-risk detainees. I don't know whether that is going to be the case or not, but it is a serious concern because, if they are put under pressure by those who have had their phones and other items taken away from them, it will mean not only that their own safety cannot be secured but that they may in turn be forced to do things which will be detrimental to their applications to stay here.

Thirdly, for many asylum seekers their phone has become their only connection with their family, lawyers and others. The rate of mental trauma in detention facilities is already at a shameful level. There have been numerous reports over the years that have confirmed that that is the case. The reason for detaining these people is very different to that for detaining criminals. Confiscating their phones would be disastrous. In today's society, mobile phones are no longer a luxury. I can't imagine any adult wandering around this country who doesn't have a mobile phone. It has become literally a necessity of life, and it is equally so for detainees, particularly for those who have very little connection in this country but who have made some kind of effort to come here. Whether they are being held because they are an asylum seeker or for another reason, their only intent is that they want to stay in this country. For them it would be a very harsh penalty to take away the one item that keeps them connected with the outside world, particularly given that they have not been handed a criminal conviction. This legislation, to me, seems more about silencing people in detention facilities and preventing them from communicating with the outside world. One of the reasons they obviously do that is to expose the very atrocious conditions that they are sometimes subjected to. That is why I speak in support of Labor's amendments to this bill.

In concluding my remarks, I make this point: the Morrison government's oversight of the immigration system in Australia has been appalling. People are now waiting years to have their citizenship applications processed, and there is still a backlog of applications in the system—a backlog of tens of thousands of people. Around 180,000 people are waiting to have their partner visas processed, with an average processing time of around 28 months. That is over two years. At the commencement of this year, over 66½ thousand cases were before the immigration and refugee division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Just how long it will take to get through those cases is anyone's guess. As at 31 March, over 281,000 people were on bridging visas, awaiting their substantive visa applications to be processed. In addition to all of those backlogs, there are now thousands of Australian citizens stranded overseas who simply cannot get back home. None of these people are criminals or undesirables, but law-abiding citizens or applicants who are being treated shamefully by a country that claims the motto of 'a fair go'. This legislation is simply another example of the Morrison government's contemptible treatment of people who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families, like so many other migrants to Australia have done before them.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020, more easily known as the 'taking away the mobile phones bill'.

I stand with the 154,340 people who have signed the petition opposing this bill. The stated purpose of this bill is to grant additional powers to the Australian Border Force to confiscate items deemed prohibited by the minister from those in immigration detention centres. The bill specifically targets the banning of mobile phones, SIM cards and internet enabled devices to detainees. The justification provided by the government is that there is an increasing proportion of detainees in immigration detention who are criminals whose visas have been revoked and who are awaiting deportation. These criminals, the government claims, are using mobile devices to order drugs, download paedophilia and run organised crime operations.

However, there's limited evidence presented to demonstrate this alleged risk or these facts. There's also little evidence provided by the government of criminal activity being conducted inside the detention centres. The government has not sufficiently justified the need for Border Force to have these very significant expanded powers. Where the devices have been used to conduct an illegal activity, there's already a body that has search and seizure powers in relation to criminal activity, and that is the police. Whilst I support strong law and order, the extent of these measures must be balanced by the cost to individual rights.

I have four major concerns about the actions of the government in relation to this bill. Firstly, the lack of justification for the bill and the risk that the powers will be used to withhold access to legal advice to detainees—that is a significant breach of human rights. Secondly—the absence of due process in the Senate inquiry. Thirdly—the need to end offshore detention and accept New Zealand's offer to take those left on Manus Island and in Papua New Guinea. And fourthly—concerns about those remaining in alternative places of detention.

This bill grants significant discretionary powers to the minister. Accordingly, adequate protections from abuse of power are needed, but are absent. Despite the recommendations of the committee, it has not been sufficiently justified to me that this bill and the powers contained within it are necessary. The powers represent a significant overreach and an unnecessary conference of powers to authorise officers who could be Border Force or—and this is important—private security contractors. This raises enormous alarm bells of abuse for me, and it should for most members in this parliament. The minister's response to the Senate committee's request for further information and a justification for the need for the provisions has not been published. The committee was concerned at the lack of justification for this bill, and, given that the minister's response is not published, there has certainly been nothing on the public record that alleviates that concern. I remain unconvinced as to the case for these powers. The Law Council of Australia—an important body—strongly object to this bill. They do not often take the position that there is no justification for or element of a bill that should be passed. However, in this case, that is exactly what they have done.

This is resurrected legislation. It was rejected in 2017. Most significantly, the bill makes no attempt to distinguish between the rights of the types of detainees. By tarring all detainees with the same brush, the bill violates the rights of many who have never committed a crime. They do not intend to use their devices for nefarious purposes, but, instead, they actually need them to keep in touch with their families, supporters and legal teams. These are basic rights of a free and democratic nation.

We have heard assurances that these powers would only be used in relation to detainees where there are criminal records. But there is nothing in the bill that actually provides any protection for refugees that are currently in indefinite detention and have committed no crimes and need their mobile phones to be able to access legal advice. While the bill does not mandate that the same rules apply to all detainees, it makes no provisions for the differentiation of detainees. It's all left to the discretion—again, this is important—of the manager of the detention centre to determine who has access to devices once the minister has deemed them to be prohibited. This is a very dangerous power to put in the hands of the manager of a detention centre.

I have received many emails and calls in relation to this issue. As far as I can tell, the only groups that support this legislation are those that stand to benefit from it: the government, the Department of Home Affairs, and Serco, the private company that staff and manage the detention centres. These groups stand to benefit from the legislation as it makes their job easier. It reduces the risk of being held accountable if there are breaches. It further weakens the rights of refugees and asylum seekers once they're held indefinitely in detention centres. Of course, the important groups that oppose this legislation include the Law Council of Australia, Amnesty International, the Refugee Law Centre and many others.

I always ask myself these questions: Is this legislation ethical? Is it good law? This is not good legislation. As stated by the Law Council of Australia, this bill has been reintroduced to the Australian parliament, despite a previously unsuccessful attempt, at a time of public emergency and reduced scrutiny. Immigration detention facilities must operate in accordance with the rule of law. Measures imposed on detainees must be necessary, reasonable and proportionate. No evidence presented to this parliament has indicated that the measures contained in this bill are reasonable or proportionate or necessary.

Administrative detention must not be of punitive character. The Constitution vests Commonwealth judicial power only in the courts, recognised in chapter III. This bill is inappropriate, as a sizeable percentage of immigration detainees and asylum seekers have committed no crime. The bill would significantly expand the warrantless search and seizure powers in the Migration Act. Current law, section 252(2), already allows discretionary search and seizure power with respect to a person detained, without a warrant, for the purpose of finding out whether a person is hiding a weapon or other thing capable of being used to inflict bodily injury, or to help the person escape. The bill expands this already broad power to allow search and seizure of a prohibited thing. The definition of a 'prohibited thing' can include anything the minister is satisfied is a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in the facility, or to the order of the facility, and declares by legislative instrument. So the order of the facility is really what we are getting to, and that is not defined in this bill, which imparts significant discretion to the minister. So if those pesky detainees seek legal advice or actually try to convey to the outside world some of the conditions in which they are held, that would be sufficient to justify that there is a problem to the order of the facility.

The bill explicitly anticipates mobile phones, SIM cards and internet capable computers and devices as examples of a prohibited thing. It is not evident how mobile phones consist a risk to health, safety or security. These items are often crucial to providing timely and detailed legal advice to persons in detention. They are also critical to communication with family and friends. For so many Australians, these periods of lockdown have been incredibly challenging. Imagine being in a lockdown, isolated, for seven years with no access to a phone to actually stay in touch with family or understand what your rights are.

The broad discretion granted to the minister may amount to an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. Search-and-seizure powers in subsection 252(2) and 252AA(1)(a) allow authorised officers to search or conduct screening of a person whether or not the officer has any suspicion that the person has a prohibited thing. So we already have a situation where someone can be searched without there even having to be a reasonable suspicion that there is a prohibited thing hidden on their person. Surely reasonable suspicion should be a minimum requirement for a search, otherwise there is substantial risk of abuse of human rights occurring. This is concerning. It brings back really concerning images and allegations of times when society has absolutely failed to protect human rights, and it's quite shameful that that is happening in the name of Australia.

This proposed breadth of powers opens the power to potential misuse. The bill, of course, interestingly, follows the 2018 full Federal Court decision of ARJ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which held that a blanket policy that immigration detainees were not permitted to possess mobile phones and SIM cards lacked statutory authority and was invalid. Clearly the introduction of this bill is an attempt to circumvent the outcome of that case. As I said, many people in Warringah and elsewhere in Australia have contacted me in opposition to this bill. It does raise a lot of the peripheral issues that we do need to speak to. We have seen repeated attempts to ram it through without sufficient alteration or justification. To me, that demonstrates a real failing to grasp the need to put in place good law that has proper justification. We need better integrity. When the government attempted to pass the legislation in 2017 it failed, and yet it is presented again without substantially addressing any of those concerns.

I urge this government to withdraw the legislation and, at a minimum, amend the legislation to define and restrict its application to persons with a relevant criminal record. I also urge the government that we need to deal with this indefinite situation of detention of refugees. We know that there is an offer from New Zealand. I urge the government to expedite the acceptance of New Zealand's offer to welcome the 360-plus refugees who remain on Manus Island and in Papua New Guinea. These people have been waiting more than seven years. It is criminal. We hear people complaining about a few weeks of lockdown. Start imagining seven years! The US deal is almost done. I have been speaking with Amnesty International Australia, who recently met with the New Zealand High Commissioner to Australia, and she confirmed that the New Zealand deal to accept 150 refugees per year from Papua New Guinea and Manus Island is still on the table.

Why won't the government accept this offer?

They have said that the New Zealand deal would only be considered after the US deal was completed, but that deal is now almost done. Had the New Zealand offer been acted upon when it was made, a substantial number of refugees would already have been placed and moved to New Zealand. The other reason given, of course, is always that it's going to be music to the ears of people smugglers. I question the logic of why a New Zealand deal would be music where the US deal is not. The New Zealand offer was made in 2017, some three years ago, so 450 refugees could have been resettled there by now. There are around 360 refugees remaining in offshore detention. Therefore, all of the refugees remaining in PNG and Manus Island could have been in New Zealand by now.

The cost of holding refugees offshore—and this is relevant because Australia is in a recession, so we need to make sure public money is spent to the best effect for Australian people—is estimated at over $400,000 per person per year. That is ridiculous. Surely that is a cost we cannot afford in the current recession. I urge the government to consider releasing those refugees who remain in alternative places of detention and also in community detention. They were evacuated from offshore detention for medical reasons. They've been living without sufficient medical attention in hotels and confined living quarters. Surely the risk of releasing these people into appropriate community detention arrangements would be less costly and lead to better outcomes for all involved.

I would like to thank people in our community who are working so hard on behalf of refugees and trying to uphold Australia's reputation in the face of an onslaught and our failure to uphold basic human rights—people like Craig Foster, with his campaign of 'seven years too long'—hashtag #GameOver. This is a really important campaign, and I thank them and encourage them to continue until the job is done.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 is a renewed attempt by the government to amend the Migration Act to allow the minister to prohibit or ban almost any item from use within an immigration detention facility, including the alternative forms of detention facilities such as hotels like the Preston Mantra and the Kangaroo Point hotel. I cannot, at least in my initial review or analysis, understand this bill. What I mean by that is that I really can't fathom the government's rationale or reasoning, because prohibited items are already illegal under state, territory and Commonwealth laws, particularly drugs, child exploitation material or weapons, as they present an obvious risk to detainees and to staff. They should be prohibited.

Labor and I oppose this bill, in summary, for a couple of reasons: there is no justification for this bill and its sweeping powers, and it is also a bill which has clear impingements upon the human rights of detainees. So what is the reason, if not the reasoning, for the government to put this bill up again? Let me just go through some of these reasons why we oppose this bill. The first is that it is, I can only assume, another power grab by Minister Tudge and Minister Dutton. This is deja vu—another power grab from the Minister for Home Affairs, because the government already has broad powers under the Migration Act and has already utterly failed to make the case as to why illegal activities in detention centres cannot be handled on a case-by-case basis through those existing state, territory and Commonwealth laws. Again, this bill is deja vu. It's been here before, and it's been opposed before. It grants the Minister for Home Affairs more significant unchecked powers, giving the minister the ability to prohibit or ban almost any item from use within an immigration detention facility. Of course, we are concerned that the minister and the government have not established or even elaborated on how existing laws and common-law powers are insufficient in addressing those issues.

The bill also undermines Australia's commitment to human rights, fair and just legal processes, and natural justice. No matter who you are, you deserve to be treated fairly and you deserve to be treated with dignity, because this is Australia and people in immigration detention are people—people who are under our protection, who we are responsible for. Forty-two per cent of the total immigration detention cohort has been in detention for over a year. Almost 26 per cent of the total cohort has been in detention for over two years.

This bill would allow removal of phones, SIM cards and almost any other item. As we've heard, mobile phones generally provide a positive benefit to detainees and their welfare. I know this because I'm in contact, and have been in contact, with detainees at some of these facilities, on the phone—I've spoken to them. If those people had had to go without their phones, it would have been extremely difficult to get their story heard, to be able to express themselves and to be in touch with family, friends and legal teams, as we've heard. The phones are a lifeline to people in detention. Due to COVID restrictions, people held in detention have not had any visits from family, from friends or from their lawyers since 20 March. Imagine being in a stage 4 lockdown, as we are here in Victoria, without your phone, with no way to communicate with your loved ones—no social media, no Zoom. As much as we all complain about being 'Zoomed out', it's a necessary technological function that allows us to communicate.

Mobile phones have become the primary means of contact for detainees. Importantly, they allow detainees access to their lawyers, who can protect their legal rights. The current legal frameworks permit the confiscation of a mobile phone from a detainee if there is reasonable cause. This is as is should be. However, this bill, with a blanket ban on phones, threatens rights to privacy and freedom of expression. The bill also proposes to permit strip searches of individuals living in immigration detention, regardless of whether a suspicion has been formed that the individual is concealing a prohibited item. This is simply unjust. It's simply unacceptable. The government simply have not made a case as to why these broad, sweeping powers are required—except, I suspect, for the one reason they won't actually articulate or admit, and that's for a power grab, another grab at more unchecked power for the Minister for Home Affairs.

In lockdown here in Victoria with COVID-19, and across Australia, we have all experienced this. The government continues its default position of inhumane treatment of people in these facilities. Cramped conditions in detention centres, like the Mantra hotel in Preston, just outside my electorate, represent a very high-risk environment for coronavirus to be transmitted. Social distancing is effectively impossible, and I've heard this directly from the individuals in those centres. I've spoken to them. They're terrified of contracting the virus. A reasonable approach would be to organise the release of detainees who have been cleared through security checks and have friends or family who could support them. Many people in immigration detention are in administrative detention. They have committed no crime. If they were released under those conditions, it would protect their mental and physical health and would assist in the nationwide efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19. Where is the government's plan to protect people in immigration detention facilities from COVID-19? This is another failure, like the many we've seen in the Immigration portfolio and in the Home Affairs portfolio.

This bill is just the latest in a long line of failures, trying it on with another pathetic dog whistle, which this bill basically is. I've seen the former Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Tudge, tweet recently, and I'll quote him:

Labor's failures on immigration and border protection are well known, but their latest move to block legislation—

the legislation we are talking about—

that will keep Australians safe from paedophiles, violent extremists and other serious criminals is gobsmacking.

Really, Minister? 'Gobsmacking'? He talks about saving us from paedophiles and criminals, but this minister clearly does not know the law. As I have said and as many speakers have said—and it bears repeating, and hopefully the minister is listening or watching—prohibited items are already illegal under state, territory and Commonwealth laws, particularly drugs, child exploitation material or weapons, as they present an obvious risk to detainees and to staff. So why don't the minister and the government focus on their jobs? In fact, what is gobsmacking, what is utterly shocking, is their repeated failure on the substantive work necessary in this portfolio.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.