Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Vanstone in question time today. I asked a number of questions of Minister Vanstone in relation to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report that was tabled in the Senate yesterday on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. As has been said in the chamber here this afternoon on a number of occasions, the Senate committee of which I am a member recommended that the bill should not proceed. The committee report has endorsed what Australians worked out long ago, that this bill is fundamentally wrong and should not become law. Let me explain why. There are a number of reasons but I only have a short period of time in which to speak so I will try to identify some of the key problems with the bill. As we know, the result of the reforms that were enacted last year by way of the Migration Amendment (Detention Arrangements) Bill 2005 means that, not before time, Australia now has a somewhat softer edge on mandatory detention. As we know, that bill resulted in children not being held on the mainland in detention centres.

The effect of this bill before the Senate now is that all of the changes that were made last year mean nothing. What the bill will do, as well as not ensuring that children will be kept out of detention, is remove reasonable time periods of detainment and improvements in the provision of mental care. One of the questions that I addressed to Senator Vanstone today was in relation to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over persons held in detention. The minister said today that her understanding was that the Commonwealth Ombudsman would still have jurisdiction in relation to persons being held in Nauru. This is in fact what the department said to the committee. They confirmed that the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction does extend to processing on Nauru. But when we questioned them further it was made quite clear that this would still be contingent on the government of Nauru granting a visa to the Ombudsman to travel to Nauru. As we heard in the evidence before us, it is a very rare occurrence for the Nauruan government to grant a visa to persons wishing to visit there to observe and investigate what is happening to people in detention.

This is not something which is within the control of the Australian government. If the Nauruan government determines that the Ombudsman is not to be granted a visa, then he—as is the present case—will not be able to go to Nauru and investigate. It is also quite clear, and this came out in the evidence, that the requirement in part 8C of the Migration Act that the Commonwealth Ombudsman provide reports on persons held in detention for more than two years will not apply in relation to persons held in offshore processing locations. So the improvement put into place last year in relation to detainees held in Australian detention centres, namely that the Ombudsman will be required to investigate the reasons for their detention if they have been held for a period greater than two years, simply will not occur on Nauru. This is one of the many problems that exist in this bill. As Senator Ludwig said, it is for this reason that the committee reported unanimously that the bill should not proceed. It is for this reason that Labor will be voting against this bill when it comes before the Senate.

This bill can hardly be said to be for border protection. In fact, if it is passed Australia will effectively have no border in relation to those persons coming here by boat seeking asylum. All of those people who are seeking asylum in this country who reach the mainland by boat will be taken away and put into mandatory detention on Nauru. The primary reason, as I have indicated, that this is totally unacceptable is that the processes that occur on Nauru are not subject to independent review. I have mentioned the Ombudsman, but also any decisions that are made are not subject to independent review. The RRT does not have jurisdiction in relation to decisions made. Any decisions that are made will simply be reviewed by another departmental officer. (Time expired)