Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to slightly modify the terms of the matter of urgency motion in accordance with changes I have given to the various whips.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The need for the Australian government to unequivocally guarantee that the latest group of boat people, reportedly including 83 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, will immediately have access to independent assistance, have their refugee claims assessed openly and fairly and will not be subjected to the risk of refoulment, consistent with our international obligations.

The changes clarify and slightly refine the motion put forward but do not change its substance. This is an urgent matter not just for the asylum seekers who are directly affected; it is also because it is crucial we get this right and send the right signals about what we are doing. The last thing Australia needs is a re-run of the pre-election poison that we had in 2001 regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. This should actually be unremarkable. I hope that the government speakers will indicate their support for it because it is to ensure that these asylum seekers immediately have access to independent assistance, have their refugee claims assessed openly and fairly and not be subjected to the risk of refoulement—that is, being sent back to face potential persecution. It should not be necessary to put this forward, but we have seen in the last week, since the boat of asylum seekers was first detected, a lot of very strong reminders of the 2001 approach of this government.

There has been a lot of talk in the last year or two about a culture change. Indeed a lot of money—millions of dollars—has been put in by this government to effect a culture change in the department of immigration. As I and the Democrats said repeatedly at the time, unless you change the law and the policy of this government, with all of the other things, you are not going to have a genuine culture change. I fear we are witnessing that being demonstrated at the moment, and that will make all of those millions of dollars for the so-called culture change of the immigration department a waste of money.

We are seeing, once again, the government restricting access to information and preventing easy access to the asylum seekers for those who would provide them with advice. We are seeing a dribble of propaganda from the minister and, even more extraordinarily—and which goes further than even what we saw in 2001—we are seeing immediate consultation with other governments and commentary from ambassadors from Sri Lanka, the country that the majority of the asylum seekers are said to have fled from. They are involved, in the loop in some way, with what happens to these people. That is even further down the wrong path than what happened in 2001. Of course, these people’s claims need to be assessed before we can say whether or not they have valid claims of persecution, but there should be no doubt at all that it is a reasonable prospect that these are genuine claims, given that they are reportedly from Sri Lanka and given that quite a number of them are reportedly Tamils.

I draw the Senate’s attention to the position of the UNHCR—that is, the United Nations refugee agency—on the international protection needs of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka which was issued just in December last year. I remind people that this is a country in serious civil war; the ceasefire has broken down. Just last year there were 17 national staff members of the French humanitarian aid organisation, Action contre la Faim, killed in their office. The assessment of the UNHCR, particularly with regard to Tamils from the north and east, where some of these people are reportedly from, is that Tamils in and from these regions are at risk of targeted violations of their human rights from all parties to the armed conflict—from government forces, the Tamil Tigers and paramilitary or armed groups. They can be attacked for being seen to support the government and they can be attacked for being seen to not support the government. It has been shown there is nowhere for them to hide safely anywhere within the country. The UNHCR specifically says:

All asylum claims of Tamils from the North or East should be favourably considered.

It says that even where the individual does not fulfil the precise refugee criteria under the 1951 convention a complementary form of protection should be granted in the light of the prevailing situation. It goes on to say:

No Tamil from the North or East should be returned forcibly until there is significant improvement in the security situation in Sri Lanka.

That should be the starting point for our government when looking at the situation. They should not immediately be floating talks about sending them across to Indonesia, which is not a signatory to the UN convention. Asylum seekers who were sent to Indonesia five years ago by this government are still there today, languishing in limbo in places like Lombok and Jakarta, being paid for by the Australian taxpayer. That is a breach of our international obligations. We have our government again talking about doing the same thing to people from a country where we know, from the latest evidence from the UNHCR, they are at serious risk. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled. This an urgent problem. (Time expired)