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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Human Services (Senator Ellison) to a question without notice asked by Senator Bartlett today relating to immigration and the deportation of a Chinese national.

My question went to a single, individual case. Most of the time in question time there are questions about broader policy issues or questions with a broader sweep, rather than questions about an individual case. But the individual case in question is one that is concerning, both because of the specific individual circumstances and because of the wider situation and reality that it goes to. The question relates to a Chinese national, a man who has been in detention in Australia for some time since his visa was cancelled. The visa was cancelled as the result of an arrest warrant provided by Chinese authorities.

There are a couple of aspects of this that are concerning. The most overarching concern that the Democrats have is that the United Nations Human Rights Committee is investigating this person’s case. That is a process that is open to anybody in any country where that country is a signatory to and has ratified the human rights convention, as Australia has, and other relevant human rights conventions. It is therefore completely appropriate and reasonable for people who have concerns to seek to have their case examined by the human rights committee at an international level.

It is a matter of great concern to the Democrats that the federal government is still adopting an approach which basically means that the immigration minister is prepared to ignore the fact that a case is still being examined by a human rights committee and will remove a person from the country to a potentially dangerous situation regardless. This should be a concern because the Australian government has spent many millions of dollars on a lot of propaganda talking about a cultural change in the immigration arena. There has been a lot of departmental restructuring and a significant amount of money spent on modifying the so-called cultural problems—the self-described cultural problems—within the immigration department. But the cultural problems stem back to the policies of the Australian government and the laws of the Migration Act. Those things are not changing and this case is a clear example of that.

It cannot be denied that there are serious human rights problems in China. It also cannot be denied that there are serious problems with the integrity of the justice system in some cases in China. In any other circumstance when a person in Australia is sought by the Chinese authorities for a criminal case there would be an extradition process in place. I note with interest that the Attorney-General has recently indicated his intention to adopt a more formal extradition procedure with China. Before such an agreement is adopted it should be, and I hope will be, thoroughly examined by the parliamentary committee on treaties.

The problem with Australia’s Migration Act is that those safeguards, even if we did have a solid comprehensive extradition treaty in place, do not apply because it is simply open to the minister to cancel somebody’s visa if an arrest warrant is provided or if suitable information is provided to make the minister decide that this person’s visa should be cancelled. Then the issues that are normally considered in extradition—whether it is safe to send people back, whether they will get a fair trial, whether there is substance to the charges, whether the identification is correct and it is not a case of mistaken identity, which is certainly a factor in this case as far as I am aware—can be considered. None of those thing things are considered by an independent body or court. It is simply a matter of the minister making a decision and then determining to try and remove somebody. That is what is happening here.

We had a Senate committee inquiry into these sorts of issues back in 2000. The committee’s report, A Sanctuary Under Review, examined precisely theses sorts of cases—that is, people being put at risk of deportation while the government ignores the fact that their case was being examined by the human rights committee. Very serious injustices occurred, including people being deported to China. I have mentioned the case of the Chinese woman who was deported back to China and had her 8½ month old pregnancy forcibly aborted after she was returned. It seems like those sorts of lessons have not been learnt at all. The same risks are being run again.

Question agreed to.