Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Over the past few years there has been a lot of discussion about illegal arrivals in Australia—indeed, in recent months the debate has been hotting up. Almost everyone has an opinion—about what their motives are, about whether Australia should accept them, about how we process them, about how we treat them once they are here and about whether there should be offshore processing on Christmas Island. These are important discussions that we need to have, and I do not think many people would disagree with that. At the outset I want to acknowledge that this a complex and divisive issue. There are more than two sides to this argument and more options than the all-or-nothing choices that we are often presented with.

I also want to acknowledge that this legislation refers to people smugglers—those who make money off the desperation of others—rather than the arrivals themselves. I agree that as a country we should be taking steps to try to deter smugglers who charge exorbitant fees and offer pie-in-the-sky promises only to put their charges lives at risk in rickety boats and rough seas. We have seen in recent days this very example: the five Sri Lankan Tamils who went missing after their boat ran out of fuel somewhere to the west of the Cocos Islands. Those five are now presumed dead and the remaining 59 people on the stricken boat had to be rescued by the crew of a Slovenian freighter. If media reports are to be believed, this happened just five days after Australian authorities first learned that the boat was out of fuel. Apparently, the missing men had left the boat to try to find help for others on board, which included women and children.

Even worse was the SIEV X disaster in 2001. I note that Senator Faulkner when in opposition was outspoken and courageous in pursuing that particular incident. I think it was referred to as a Certain Maritime Incident in the reports. In that horrific incident, 65 men, 142 women and 146 children died off the coast of Java on their way to Australia. We need to make it clear that this should not happen at all. We need to show that Australia values human life and that we condemn the treatment of people as ‘just another commodity’.

However, I have concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this bill. My colleague Senator Hanson-Young, on behalf of the Australian Greens, has raised valid concerns that the bill could breach Australia’s international human rights obligations and I share some of these concerns. I am concerned that this bill is simply too heavy-handed. It does have good elements in terms of an expanded role for ASIO. That is a good thing. It is important that intelligence services and exchanging of information can nip the problem in the bud and prevent the people smugglers doing their business in the first place. Whilst I have always had the view that our intelligence agencies should be subject to robust scrutiny by this parliament, it is important that we have that exchange of information.

These concerns, and Senator Hanson-Young has articulated them very well, include the broadness of the definitions included in the bill. Under this bill people acting on humanitarian grounds, or offering financial support to refugees overseas, can be charged with people-smuggling offences. This bill treats good Samaritans the same as ‘for profit’ people smugglers, which means that under this bill the nuns from The Sound of Music could be thrown into jail. That is one of the unintended consequences of this bill. That is plainly ridiculous.