Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to oppose the government's move to send to Nauru refugees who are seeking asylum in our country. It is inconsistent with the refugee convention and with our responsibilities as a nation to people who are refugees. Why is the government doing it? The government has told us that it is doing it because the whole point is to stop people getting on boats. They said that it is not about sending people away—'out of sight, out of mind', as the Greens said at the time. No, they said, it is about stopping people from getting on boats and risking their lives coming to Australia. The Greens said at the time that it would not deter people from getting on boats to come to Australia, because deterrence does not work. It has not worked and it will not work.

The Greens said that the best way to prevent people from getting on boats is to offer them a safe pathway; that is, increase the humanitarian intake and invest money in helping the UNHCR to assess people's claims in Indonesia and also closer to the areas where they have been forced to flee. That has been the Greens policy and it is consistent with the human rights convention. That is the action that would stop people getting on boats, or at least it would act as a disincentive for some of them to get on boats. But, no, the government insisted that this is about stopping people from getting on leaky boats, and that is the argument that the coalition put as well.

What has occurred is exactly as the Greens argued—and not just the Greens; all the refugee advocacy groups have been saying exactly the same thing. An overwhelming number of submissions to the Houston inquiry said exactly the same thing, and the experience since the government drove this through the parliament has been a record number of people risking their lives on boats. The government has failed in its No. 1 supposed ambition, which was to stop people getting on boats. There is a record number of people on boats. I think it is up to 2,150 since this policy was instigated. It has been a massive failure in terms of alleviating the real concerns that the Australian people have had, and rightly so, about people losing their lives at sea.

The Australian Greens have always argued that we need to codify our responsibilities in terms of the safety of lives at sea. On the day that this whole issue came to a head in this parliament, I did point out that Australia knew on the Tuesday afternoon that the boat in question was in trouble, that we did not rescue people until they were in the water on the Thursday, and that at some point questions would need to be answered about why we did not go to their rescue until Thursday. We have obligations under the safety of life at sea convention. Those obligations should be codified. There has been an uneasy tension for a very long time between the deterrence model of the Howard government—which has been embraced by the Gillard government—and our obligations under the safety of life at sea convention. The Greens argued very strongly with the Prime Minister for not only an increased humanitarian intake and increased investment in assisting the UNHCR in regional assessment but also codification of our safety of lives at sea obligations. One of the things I do welcome is the talks that the government has entered into with the Indonesians to try to facilitate better search and rescue capacity, because we do know that the Indonesians have that search and rescue capacity to be able to meet the needs of people who are getting into difficulty in those boats coming from Indonesia. But having said that, when Senator Lundy was defending the legislation she said very clearly that she rejected the Greens' claim that the government 'are not adhering to our international obligations'. Yes, in the document that the minister has tabled it has become quite clear that he is making the decisions and he says: ' Whether or not the assurances referred to above are legally binding, I expect that Nauru will act in accordance with them … as a consequence …' That was the reason why the Malaysia solution was struck down by the High Court. They were not legally binding and this legislation particularly and explicitly states that they do not have to give legally binding undertakings. But, in terms of international obligation, the minister said:

The content of Australia’s international obligations is contestable. In particular, there is a range of views held by lawyers, academics, non-government organisations and others as to the content of Australia's international obligations with respect to persons transferred to another country, some of which differ from the Department’s position.

Yes, indeed they do. The overwhelming majority do and that is why they legislated to get around our obligations under international law. He goes on to say:

On the basis of the material set out in the submission from the Department, I think that it is not inconsistent with Australia's international obligations (including but not limited to Australia's obligations under the Refugees Convention) to designate Nauru as a regional processing country, notwithstanding that this will create a duty under s 198AD to take offshore entry persons to Nauru (subject to the exercise of my personal non-compellable power in s 198AE).

However, even if the designation of Nauru to be a regional processing country is inconsistent with Australia's international obligations, I nevertheless think that it is in the national interest to designate Nauru to be a regional processing country.

There we have it. Senator Lundy told us in the Senate that she rejected absolutely the claims that they are not adhering to international obligations and the minister actually touts it in the documents he has put in the parliament. What is more, when you go to the letter being tabled from the UNHCR in relation to obligations, the UNHCR specifically goes on to say:

… it is not clear from the information available … that transfer of responsibilities for asylum-seekers to Nauru is fully appropriate.

There we have the UNHCR making its views perfectly clear and it particularly goes to the no-advantage test. Senator Lundy told us in this parliament that it would all be spelt out and we would know exactly what that meant. And we do not. Were we misled? Of course we were misled. The government came in here and told us, yes, we would have the details of the no-advantage test and we would not be in a position of having people sent offshore indefinitely. Yet the government refused to allow the 12 months and we still have no understanding whatsoever. What is even worse, we have a situation where the government is saying that the no-advantage test will apply and indefinite detention is there. On the other hand, we have a situation where the countries concerned—particularly PNG—are saying that they want to move people out of detention as quickly as possible. How are those two things consistent? Furthermore, we now know that refugees are going to be housed in tents for at least six months. We know that the facilities are not finished and yet we were not told that. That was not even conceded in the debate.

In other words, we were told a whole pack of disingenuous stories when the government brought in this legislation. We were not told the length of time people would be there. There was no acknowledgement they would be stuck in tents, no acknowledgement that it was not consistent with international law. This is all about sending people away and the huge embarrassment the government has now is that more people have arrived, to the extent that Nauru is already fully catered for—even when it is at maximum it will take 1,500 and we have already had 2,150 arrivals. Now we will have Manus Island and that will be full as well. That is why the government is now trying to open Malaysia, which means we are getting to the point where we are going to have littered throughout this region a whole lot of Australia's offshore detention centres. There will be offshore detention centres throughout the region because Australia will not acknowledge that it got it wrong, that in fact it is not a deterrent to send people offshore. This is going to be an extremely expensive exercise in terms of the impact on the refugees' health and wellbeing. It is going to be extremely expensive in terms of the amount of money it costs Australia. And yet it is not going to do anything to reduce the numbers of people coming to Australia in boats.

The best way of doing that is to set up safe pathways, as the Greens have articulated. In response to the offensive remarks of Senator Brandis, I remind the Senate that it was the Howard government who brought in temporary protection visas and it was under the Howard government that 353 died when the SIEV-X went down. They were overwhelmingly women and children who were denied the opportunity to come and stay with their male relatives in Australia. That is why they were on the boat. To this day we have not had the inquiry we should have had, the royal commission we should have had into the sinking of the SIEV-X. Senator Sinodinis knows exactly what happened with the SIEV-X. He was in the office at the time and he ought to make a statement to the parliament at some point as to what exactly happened in the Prime Minister's office at the time that the SIEV-X sank offshore Australia. That is not going to go away. As long as we are here we are going to continue to ask questions about what actually happened.

I return to the issue of sending refugees to Nauru where the facilities are not adequate at this point and where people are going to suffer. We still have unlimited detention on Nauru and have not been told how long the Gillard government believes a no-advantage test is. I think it is incumbent on the government to tell us that.

Debate interrupted.