Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on this motion I would like to begin by focusing on the concept of deterrence, by pointing out that on page 6, clause 21, of the Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a Regional Processing Country, under the heading 'Discouragement of irregular and dangerous maritime voyages', it says:

21.   I think that designating Nauru to be a regional processing country may act as a circuit breaker in relation to the recent surge in the number of irregular and dangerous maritime voyages to Australia.

On page 7, it concludes:

I also think that designating Nauru to be a regional processing country will make it more difficult for people smugglers to sell the opportunity to resettle in Australia.

The key reason we are debating this motion today is that this regional processing centre can not only effectively process people but provide a deterrent.

One month ago, along with my colleagues, I debated this subject and I pointed out what was very obvious to me back then on the question of risk management: what would occur if the number of boat arrivals continued? Would we have the resources in place to process them in a place like Nauru or Manus Island, given their capacity, and what would happen if the number of boat arrivals was to continue? Just assume for a second that we were wrong and that the deterrence was not provided for whatever reason—and I will get to that in a moment—what would we do then?

It is not something to brag about but looking at the arrivals, which are actually mentioned also on page 6, in the year to 8 September 2012 nearly 9,000 passengers have arrived and nearly 2,500 have arrived in the last month, since I spoke about this. It has been pointed out by a number of my fellow Green senators today that Nauru itself is nearly full or will be at capacity if we are to move existing refugees there. If these boat numbers continue to arrive, we will need to initiate Manus Island. This has also been reported in the media. It was on the front page of the Australian yesterday.

Let us look at the Malaysian solution. The Malaysian solution, as reflected on by the Houston panel recently, is on the bottom of the pile as an option for us as a humane country in international law to send refugees. The reason, apart from the fact that the High Court has already decided that our sending our refugees to Malaysia is illegal in international law, is that there is no legal protection for refugees in Malaysia. They are not part of the refugee convention. We have evidence of inhumane treatment such as abuse and torture, and caning is one example. The Houston panel said it is going to take a long time before these problems can be fixed and before they, for example, sign the convention. This is not having a go at Malaysia at all; their reality is different to ours. But from where we are in parliament today it is obvious that if the Malaysian solution is not a solution, and I very much doubt that it is, and the Greens do not advocate sending messages to Malaysia, where do we go next if Nauru is full and Manus Island is full? My understanding is that Manus Island can take 600 people at peak capacity and Nauru up to 3,000. What do we do then? Do we set up a series of human rubbish tips around this country where we dump people? How many islands could we put detention centres on? How is that going to look to the world?

The reason I raise this is because, as I mentioned a month ago, as someone who is new to parliament, it seems to me that the politics of this debate has been pitched at a very debased level and that in a lot of ways it is not just parliamentarians who want this issue to go away and would like to see a quick fix; a big part of the Australian people also want to see a quick fix. They expect that the Pacific solution as it stands is going to be a silver bullet and that this problem is going to go away. I think we have got very good evidence in the last month, since this was flagged to the world, that the problem is not going to go away. I hate using these words, but the boats have not been stopped.

I enjoyed Senator Sinodinos's speech today. I sensed there was a bit of a philosopher in him when he spoke today. But it is interesting that he spoke of people smugglers, this external entity, as people who are rational in planning and are calculating in how they traffic to Australia the world's poorest people and some of those who suffer in misery. A calculating, rational group of people: that may be true. Maybe people smugglers do have cartels. But if they are that way inclined then it seems a simple enough proposition to me that if they are standing back and looking at our new Pacific solution which we are here to debate today then the maths is very simple. These centres are nearly full and are likely to be full, so if more people keep coming and the people smugglers are that organised and have the planning in place then they will look at it and say they can overrun the islands where people are dumped. What are Australians going to do then? What are we going to do when another 600 people arrive and the islands are full to capacity?

It is an interesting concept that people smugglers are calculating. If they are, it makes sense to me that they have already come up with a solution—that is, they will keep sending the boats, keep trading in human misery which none of us in here today want to see, and then we will be stuck with the same problem we had months ago. Once again what concerns me is that the Australian people believe this is going to go away. We have told them enough times—I and my Australian Green parliamentary colleagues have not told them, but Tony Abbott has told them—that we can stop boats, that we did stop the boats.

Senator Ryan interjecting—

Well, you haven't stopped them yet. Where do we go next? The issue in this country is that we need to have an honest and mature debate. This is also something that the good Senator Sinodinos mentioned. We as a country need to reflect on how we deal with this issue and come up with a solution. Of course we need a solution to be put in place and we need laws. I totally agree with Senator Sinodinos when he says that, I just disagree with him that this is the right law and the right policy prescription for this problem. I do not believe for a complex problem like this that we are anywhere near a solution. We should be managing the expectations of the Australian public. To offer up through spin, rhetoric and nauseating messaging that we can stop the boats is wrong—I think it is idiocy.

Can we afford to take 25,000 people or 20,000 people? As a country, can we afford to take 100,000 people or half a million people? I do not have the answers to those questions and I would be very surprised if anyone in this parliament or this country has the answers. It is my feeling that it is because we have not delved deeply into this issue. I question whether Senator Sinodinos has the answers. If you believe what the coalition parties were saying about refugees recently, the push factors facing refugee movements in our region are not going to go away; instead they are going to get a lot worse. In particular, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, as well as Afghanistan, where our forces are operating, were singled out were as being very significant for future refugees seeking asylum from persecution: potentially millions of people will be seeking asylum. Once again, if we have two island rubbish tips at the moment that can process nearly 4,000 unfortunate human beings, where are we going to stick 400,000?

If we concentrate on the pull factors and Australia being too soft, for people who fear in their own countries execution or worse—if that is possible—what would be the difference between coming to Australia or going to live in Malaysia or another regional processing centre in Indonesia or somewhere else? If you are that desperate it makes sense that you are going to try and get away. All the arguments about pull factors and Australia are not too different when you are desperate and you are dealing with extreme situations to what we see in other countries. I urge my fellow parliamentarians to rise above the gutter with their rhetoric in this House and start speaking rationally, logically and honestly about how we are going to solve this problem, which I think will be the single biggest issue facing this country in the next hundred years. I want to focus on something positive like my colleague Senator Rhiannon did—that is, the Greens' Migration Amendment (Health Care for Asylum Seekers) Bill 2012, which we hope to bring before the House. We would ask that the other good senators in this chamber support this bill.

I will quickly read from a 22 August media release by the AMA about health and the concerns they have about our processing facilities on areas such as Nauru and Manus Island:

The AMA has tonight called on the Australian Parliament to establish a truly independent medical panel to oversee and report regularly on the health services that are available to asylum seekers in immigration detention facilities, both onshore and offshore.

AMA President, Dr Steve Hambleton, told politicians at the AMA Parliamentary Dinner—

which, no doubt, some people in this chamber were at—

that the Parliament had to restore some humanity to an otherwise inhumane approach to asylum seekers.

“The AMA proposes a truly independent panel of medical experts …

I am very fortunate to have so many talented people in the Greens parliamentary team, and one of those is in the chamber with me at the moment. It is Senator Di Natale, who is himself a doctor. I do not know if he is currently part of the AMA, but he used to be, as did Bob Brown prior to his time in parliament.

This bill proposed by the Greens sets up an independent board of health and mental health experts to monitor and evaluate the wellbeing of asylum seekers who are sent offshore for processing. The panel will be empowered to make recommendations in relation to individual cases and provide six-monthly reports directly to parliament. The bill requires the minister to establish an independent panel to monitor, evaluate and make recommendations on the health of asylum seekers. Peak medical, mental health, nursing, dental and child health bodies will submit nominations from which the minister will select the panel. The bill requires the minister to establish a panel within 30 days of making a country designation. The panel will be mandated to make ad hoc recommendations directly to the minister on individual cases. The feature in place here is similar to the powers and reporting functions of a Commonwealth ombudsman. The panel will have powers to subpoena and inspect medical records held by the department or private companies running the detention sites, and the panel will largely set its own terms of reference.