Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I do appreciate Senator Back's extraordinary insight into the military capabilities of refugees coming to Australia.

The Prime Minister has spoken about not having a 'wimp' in control of border security. What we do have now are real questions about who is actually in control. I, for one, am quick to acknowledge that I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who would take any other position than deep regret at the death of Reza Berati. I also suggest that everyone in this chamber appreciates the grief that his family would be feeling over the manner in which he was killed—while effectively in Australian custody. I am very concerned—and I am sure many other senators here are equally concerned—about the fear that his family would feel in terms of the response from authorities in Iran.

We also know that were dozens—we do not know how many, but we are quite clear from reports that there were many dozens—of people seeking safety in this country injured in the events that occurred on Manus Island on 16 and 17 February. These are the facts that I think are now beyond dispute. What we know is that the reports that have emerged all too clearly demonstrate that there are serious questions to be asked about the competence of the minister who is responsible for the operation of Manus Island and that there are serious questions about the management of the facilities at the core of Australia's immigration and border control policies. The questions keep piling up as I read the newspapers and listen to the reports. On the ABC this morning, for instance, we heard of an Australian employee of the contractor G4S, the security firm, who is making extraordinarily serious allegations about the conduct of the Papua New Guinea police on the night Mr Berati died.

For the sake of all involved, it is now important that we get to the bottom of what actually happened there as quickly as possible. The circus of secrecy that surrounds the government's policy and its administration, frankly, has to stop. When the tragic events of Manus Island were first reported by the minister himself, it has been demonstrated that the facts were totally wrong. To quote from his media conference of 18 February, he said:

This is a tragedy but this was a very dangerous situation where people decide to protest in a very violent way and to take themselves outside the centre and place themselves at great risk …

So what we were told, in a very blunt and unequivocal way, was that the asylum seekers themselves were responsible for what occurred. Then we wait until 8.44 on the following Saturday night, when a media statement is issued, at that very late hour, entitled 'Manus Island update'. And what was the substance of that update? That the minister had got it fundamentally wrong.

A full five days after his initial report he sought to correct the record and to make it clear that the breach that led to the death of this particular asylum seeker, Mr Berati, actually occurred inside the compound—and that the perimeter itself had not been breached. He told us originally, if I may quote the proposition he advanced, that 'people would be safe inside the compound'. That was the assertion made: that we were dealing with transferees who breached the external perimeter. We now know that to be totally untrue.

On 22 February the minister said:

Earlier this week I noted that when people co–operate and conduct themselves appropriately within the centre then we are able to provide for their safety. This is the most effective way to ensure the security of these facilities and safety of all those who are accommodated and work within the centre.

That is the statement made on the night on which the record was being corrected! It seems to me, on the basis of a normal reading of that statement, that we could be assured that violence and death took place beyond the scope of that guarantee. It does seem, on what we have heard since that time, that the guarantee itself was quite hollow—because the majority of what the minister called 'riotous behaviour' took place within the perimeter of the facilities themselves. o, as far as I am concerned, the implications are quite profound. Only someone like George Orwell could look at this statement and describe it as an update. What we now know is that the safety and wellbeing of everyone in the facility on Manus Island is an open question. I say that both in terms of the asylum seekers themselves and the staff. We now know that the situation was entirely chaotic—and that reflects the way this centre has been administered.

It is quite clear that Manus Island is absolutely at the centre of the arrangements in place to deter people from taking that risky voyage by sea. But, in terms of the effect of the establishment of Manus Island, we know that between 19 July and the time of the federal election there had been a 90 per cent reduction in the number of people seeking to travel by sea. But that in no way justifies any government breaching the guarantee of safety that people have a right to expect. It strikes me that we have a situation here where the minister has made this guarantee and it needs to be enforced. We need to ensure there is genuine substance behind such an assertion. That is why Labor has welcomed the government's announcement of the independent inquiry and we look forward with interest to its interim report in March. The public needs to see the full report. We owe this not just to the people who are now in our custody, and who have been exposed to this violence, but to every Australian in whose name we are acting.

I woke this morning to the reports on the ABC and I was horrified. The ABC told us this morning that local G4S staff were the first in, followed by local contract staff. A G4S employee was quoted as saying:

We saw them going in with machetes. They had anything they could pick up—rocks, sticks, the poles from the exercise weights. Once they knocked people to the ground, they were stomping on their heads with their boots. A day later you could still see guards and staff and cleaners walking around with blood on their boots.

  …   …   …

I just remember blood everywhere I looked. Blood everywhere.

I think anyone listening to that report this morning would be deeply concerned that these people were acting in our name. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government feels it is necessary to act in secrecy about these matters. It is not enough simply to wash your hands of responsibilities on these sorts of questions. But it entirely goes beyond what I think anyone would regard as reasonable— (Time expired)