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

I will get to the drownings for your benefit, Senator O'Sullivan, through you Mr Acting Deputy President Smith, very shortly. We are dealing with human beings. Every human being has human rights. We should all have the same human rights. It is a fundamental concept that I think we in here all understand.

The reason I am standing here and debating this bill on the last night of parliament, on a Thursday night, rather than being on a plane heading home is politics. It is not because Senator O'Sullivan's side of the chamber is trying to save lives at sea. We are here because the government desperately needs a win in the last remaining hours and minutes of parliament. When the bell rings and we go home the government wants to be able to say that it has controlled the agenda and that it has focused on an area that it believes it is strong on and has delivered on. It wants to show the Australian people just how big and tough and in control it is. Considering that I have heard several times from the Prime Minister and Minister Morrison this week that the big achievement of this government this year is that it has stopped the boats—not that we would know, because it is top secret; but let us take their word that they have stopped the boats—why are we here trying to pass this fundamentally flawed legislation as a matter of urgency? It is legislation that the majority of human rights experts in this country condemn. It is an extraordinary bill even for this government with its record of cruelty towards refugees and asylum seekers. It is an extraordinary bill—and there is no hurry for this. This is all about trying to get a good headline and appearing to be strong and in control, because this government is in disarray. It is ending the year having been thoroughly spanked in this chamber, in the opinion polls and by the Australian people. It makes me sad that it believes that a race to the bottom on cruelty is somehow something it should be waving a flag on, saying how great it is and, 'Look at what we've achieved.'

I have talked before about language that we use as leaders in parliament on issues relating to war and terrorism. I have talked about the role of the media in these types of debates. And it is no different here. It really disgusts me. I know that Senator Cash probably has a good heart, but it is her job to stand up in the chamber during question time, talk about the government's message and use certain language. But it really disgusts me that we have couched what is humanitarian assistance in military terms—even the word 'operation', as in Operation Sovereign Borders, and 'protecting' our borders. Protecting our borders from what? From the most unfortunate and desperate people in the world. The last time I checked, they were not coming here to seize our national assets. They were not carrying guns or explosives. This is set up because this cruel, conservative government knows it is good politics, and has been good politics in the past, to demonise, dehumanise and marginalise other human beings.

In an attempt to appear more reasonable, the argument goes that it is all about people-smugglers, but, in the attempt to push that frame into the minds of Australians through the media and through this parliament, they forget that they are doing a lot of damage—not just to the people that they are locking up on prison islands but also to migrant communities here in Australia. The Greens have consistently offered alternative solutions. I want to talk in a minute about a project in my home state of Tasmania which a number of church groups have come together to lead as an alternative solution to cruel offshore processing, turning back boats and temporary protection visas.

The procedures set out in this bill actually clearly point to this Australian government seeking to limit the number of people who are found to be genuine refugees, thereby limiting the onus on Australia to meet its fair share of responsibility in dealing humanely with those seeking asylum from persecution and violence. The unfairness in the system is obvious to anyone who has ever worked with refugees. This is the position of strength that the Greens have always had in our policy—and through Senator Hanson-Young in all the work that she has done. Our position is firmly embedded in that of stakeholders in this country who work with refugees. We have always worked with stakeholders in the formulation of our policies and ideas around refugees. Many of these, who have provided written submissions to the Senate inquiry, which I will touch on in a minute, have pointed out things such as the following. People fleeing countries where government institutions are weak or predatory are, understandably, initially fearful of Australian officials. Asylum seekers are often traumatised by their experiences and are unable to put the whole of their claims into a logical or coherent narrative. I have met a number of them in Tasmania at the Pontville detention centre. There are heartbreaking stories from young men who have fled persecution. They do not understand what is important and what is incidental in recounting their stories. It takes some time before they feel safe. When sexual violence is also involved, it can be many months or even years before an asylum seeker feels enough trust to be able to divulge the nature of their suffering.

It is also important to note that even this substandard form of review will be off limits to certain categories of asylum seekers who arrive by sea—for example, those whose claims the minister decides to exclude, based on his or her opinion, as being manifestly unfounded. This effectively renders the minister judge and jury in a decision that could cost the person their life, their family and their future. I do not know about others in this chamber, or how Australians feel about it, but, from what I have seen of Minister Morrison, he is not the sort of person I would want in a position where compassion, empathy and understanding are required in dealing with human beings who have universal—or should have universal—human rights. When taken together, the Australian Human Rights Commission has warned that these changes will:

These changes are also unlikely to lead to the types of efficiency gains—which I have heard coalition senators in the chamber talk about this week—that the government coldly hopes for, particularly if protection applicants continue to be denied access to legal advice. As the Law Council of Australia has pointed out, the lack of access to legal advice at the initial stage, coupled with the removal or restriction of merits review, is:

… likely to lead to more applications to the High Court based on common law judicial review principles. This will undoubtedly lead to further inefficiencies, and prolong the process of determining Australia ' s protection obligations.

The bill also seeks to amend the Maritime Powers Act 2013 to remove judicial scrutiny of whether Australia complies with certain human rights obligations. And on and on it goes.

The debate that was in the media today and was focused upon in the Senate was about temporary protection visas. That is one of seven schedules. That is being used as a Trojan Horse to ram through this parliament tonight, with no real urgency except for headlines and political gain, a whole series of manifestly unjust, unethical and dangerous provisions that have been so well summarised in the Senate inquiry into the migration and maritime powers legislation amendment.

We heard from thousands of human rights lawyers, refugee advocates, academics and community members, all of whom rejected the amendments proposed in this bill. Despite the overwhelming evidence from experts in the community, who have said this bill should not proceed, the majority report had recommended that the bill be passed. This committee has arrogantly rejected the evidence of thousands of Australians and has chosen to favour politics and punishment over protection and the rule of law. Unfortunately, I am sometimes not paying enough attention during question time, but I do not know how many times I have had to stand up and ask Senator Cash to retract her statements that they are illegal entrants into this country. They are not. Under international law it is not illegal to seek asylum.

This bill is by far one of the most regressive pieces of legislation this parliament has seen when it comes to the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. There is no doubt this bill is an attempt by the government to dramatically reduce the number of refugees Australia takes each year and to legitimise their actions at sea when intercepting and turning back asylum seeker boats. It seeks to legalise the government's actions at sea, limit parliamentary and judicial oversight, disregard Australia's international and human rights obligations—and we are becoming a global embarrassment—reintroduce temporary protection visas for boat arrivals, introduce a new temporary protection visa called a 'special humanitarian enterprise visa', introduce rapid processing with the sole aim of reducing the number of people Australia finds to be in need of protection, remove the refugee convention from the statute books and deem babies born to asylum seeker parents as unauthorised maritime arrivals.

This bill is an attack on Australia's generous heart and our whole concept of fair and equitable treatment and will result in Australia wrongly refusing protection to genuine refugees and returning them to persecution or significant harm. We do not know how many genuine refugees we have turned away when we have 'safely towed back the boats'. We have no idea how they are hurting or what kind of lives they fled from. We have denied them the right held by so many of our predecessors in generations before us who had fled persecution, come to this country and built themselves a better life. They not just built themselves and their families a better life but built a better country.

Why is all this happening? Why are we having this radical deviation from Australia's longstanding commitment to international and human rights law? Why are we seriously endangering the lives of thousands of asylum seekers? While you can say you are saving them from drowning, you have no idea what they are going back to or how long they can survive in the places they are going to have to flee to.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

You can laugh, Senator O'Sullivan. It's not a good look.