Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I rise and join with Senator Keneally, who has spoken already in this debate. I rise on behalf of Labor to say that we will be opposing the Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) Bill 2019, in essence, for one good reason: this bill is utterly unnecessary. As I will go through in my contribution, this bill is working and it delivers on a core Australian principal, which is that, if you are sick, no matter who you are, no matter what your race and no matter what your wallet, you will get medical care. That's what medevac was about, and it remains as relevant now as it was when the bill was passed.

What does this bill that the government is now introducing seek to do? Firstly, it seeks to repeal the medevac legislation—and, of course, they were amendments made to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill, which was passed by this parliament in February 2019 and given royal assent on 1 March 2019. Secondly, this bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to extend existing powers in relation to people transferred to Australia under the medical transfer provisions, allowing for their removal from Australia or return to a regional processing country once they no longer need to be in Australia for the temporary purpose for which they were brought.

I note in passing that a number of submitters to the Senate inquiry on this bill argued that the government does maintain the power to transfer a person back to a regional processing country. Having undertaken some litigation in this area in my previous life as a lawyer, I can also say that there is no doubt that the Migration Act gives the power to the government, as it currently stands, to transfer people back to a regional processing country if those people are brought here for medical treatment. If you don't believe me, I refer you to some of the evidence to the Senate inquiry, from the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, where the deputy director, Dr Maria O'Sullivan, stated:

Whilst there is no explicit provision governing the return of this particular cohort as a matter of technical and legal requirements, as a matter of normal statutory interpretation the general removal provisions in the Migration Act would operate in relation to this cohort.

Put another way, if someone is brought to Australia from Manus or Nauru for medical treatment, the government already has the power under the Migration Act to transfer that person back to Manus or Nauru once they have received their medical treatment. So there is no need whatsoever to amend the Migration Act, as is attempted via this bill. That's all I'll say in relation to that second aspect—the proposal to amend the Migration Act.

I want to spend the rest of my contribution on the core part of this bill and its intent to repeal the medevac legislation. Labor has always had two objectives with respect to the medical transfer of people from Manus and Nauru, and from Papua New Guinea more broadly. We put forward these two objectives when the medevac legislation was originally debated here earlier this year, and these have always been our objectives—then and to this day. Those two objectives have been, firstly, to ensure that sick people get the medical care they need. It's hard to imagine that there is a principle that is more Australian. If you're thinking about Australian values and Australian principles, it's hard to think of one that is more basic and more core to the Australian psyche than ensuring that sick people get the medical care that they need—no matter what's in their pocket, no matter who they are, no matter where they come from and no matter what their race, people get the medical care they need. I'm very proud of the fact that that is something that differentiates us from, for instance, the United States of America, where we know that accessibility to health care is very much dependent on how much you've got in your pocket. We don't stand for that in Australia. What we stand for in Australia is the right of everyone, no matter who they are, to get the health care that they need, when they need it and in the form that they need it. So that's the first of the objectives that Labor has had in relation to the medical transfer of people from Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

The second principle, which, again, we put forward when this legislation was originally debated earlier this year, and which we hold to now, is that it's important to ensure that the Minister for Home Affairs has final discretion over medical transfers on national security, public safety or character grounds. I will just say in passing that, having been a little bit involved in negotiations around the original medevac legislation earlier this year, this is something that some advocates didn't want. Some advocates were arguing that Labor should vote to give the final decision about these transfers to doctors, but it was important to Labor, as a party of government, that these matters ultimately be decisions for the minister. That's why we voted the way that we did back then, when the legislation was put through, and that's why we continue to believe that it's important that the minister has final discretion over medical transfers on national security, public safety or character grounds.

Our views on these matters have not changed. Importantly, the legislation as it currently stands—the legislation that this government now wants to repeal—does both of these things. What this legislation, as it currently stands, does is ensure that sick people get the medical care that they need and ensures that it's the minister who has the final discretion over medical transfers on national security, public safety or character grounds. That's why this legislation works. That's why this legislation is not the Armageddon that various government ministers, right up to the Prime Minister, said it would be. That's why it's working to this day and that's why Labor continues to support it. In the face of repeated false claims by Minister Dutton, the Prime Minister and other government ministers about medevac we have not yielded on this matter, because we believe that medevac is necessary and that it's working. It delivers on those two objectives that Labor put forward when the legislation was initially debated, and it continues to do so now.

Let's just dig for a little bit into how this medevac process works. I think there has been a lot said by the minister and the Prime Minister which is patently untrue about how this bill and this process work, so it's important to get the facts on the record. For the medevac process to be enlivened, two or more treating doctors for a patient in Papua New Guinea or Nauru must advise the secretary of home affairs that the patient needs to be brought to Australia for medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment. So it needs two doctors—two independent doctors—who, frankly, have more qualifications to make these decisions than anyone in this chamber or anyone in the government. Two doctors must certify to the minister that the patient needs to be transferred to Australia for medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment. And that only can occur when appropriate medical care is not available in Papua New Guinea or in Nauru. We've already had government senators—and I'm sure there'll be many more—try to argue that these are for things like toothaches and waking up in a cold sweat. That is not true. What is required is that two doctors certify that appropriate medical care is not available in Papua New Guinea or in Nauru.

Secondly, even if that does happen, the minister always retains the power to deny the transfer of an individual on national security, public safety or character grounds. This can occur if: the patient has a substantial criminal record, and the minister believes that transfer would expose the Australian community to serious risk of criminal conduct; the minister suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the ASIO Act, including because of an adverse security assessment; or ASIO advises the minister that transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security and the threat cannot be mitigated.

So all of these nonsense claims from Minister Dutton, from the Prime Minister, from other ministers and from other senators that someone can just easily come here if they're a security threat are absolutely not possible under the terms of this bill. And, frankly, it can only happen if the minister isn't doing his job. I can understand why some members of the government might have concerns that this minister might not be doing his job. He's been shown on a number of occasions not to be able to do his job properly. Let's look at the Paladin incident. Let's look at all sorts of other things that he has overseen in his administration of this portfolio.

So if anyone from the government is getting up and saying that someone can be brought here even though they're a security threat, what they're actually doing is saying that their own minister, Minister Dutton, is not capable of exercising the powers he has in his own legislation. He has every power necessary to stop someone being transferred here if they're a security risk, if they've got a substantial criminal record and the minister believes that there's a serious risk of criminal conduct in the Australian community. And they are exactly the things that Labor insisted on in the original legislation. That's why they're there. That's why Labor continues to support them. We do think the minister should have the power to stop someone being brought here if they are a security risk—and that's what this bill does.

If the minister denies a transfer on health grounds only—if there is not a security concern but the minister believes that the health grounds given for an individual to be transferred aren't sufficient—the minister must inform the Independent Health Advice Panel as soon as practicable. Within 72 hours the panel must conduct a further clinical assessment and inform the minister that the minister's decision to deny someone a transfer on health grounds is confirmed or that the transfer has been approved. So who is this panel? There's a panel set up to review a decision of the minister if he decides to not allow someone's transfer. Again, this is not some tin-pot group of people who are part of some grand conspiracy to undermine Australia's border protection regime. This Independent Health Advice Panel includes some of Australia's most highly qualified and experienced medical practitioners. They include the Commonwealth's own Chief Medical Officer and the Surgeon General of Australian Border Force. So we've got two appointees of the government on this panel. Is the government seriously saying they don't have confidence in their own Chief Medical Officer or the Surgeon General of Australian Border Force? In addition, there's a representative of the AMA, there's a paediatric health expert and there's a representative of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. This is a highly capable and highly qualified independent group of people, who have the ability to apply medical judgement to a particular case when the minister refuses someone's transfer.

The idea that this is some tin-pot group of people who will subvert this legislation and allow transfers to occur when they're not warranted—just have a look at the people that we're talking about here and ask yourself whether they are really going to do so, especially when two members of the panel are appointees of this very government.

Let's go to what the effect of the medevac legislation has actually been. Of course, if you believe the minister, the senators from the government or all the breathless reports that we see in some of the newspapers and leaked by members of this government, then you'd think that the sky was falling in and that it's going to fall in even further if this bill is repealed. As of 17 October 2019, 132 people have been transferred to Australia under the medevac legislation and all transfers have been explicitly approved by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton; the minister for immigration, Mr Coleman; or by ministerially appointed doctors. That's how unnecessary these transfers were; they were approved in every single case by a government minister or by doctors appointed by those ministers.

As at 26 August 2019, the independent panel had considered 28 applications. These were people who had been recommended for transfer by doctors but who the minister had rejected. Twenty-eight of those went to the review panel, 10 were recommended for transfer and the minister's decision to refuse someone's transfer was upheld in 18 cases. So the minister's decision that individuals didn't warrant transfer was found to be correct in 18 cases, and the panel didn't let that happen. So, again, the legislation is working. It's not seeing hordes of people come to Australia, as we were warned would happen. It's not seeing doctors overturning ministers' decisions—that's not happening. In fact, as of 26 August, the panel upheld the minister's decision in 18 cases. And only one person has been rejected on security or character grounds.

So for all of these claims that Minister Dutton and the Prime Minister were making, that we'd have all these evil terrorists and criminals being brought in under the cover of darkness as a result of this medevac legislation, there has only been one person who has been rejected on security or character grounds and again, importantly, what that shows is that the legislation is working. Where there is a valid case and where someone shouldn't be brought here because of security or character concerns, they're not transferred here. The bill is working.

And that's not to mention the fact that there have been about 1,200 people transferred to Australia by the minister outside the medevac regime. So we have about 132 who were transferred here under medevac as of 17 October 2019, but there are nearly 10 times that number of people who have been transferred to Australia by the minister outside the medevac legislation. So I really don't quite understand why it is that this medevac legislation is the cause of all problems in the country, when we've actually got about 10 times the number of people being transferred here by the minister outside medevac and apparently that's not a problem. The fact is that the medevac bill is working. It is delivering the objectives that Labor always set, which were that people who need medical care get medical care and making sure that people who are a security threat to Australia aren't allowed to be transferred here.

Of course, this is not what Minister Dutton, the Prime Minister and other ministers are saying. But I ask: how can any Australian believe a minister—Minister Dutton—who routinely manipulates, misrepresents and mischaracterises the truth for political gain? He is a minister who constantly cries wolf when it comes to border protection and the risks that are placed on Australia if this bill is repealed. Medevac is a perfect example of that.

Let's just go through a few of the quotes from Minister Dutton. In February, Minister Dutton claimed that medical transfers were going to displace Australia from hospitals. That scandalous claim was made to scare Australians who need to get hospital care, which is harder to get because of this government's own cuts to hospital funding—but that's a whole other issue. Suddenly, the minister wanted to displace blame for that, away from the government's own funding cuts, and to say that it was those nasty refugees, those nasty asylum seekers, who would be brought here if this medevac legislation were passed. Minister Dutton said:

People who need medical services are going to be displaced from those services, because if you bring hundreds and hundreds of people from Nauru and Manus down to our country, they are going to go into the health network, let's be frank about it.

I don't want to see Australians who are in waiting lines at public hospitals kicked off those waiting lines because people from Nauru and Manus are now going to access those health services.

More dog whistling from the dog whistler in chief, Mr Dutton. More scare campaigns to distract attention from the government's own funding cuts to hospitals and trying to put the blame at the feet of asylum seekers and refugees. And what do you know? Those hundreds and hundreds of people from Nauru and Manus who we were warned were going to come haven't come. There were about 132 as of a couple of weeks ago. Funnily enough, we haven't heard anything more from the government about Australians on waiting lists losing their health services because of the medevac legislation. And do you know why? Because it didn't happen and it was never going to happen.

The minister also argued that two doctors from Nimbin could force the government to bring people from Manus or Nauru to Australia. These claims are simply not true. Again, the members of the panel set up to review the minister's decisions include some of the most eminent doctors in this country and two government appointed doctors. Are they doctors from Nimbin? It's not true, it never was true and it's another untruth from Minister Dutton. He also claimed that a thousand people would flood Australia through medevac. That hasn't happened at all. And probably the biggest false claim made by the minister is that, if we had this medevac legislation, the boats would restart and our borders wouldn't be safe. That hasn't happened, it was never going to happen; it was made up as a political argument and it has been exposed as being untrue. The government can't have it both ways. They can't say on the one hand that their policies are stopping the boats and then say medevac is at risk for the boats starting. You can't actually have it both ways.

To sum up: Labor is opposing the medevac bill because all it does is guarantee a core Australian principle, which is that people, no matter who they are, no matter how wealthy they, no matter where they come from, should get good health care. That is a core Australian principle and that is what the medevac legislation does. The legislation also gives the minister power to stop any transfers which are a security concern. The bill is working and it should stay in place.