David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2061 together:

(1) Schedule 6, item 2, page 17 (after line 19), after subsection 19(2), insert:

(2A) Without limiting the matters that the Attorney-General may consider in deciding whether to refuse consent under subsection (1), the Attorney-General must consider:

(a) the application made by the prisoner (or the prisoner's representative) under section 16; and

(b) the terms of the transfer proposed by the transfer country; and

(c) the matters mentioned in subsection (2B).

(2B) The matters are the following:

(a) the prisoner's welfare;

(b) the extent of any family and community supports that the prisoner would have in the transfer country, including whether the prisoner has any children residing in Australia or the transfer country;

(c) if the prisoner has a medical condition—the services for the medical condition that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(d) if the prisoner is a person with disability—the disability services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(e) the education services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(f) the accommodation and employment services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country at the end of the prisoner's sentence of imprisonment.

(2) Schedule 6, page 18 (after line 33), after item 4, insert:

4A After subsection 20(3)

Insert:

(3A) Without limiting the matters that the Attorney-General may consider in deciding under subsection (3) whether to consent to the transfer of the prisoner on the terms proposed by the transfer country, the Attorney-General must consider:

(a) the application made by the prisoner (or the prisoner's representative) under section 16; and

(b) the terms of the transfer proposed by the transfer country; and

(c) the matters mentioned in subsection (3B).

(3B) The matters are the following:

(a) the prisoner's welfare;

(b) the extent of any family and community supports that the prisoner would have in the transfer country, including whether the prisoner has any children residing in Australia or the transfer country;

(c) if the prisoner has a medical condition—the services for the medical condition that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(d) if the prisoner is a person with disability—the disability services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(e) the education services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(f) the accommodation and employment services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country at the end of the prisoner's sentence of imprisonment.

These amendments taken together add in a number of matters that need to be considered by the Attorney-General in making a decision on transferring a prisoner to other countries. They include explicit consideration of matters including a prisoner's welfare, family and community support, medical conditions and disability, and the ability to receive appropriate care for these education, accommodation and employment services post-release. The explicit articulation of matters to be considered was, in fact, proposed by the Law Council in their submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. It included a specific requirement for the decision-maker to have any submissions made by the prisoner put before them and considered. We could see this as a very abstract matter but, as I said in my second reading contribution, we've currently got two prisoners—Mr Duggan, here, and Mr Assange in the UK—both of whom the US government are seeking to have extradited and transferred to the US prison system and the US justice system. On any view, putting additional protections articulating the matters that the Attorney should consider before making those decisions—in a manner suggested not by some revolutionary part of our society but by the Law Council of Australia—and putting in place a set of non-exhaustive matters for the Attorney to take into account seems like sensible due process.

There's huge controversy at the moment about the transfer of those two prisoners. I know myself how many thousands and thousands of Australians are concerned that Julian Assange's health and welfare will be irreparably prejudiced. In fact, his life is at risk as a result of a potential transfer from the UK to the US. I also know Mr Duggan's family, including his kids, have said the same about his transfer. We believe, consistent with what the Law Council have said, that these matters need to be before the Attorney before there is consent to a prison transfer. We're not saying that they are determinative of the prison transfer, but we're saying to the Attorney: take them into account. Take into account the submission from the prisoner, and take into account the capacity for them to be safe in the prison system to which they're being transferred. We urge the Senate to support us in that, and I commend the amendments to the Senate.