Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. What is the minister’s reaction to the claim that up to nine humans who sought asylum in Australia, were sent to Nauru and then returned to Afghanistan by this government have been killed and that two more have been attacked and had their children killed? Does the government accept that this tragic news means that they were wrong to reject these people’s claims or does the minister stand by her claim reported on the ABC news last night that their asylum claims failed, they accepted a $2,000 repatriation payment to return and the government has no further obligations? Will the minister now commit to investigating the tragedies unearthed by the Edmund Rice Centre?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nettle may not be aware, whereas I think most other senators and members are, of claims that have been raised in the past by the Edmund Rice Centre and which, as a consequence of them being serious claims, were followed up. In 2005 a number of visits were made by officers from the immigration department to the Edmund Rice Centre. I think on each occasion, but certainly on the second if I recall my brief properly, further information was requested and was not forthcoming. A number of further approaches were made, albeit not visits, and the information was subsequently not provided. As a consequence of that, we notified the Edmund Rice Centre in May of this year that that investigation would be closed because we did not have any more information.

What happened earlier this week? In an odd coincidence of facts, the day before there was to be a debate in this parliament on a bill relating to potential asylum seekers, the Edmund Rice Centre reappears publicly and asserts that nine people who have been returned, having been to Nauru, have been killed. Two names are provided and there is a further suggestion that a person who was returned no longer has his children surviving. To the best of my knowledge at this point, no other names have been provided. So, to take the Edmund Rice Centre claims as fact at this point is, with respect, jumping the gun and, following on a previous pattern, not necessarily a wise move. We did have a look at the two names that were suggested by the Edmund Rice Centre as being people that Australia had returned. I was advised by my department that one of them was part of the Australian case load on Nauru but the other was part of the UNHCR case load. So I will raise that matter with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Geneva and see what they have to say about the implied criticism of UN processing of people on Nauru.

It would not surprise me if, out of the millions and millions of displaced people from Afghanistan who have returned to Afghanistan with support from the United Nations since 2001 or 2002, not all of them at this point are alive. That may be the case. It may also be the case that some people who returned voluntarily and accepted a voluntary return package of $2,000 each have subsequently lost their lives in circumstances that we do not know. But without further advice it is impossible to say.

As to the question of voluntary return, I make the point that we work with the International Organisation for Migration. This is an internationally recognised body, it is internationally respected and it works with the UNHCR all over the world. One of the conditions of working with the IOM on Nauru is that there are no involuntary returns. So I will take the matter up with the IOM as well.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister accept that some people may have been coerced to return? I have been in contact today with two former detainees from Nauru. They do not know each other and do not speak the same language. They have both received formal repatriation offers and a promise of $2,000. They have told me that the department of immigration said to them: ‘You must go back. If you don’t agree you will be forced. Your case is closed, it will never be opened again and there is no way that you can stay. You have one month to agree and get the money. After this you go by force and get no money.’ Can the minister indicate whether or not this is an accurate reflection of what the department of immigration said to them and does the minister still claim that those who returned to Afghanistan and other countries from Nauru did so voluntarily and that they were given a genuine choice?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the record, Senator, you are not able to ascertain and you cannot possibly assert here that the remarks you have just made are in fact a correct reflection of what did or did not happen on Nauru. All the senator is saying is that that is what someone who was rejected has asserted. I have no doubt that some people who have been rejected will get together and make particular claims. It is true that there is a point at which voluntary return packages cut off. People would have been told: ‘This offer is open up until this date. If you don’t take it then, you don’t have a chance of getting it.’

As to the suggestion that people were told they would be forcibly removed, there has not been a forcible removal from Nauru. It is not the Australian government’s country; it is Nauru. There has not been one. You will not be able to show there has been one. If we were likely to ever have a forcible removal, why didn’t we do it with the remainder that were there? Has that ever occurred to you, Senator Nettle? (Time expired)

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.