Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recently we have seen coverage in the media of the latest group of asylum seekers—in this case, from Burma—who have been sent to Nauru. We have also seen coverage of the disgraceful circumstances of the sole remaining Iraqi man on Nauru, Mohammed Sagar, who is still there after five years in a situation of total limbo. It is important to keep reminding the public and the Senate of the circumstances of people like Mohammed Sagar and his colleague Muhammad Faisal, who is currently in hospital in Brisbane and still, after five years, uncertain of his future, because one of the key reasons the approach of sending asylum seekers to places like Nauru is pursued is to put them out of sight and out of mind and to make it much more likely that they will be forgotten.

It is worth noting that just a couple of weeks ago, on 26 September, we had the fifth anniversary of legislation being guillotined through this chamber by a vote of both the major parties. That passed, I think, seven separate pieces of legislation, some of which the Senate had no opportunity to scrutinise at all, and provided the legal framework to allow people to be basically taken against their will and put in a third country. However, there is another aspect of that period that I would like to focus on today, because there are a number of five-year anniversaries coming up in the next few weeks relating to a number of incidents. One is at the end of this week.

On 12 October 2001, a seriously overcrowded Indonesian fishing boat containing 238 Afghan asylum seekers, including many children and even babies, reached Ashmore Reef. They were intercepted not long after by an Australian Navy ship, the HMAS Warramunga. They were kept at Ashmore Reef on their very overcrowded and increasingly squalid vessel for five days under the surveillance of the Australian Navy whilst the federal government decided what would be done with them. I have flown over Ashmore Reef, and I can assure people that there is not much there at all—in fact, there is nothing there. Being kept for five days on an overcrowded fishing boat with 238 people, including children, would be an experience that I do not think many of us could actually imagine.

On 17 October, the Navy moved in after having got their directions from the federal government to act in a way that was now lawful, after legislation had passed this Senate. They basically undertook an action which the Pauline Hanson supporters of this nation had been urging for years, which was to tow them back out to sea. That is what the Australian Navy did. They separated the women and children and put them on the Navy boat. They then forced the 160 men into the hold of the fishing boat and steered it back to Indonesian waters. They then forcibly put the women and children back on the boat and left them there to their own fate.

It is worth noting that a similar thing was done just nine days later with more than 200 Iraqi asylum seekers, who were also forced from Ashmore Lagoon on a boat that was then designated as SIEV7. According to an article written by Arnold Zable in the Age on 27 June this year, three of the men from that boat:

... disappeared, presumed drowned, as they waded ashore, at night, when the boat ran aground 300 metres off Roti Island.

I think that is worth noting not only for the historical record but also because, five years later, a number of those people are still marooned in Indonesia, in a similar way to the way people were marooned on Nauru—and, indeed, one person still is marooned on Nauru. Forty-five of those 238 Afghan asylum seekers are still in a camp on Lombok in Indonesia. Women, men and children have lived there for five years in poverty, uncertainty and without any security for their future.

Some months ago, I provided to Senator Vanstone a petition containing around 3,000 signatures asking her to address the situation of these people. I drew one of the families that was there—that of Laila Sedaqatyar, her husband and children—to specific media attention back in June. Laila’s young daughter, who is now nine but was then four, and her young son, who was two at the time he was forced back and is now seven years old, have grown up in that camp on Lombok. That particular small family is not only in the situation of having to be in that circumstance but also in the absurd situation where their immediate family are here in Australia and are Australian citizens. Laila’s parents, grandmother, three brothers, four sisters, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins are here and are Australian citizens all. Back in 2002 they applied for visas for this small family to come and join their extended Australian citizen family in Australia. After two years of considering that application, that was rejected. Two years later again, that family was still stuck on Lombok. It is worth noting that the Australian government still pays an estimated $3½ million a year to the International Organisation for Migration and the UNHCR for the upkeep of people in this circumstance.

I have put this on the record a number of times: I support this process of Australia providing funds for the UNHCR to assess people in Indonesia. It is certainly preferable that people who are fleeing from dangerous situations do not have to undertake dangerous voyages on extremely overcrowded boats. It is no excuse for those who do so to then be forced into another dangerous voyage back to where they came from and to be left in limbo for years after that. Certainly, if we can have people assessed in Indonesia, and if Australia can assist in that happening so that people do not have the need to undertake further dangerous activities, that is a positive. But it is only a positive if people can actually get an outcome. If they are stuck there for years and years on end then it does not provide them with an outcome.

We have seen that with the Burmese asylum seekers, who have now been sent off to Nauru. My understanding, based on what I have seen, is that they had already spent many years outside of Burma seeking some sort of secure situation. It is not only unsurprising; it is almost inevitable that when people are on the run or in an insecure situation for years and years that they will seek a secure circumstance. It is well and truly time for those asylum seekers—particularly those 45 Afghan asylum seekers and refugees who are still on Lombok after five years—to have a secure and final resolution to their circumstance.

We all know that the circumstances in Afghanistan have gone from bad to worse. That is a matter of regret to all of us. Indeed, I am sure many of these people would much rather be able to return to Afghanistan if it were safe, but there is now ample evidence that it is not. There is now ample evidence that some of the people who did return—some of them involuntarily—had to flee once again. There is some evidence that some of them were killed. It is not reasonable at all to expect people in this circumstance to go all the way back to Afghanistan. According to reports and papers in the last day or two, it is feared the Taliban may be about to retake control of certain sections of that unfortunate war torn country.

These people, including the family I mentioned, have any number of Australian relatives who are willing to vouch for them and meet the costs of looking after them—who simply want them and their children to have a safe and secure future. Australia has funded the survival and upkeep of these people throughout this period, and it is well and truly overdue that they have secure circumstances. There are still asylum seekers who arrive in Indonesia. We do not hear about them because they are not coming to Australia, but they are still arriving in Indonesia. If we can deal with them there—if they can be assessed and provided with secure options—then that is certainly better than them having to go on boats, but we need to provide them with safety and security. (Time expired)