Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved in this bill.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will deal with the first of the amendments by the Australian Greens, which is schedule 1 after items 18 and 60. It is an amendment request on sheet 73501 and 73502.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first amendment that the Australian Greens are moving this morning in relation to this bill is to allow for the Australian Human Rights Commission to visit, inspect and report on the conditions and what is going on in offshore detention centres that are run by Australia and paid by for Australian taxpayers. We know, at the moment, they are on Manus Island and Nauru. This is a very important amendment. We know that the Human Rights Commission has these rights in Australian mainland detention centres. They are able to go to detention centres, inspect what is going on, talk to people about their cases and talk to people about the conditions that they are experiencing in those places.

The importance of this amendment is that it allows for the same rights and obligations that the Human Rights Commissioner has already for Australian based detention centres and, indeed, on Christmas Island to be similar to those for detention centres that we have further offshore on Manus Island and Nauru. It would allow the Human Rights Commissioner to go in, inspect, look at the conditions of what these camps are like and deal with any complaints or issues that come out of that. It is really important because, as we know, these centres are costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars. The legal rights of the refugees who are locked up there indefinitely have been taken away. There is currently no transparency at all on Manus Island and Nauru.

I previously wrote to the minister about this. I raised this with the department in Senate estimates. It is clear that, unless we change the Migration Act, which is what this amendment does, there is no ability for the Australian Human Rights Commission—Australia's peak human rights body—to inspect what is going on in these places. When you look at the reports that have come out and when you hear the stories of people who have said how they were treated in these god-awful places, then you know something is going on and we need a bit more transparency.

For the Australian Human Rights Commission to be able to go in and inspect is a really important thing for us and this chamber to do. We think that it is okay for it to happen in Australian based centres and it is all okay for it to happen on Christmas Island; let us make sure it is there for the refugees who are sent offshore. Let us not forget that these people are there indefinitely, as the government has this open-ended 'no advantage' rule. The children, their families, and the young men and women who are detained in these places could be there for five, 10 or 15—who knows how many—years. To allow for some proper transparency would go a long way to making sure that Australian taxpayers and members of our community who are concerned about issues of human rights and how we treat our fellow human beings can have some assurance that there is somebody watching what is going on.

It is an important amendment and I would ask for the government and the opposition to support it. If they are not going to support it, I would ask for the minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in this chamber today to explain why the government does not want to see this type of basic transparency available to the Australian Human Rights Commission in these god-awful places.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Hanson-Young, before you formally move your amendments, because there are two of them you have to seek leave to move them together.

by leave—I move the two amendments that relate to the Human Rights Commissioner having access to detention centres together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 28), after item 18, insert:

18A After subsection 198AB(6)

  Add:

  (6A) If the Minister designates a country or has previously designated a country under subsection (1), the Minister must:

  (a) ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide the Australian Human Rights Commissioner with access to any place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act is detained, housed or otherwise held;

  (b) ensure that the country provides assurances that the Commissioner's access to such places will be equivalent to the access that the Commissioner would have if the person was detained, housed or otherwise held in a place located in Australia.

(2) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), after item 60, insert:

60A Application provision—subsection 198AB(6A)

  Subsection 198AB(6A) of the Migration Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a designation that is made before or after commencement.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government rejects both amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young. The government believes that requiring another country to provide assurances that it will provide access to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner is something that this government cannot guarantee; therefore, it is not appropriate to put it in this legislation.

The department has received advice from the Solicitor-General on the extent to which the Australian Human Rights Commission may inquire into complaints about alleged human rights breaches in regional processing centres. The advice was sort after the president of the Human Rights Commission wrote to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, inquiring into a complaint that the AHRC had received from persons transferred to Nauru under the regional processing provisions of the Migration Act. The department accepts that the president of the commission can inquire into such complaints. As to the full implications of the advice, the department is further considering this.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that I am extremely disappointed that the government wishes to continue this secrecy in relation to how vulnerable refugees are being treated and the conditions they are being kept in on Manus Island and Nauru. The Australian people have a right to know what is going on there, who is really in charge and, above all else, what our $10 billion being spent in the government's offshore processing regime is actually going to. It is hard to understand why the government would not want to ensure in Australian law through the Migration Act that the Human Rights Commission have access to these camps unless they have something to hide. That is the reality. What else are the Australian people meant to think?

This is disappointing to many members of the community after seeing how badly people can be treated and the conditions they can be kept in in these places. It is not just under this Pacific solution mark 2 regime; we know that the conditions were horrendous when the camps were being run by the former John Howard government. One of the reasons why the Australian detention system was opened to the Australian Human Rights Commission and, indeed, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was the scandal of Vivian Solon and Cornelia Rau. They are the very real examples of what happens to people when governments do not allow these places to have proper scrutiny and transparency. That is the reality. We have seen it. It has been proven. It has ruined people's lives.

Now, despite all of the evidence in front of us, this government are prepared to make the same mistakes all over again. What are the Australian people meant to think? There is no other explanation than that the government are wanting to hide what is really going on. They do not want proper scrutiny. It is bad enough that they put gag clauses in their contracts with service providers, but not letting Australia's peak human rights body inspect what is a fundamental part of this government's immigration system is dishonest, irresponsible and, frankly, shameful. There is no other explanation than that the government are wishing to hide what is really going on.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is implementing appropriate transparency and monitoring arrangements in line with the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers. As the minister has said on previous occasions, the process of designating regional processing countries, which can be disallowed by the parliament, provided the opportunity for parliament to scrutinise the arrangements that we were putting in place. It included the requirement to place before both houses of parliament a range of documents relating to regional processing arrangements, such as why it is in the national interest, advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and arrangements in relation to the treatment of persons.

There are now a range of other mechanisms in place to support the objectives of transparency. For example, access to regional processing centres has been granted to the UNHCR and other human rights organisations and observers and, indeed, Australian politicians, and there is regular public reporting in relation to regional processing arrangements, including through mechanisms such as Senate estimates hearings. Additionally, Australia is working closely with regional processing countries to establish advisory arrangements as specified in the memoranda of understanding. An interim joint advisory committee has been established for Nauru, and we continue to work closely with PNG to develop similar arrangements. The government sees the oversight mechanisms as important in ensuring transparency of operations and policy.

I note that part of the committee's recommendations included reporting on health, education and accommodation arrangements in centres. In addition to a range of oversight arrangements in place, there are also a number of established quality assurance and reporting mechanisms for health, education and accommodation. These include treating transferees with dignity, respect and integrity, building an environment that supports security and safety, improving health and wellbeing outcomes for transferees, interacting with transferees in a culturally sensitive way, reflecting human rights principles through the provision of services and facilities, and ensuring the best interests of the child are taken into account.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wow! I realise the minister representing the immigration minister today is not the minister who was in the Senate on the night that we debated the legislation that would allow for refugees to be dumped on Manus Island or Nauru, but there is nothing binding in law to ensure that that entire list of things that the minister has just read out have to happen. In fact, there is nothing in law to ensure that they have to happen. The government and the opposition made it law that the minister does not have to prove any of this in the first instance. This chamber was not given the ability nor the right to scrutinise the conditions on Manus Island or Nauru deliberately by the government, because they knew it would not pass the test that even the Houston panel suggested was needed. The Houston report outlines a list of things that need to happen—how people have to be treated, the conditions that they will be kept in, the appropriateness of services, the appropriateness of accommodation. The Houston report said that no-one could be sent to these offshore places without these things in place. The point is precisely that none of those things is happening and there is no-one to ensure that they start happening, because there is no independent scrutiny or checks. It is precisely why we need the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to have access.

I come back again to the fact that the government are more concerned about hiding what is going on in these places than making sure that they are following their own policies or the recommendations of the Houston report. The fact is that those things are in the report and they have not been done. You are more interested in trying to cover it up. That is the truth of it. They are not in law and they are not binding. This government would prefer that it stayed out of the public eye—that Australian taxpayers did not know that they are spending $10 billion on decrepit, inhumane, wet, insufficient camps of cruelty. That is the reality of this. Chair, I ask that the amendments be put.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7350 be agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7349 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 28), after item 18, insert:

18B After subsection 198AB(6)

  Add:

  (6B) If the Minister designates a country or has previously designated a country under subsection (1), the Minister must:

  (a) subject to the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c), ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide accredited media representatives with reasonable access to any place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act is detained, housed or otherwise held; and

  (b) subject to the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c), ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide accredited media representatives with reasonable access to interview and speak with a person (being a person who consents to be interviewed) who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act; and

(c) enter into a media access protocol with the country that allows accredited media representatives to enter a place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival is detained, housed or otherwise held for the purposes of:

     (i) general reporting on the facilities operation and status (including for the purpose of taking photographs, recordings and other footage); and

     (ii) interviewing and speaking with a person (being a person who consents to be interviewed) who is detained or otherwise held at the place; and

(d) make publicly available the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c).

(2) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), after item 60, insert:

60B Application provision—subsection 198AB(6B)

  Subsection 198AB(6B) of the Migration Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a designation that is made before or after commencement.

The second lot of amendments that the Australian Greens are moving this morning relate directly to the establishment of media access protocols for detention centres and camps on Manus Island and Nauru. There are two technical amendments which allow for this to occur.

The media have access to Australian based detention centres, subject of course to appropriate media access protocols, but for some reason—and there is only one conclusion to be drawn—the government has not been willing to allow media into the detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. I will read amendment (1) so it is very clear to people what it does. If the minister designates a country, such as Manus Island or Nauru, or has previously designated a country under subsection (1), the minister must:

  (a) subject to the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c), ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide accredited media representatives with reasonable access to any place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act is detained, housed or otherwise held; and

  (b) subject to the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c), ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide accredited media representatives with reasonable access to interview and speak with a person …

(c) enter into a media access protocol with the country that allows accredited media representatives to enter a place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival is detained … for the purposes of:

     (i) general reporting on the facilities operation and status (including for the purpose of taking photographs, recordings and other footage); and

     (ii) interviewing and speaking with a person (… who consents to be interviewed) who is detained or otherwise held at the place; and

(d) make publicly available the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c).

This is fundamental to allowing not just proper scrutiny of the conditions within these camps but also proper scrutiny and assurances for the Australian taxpayer. Australian taxpayers are paying $10 billion a year, including this year, with the establishment of these awful camps. These are Australian run camps. They are Australian funded, they are managed by Australian representatives and most of the workers in these places are Australian. This is all under the auspices of Australia. The Australian people have a right to know what is going on in these camps and what their money is being spent on.

This amendment does not allow for the doors to be flung open and for anyone to come in and take photographs and footage. It requires that there be an agreement and a proper media access protocol established, with assurances from the host country that the media will be able to gain access, interview those who wished to be interviewed and take photographs of the conditions—all within an appropriate protocol. We do not even have a protocol at the moment. There are no rules against visiting these detention centres, apart from the fact that the government says you cannot. Media agencies here in Australia have for some time now been able to talk to and interview people within Australian detention centres if they follow the appropriate media access protocols. All this amendment is asking for is that the same type of access be available on Manus Island and Nauru. It is common sense—it allows for proper transparency and proper scrutiny, and it gives an assurance to the Australian people that they can find out what is going on in these places.

It should not be that difficult for the government to give assurances that media who follow the appropriate rules can have access—unless, of course, the government have something to hide; unless, of course, what is going on in these places is so atrocious, so out of step, that they do not want the Australian people to know. I have a question for the minister: will the government allow for the establishment of these media access protocols and allow for media to visit these detention centres to find out what is really going on?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is of the view that it is inappropriate to make any amendments to the bill that impose upon the independence and authority of sovereign nations in the way Senator Hanson-Young has proposed. As sovereign nations, it is the exclusive decision of the governments of Nauru and PNG to determine to whom they grant lawful entry into their respective countries. As a corollary to that, access to regional processing centres is at the discretion of the governments of Nauru and PNG and it is not appropriate that that be legislated by the Australian government.

The Australian government is working with both of the regional processing countries on what the arrangements will be for suitable visitor and media access. That work is continuing. However, we do not see any merit in legislating in the way proposed in the Greens amendments.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have brought these amendments to the chamber today because there is no guarantee that anything that the minister has just described will happen. Back in October I asked the minister and the department during Senate estimates when we would get media protocols and access guidelines for Manus Island and Nauru. We were told they would have a look at it; they might try to draft something. That was almost nine months ago.

This government have no intention to provide proper scrutiny and transparency of what is going on in these god-awful places. No commitment could be undertaken that would convince anyone that they are serious about doing this. If they believe it is important, they can make sure it goes in the act. I am not dictating how the provisions have to look, or in what time frame they have to be put in place. They have already had nine months and nothing has eventuated. I am saying that the act must stipulate that it should be done. Otherwise, we know there is absolutely no way the Australian people can trust the government to do this.

The Australian people know there is no way we can trust this government on anything to do with asylum seekers and refugees. Every time we are promised something, the promise is broken. Every time we are told people will be treated properly, we find out they are not. Every time we hear children will not be subject to harsh treatment, we find out they are being subjected to harsh treatment. Every time we hear from the government that they are working on making the system fairer, we find out there has been nothing done. Unless it is in the act, it will not happen.

I do not believe the other side would be any more inclined to stick to their word. I do not have any hope that, if we had a coalition government, they would be allowing the media to access detention centres on Manus Island or Nauru either. If this government believe that it should happen and that it is important, they should put it in law. They either believe it is important and it needs to be in the legislation—particularly ahead of the September election—or they do not. The fundamental message from all this is that there is no commitment to proper scrutiny of what is going on in these places, and there is absolutely no way the government wants the media finding out about it.

A couple of weeks ago the Four Cornersreport on Manus Island and Nauru was aired. That footage had to be smuggled out. What does that say about our government and our laws—that the only way to find out how we are treating vulnerable refugees, under a system we are paying billions of dollars for, is to smuggle out footage of these places?

What does that say about basic democracy, about fundamental understandings of transparency, about how we spend our money, about how we treat people and about how the government is in line with the law? When it gets to a point where refugees have to smuggle out footage of the conditions they are in, or Australians have to go in to get it and sneak it out, to give us an understanding of what is really going on, that is not something Australia should be proud of. These conditions are more like those in some of the countries these people fled from in the first place.

It is clear that the only take-home message from all of this is that the government does not want the Australian people to see what is really going on inside. If there is nothing to hide then let the media in and commit to putting it in law so that it cannot be abused, so that there is no ambiguity about the right of media to speak to people in detention, to see the conditions and to report back to the Australian people about how their money is being spent and how these individuals are being treated. If there is nothing to hide, then open the doors.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7349 be agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7383:

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 4), after item 19, insert:

19A Subsection 198AD(1)

  Omit "and 198AG", substitute ", 198AG and 198AJ".

(2) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 15), after item 47A, insert:

47B At the end of Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 2

  Add:

198AJ Vulnerable persons

(1) Section 198AD does not apply to an unauthorised maritime arrival if the person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of subsection (2).

(2) A person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of this subsection if:

  (a) the person is aged less than 18 years; or

  (b) the person is aged 18 years or over and is the parent or guardian (or other family member) of a person covered by paragraph (a).

(3) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 19), after item 61, insert:

61A Application provision—section 198AJ

(1) The amendments in items 19A and 47B apply from 13 August 2012.

(2) Subitem (3) applies to a person if:

  (a) the person was an unauthorised maritime arrival at any time on or after 13 August 2012; and

  (b) the person was taken from Australia to a regional processing country pursuant to subsection 198AD(2) of the Migration Act 1958; and

  (c) the person was a vulnerable person for the purpose of subsection 198AJ(2) at the time the person was taken to the regional processing country; and

  (d) the person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of subsection 198AJ(2) at the date the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Act 2013 receives the Royal Assent.

(3) Subject to subitem (4), an officer must, as soon as reasonably practicable, take an offshore entry person to whom this subitem applies, from the regional processing country to a place located in Australia.

(4) Page 14 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Further contingent amendments

Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946

1 Section 4 (definition of regional processing country )

  Repeal the definition.

2 Paragraph 6(2)(b)

  Repeal the paragraph.

3 Paragraph 8(3)(b)

  Repeal the paragraph.

The final amendments the Australian Greens are moving this morning concern children and families being detained on Manus Island. There are a number of people within the Australian community—and this is also reflected in here and in the other place—who are incredibly uncomfortable with the indefinite detention of children on Manus Island.

We know that the conditions there are substandard. The UNHCR has told us that. We know that the conditions are inappropriate for children, harmful for children. Not only has the UNHCR said that; Amnesty International has also told us that. We know that even the government's own Department of Immigration and Citizenship believes that the current conditions on Manus Island are pretty poor.

Many Australians were shocked and horrified when the Four Corners report was aired a couple of weeks ago and they saw the conditions children were being kept in. There are other people in this place, from other parties, who also do not believe that vulnerable children and their families should be kept on Manus Island. Senator Cameron has said that he does not believe that children should be kept on Manus Island. I agree with Senator Cameron. The opposition's spokesperson on immigration, Mr Morrison, has said that he is uncomfortable with the idea of children being kept on Manus Island.

When I went to Manus Island at the end of January, before parliament resumed this year, I met with the children who were being detained there. It was a pretty harrowing experience. When I was there, there were 35 children. The youngest was seven; the oldest was 17. There was one little boy who was very clearly distressed.

I met the children without their parents—I had their parents' consent. I met with them, sat with them and talked with them. They all talked to me about how awful it was being locked up there. They asked what they had done—what was the bad thing they had done which meant they had to be locked up in this prison? This little boy, who was clearly depressed, told me that he was scared and upset but that he could not cry. He had stopped himself from crying—because every time he cries, his mum cries. And his mum cries all the time. This is that little boy's picture: 'My mum is crying and I am sad.' This is the naked truth of what we are doing to children on Manus Island. Other children talked about how they felt as if they were locked in prison. This is a picture of a young boy staring out from inside the fence: 'This is a boy; he is in prison and waiting.' This is from an eight-year-old child.

They were all taken to Manus Island on a plane and they told me the stories of how they were taken there. They were ripped out of their beds on Christmas Island, some of them at four or five o'clock in the morning. They were given no warning. They were put onto the plane in the middle of the night. They talked about how they had had to take the almost 10-hour flight—there was a stopover where they remained on the plane—while still in their pyjamas, terrified about what was going to happen to them.

They are in this camp, which is hideous. Not one person, aside from the immigration minister, believes that these conditions are appropriate. It is a place of cruelty. In this hideous, hideous camp, there is really nothing for these children to do, so they are watching all the time, and, when they see planes flying over, they think the plane is coming to get them to take them back to safety. 'When there is an aeroplane in the sky, all the kids start to cry and ask for leaving Manus with it.' That was from a 10-year-old child that I met when I was on Manus Island.

I know this issue is difficult. I have never argued that there is a simple solution to addressing the needs of asylum seekers who arrive on our shores. I do not think there is a simple solution. But I do not believe that we should be punishing children in some way to pretend that there is a simple solution. We are sacrificing these children's lives. We are—and I do not say this lightly—subjecting these children to child abuse, to institutionalised abuse, to child abuse by policy. We are creating a damaged generation. Most of these kids, at the end of this, are going to come to Australia, be given protection, because they deserve it, and become Australian citizens—and we have damaged them. We have damaged them. They will become the next damaged generation.

Children and their families cannot be kept in detention in these camps of horror. We must bring them to Australia, assess their claims fairly, treat them with care—look after these poor kids. These children have fled some of the most horrendous circumstances we can imagine—war, torture, brutality. They have seen their parents subjected to torture. And now we have them locked up in conditions that are inhumane, where they are witnessing adults who are under so much pressure that they are threatening to take their own lives, attempting self-harm—and these kids are seeing it all. It is not right.

We debate in this place all the time how we manage this issue. There has to be something said for protecting children and standing up for the rights of these children when they are totally voiceless. If we do not do it in this place, who is going to? If we cannot see that subjecting these children to these types of conditions is dangerous, is harmful, is cruel, what will be we prepared to do next? It was wrong when John Howard detained children in Woomera. It was wrong when John Howard detained children on Manus Island. It is wrong today to have children detained in our detention centres. It is wrong to be detaining children on Manus Island. We have the capacity to assess their claims here and stop treating them like animals, subjecting them to abuse and creating the next damaged generation. I seek leave to table our pictures.

Leave granted.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support these amendments and to speak on behalf of children. I ask people to think about what is going on today on Manus Island, where we are punishing children because they are seeking asylum in our country. They are children, they have come here and they are asking Australia to assess their refugee status, to bring them in and to take care of them. I compare it with what we are doing now in the criminal justice system in this country, where the criminal justice system says there have to be exceptional circumstances in which you would detain a child and that detention should only be used for children who have committed serious and violent crimes. These children have committed no serious and violent crime. These children have simply asked to come and be part of our community and our society—and that is why this legislation that we are debating here today is a stain on our national character. I put to all of you: is this how you would want your family and your children to be treated if you found yourselves seeking asylum somewhere else in the world? Look at your own children, think about your own children and ask yourself: would you be prepared for your children to be locked up indefinitely on Manus Island—yes or no? Would that be okay for your own children? If it would not be okay for your own children, why is it okay to punish other children?

Earlier this week I spoke in here to give the Greens' wholehearted support to the apology to people who had been subjected to forced adoption. But it is not the first time parliaments have had to apologise. We also apologised to the stolen generations of Indigenous children who were taken away. We have also stood up and apologised to the forgotten Australians, the child migrants who came here and who were lied to, locked up, institutionalised and abused; we have apologised to them. And we have apologised for forced adoptions. And every single time we get up and say: 'Oh—if only we had known,' or 'It was the culture of the period,' or 'What a shocking thing was happening to these children, and it ought not to have happened.' And we have admitted that we created a scarred generation, in each of those cases, that has gone on for generations ever since. The difference is: not one of you who votes against this amendment, in 10 years, 15 years or 20 years, when there is a national apology to the children detained indefinitely in detention for the sole supposed crime of seeking a better life in our country because they are running away from persecution with their families—not one of you will be able to stand up and say: 'Oh, we didn't know,' or, 'It was the culture of the period,' or, 'It was the best way, we thought, of saving their lives, by locking them up in detention in places which the UNHCR has said are completely unsuitable.'

The UNHCR went to Manus Island, and their report speaks for itself. They say that it is totally inappropriate, the way that children are being detained there. But this parliament seeks to take no notice of that. This parliament seeks to perpetrate the lie—and it is a lie—that locking people up in indefinite detention is saving their lives because it is stopping them drowning. Well, that was a ridiculous proposition in the first place and it remains a ridiculous proposition.

Since you have taken these measures, the more cruel they get, the more people are arriving in our country. That is why we are here today—because you are excising the whole of the Australian mainland in order to take away people's human rights. That is what you are actually doing here today, because more and more people are arriving as you get more and more cruel. That says to me that your deterrence policy does not work, has not worked, will not work, is not working right now, and more and more and more people are risking their lives, not fewer and fewer and fewer. So you are actually deliberately choosing cruelty. You are deliberately choosing to punish children. And there is no justification for it at all—none. Look in the eyes of a child and say: 'What crime have you committed? The crime you have committed is: as a child, you have come here with your family to seek a better life.' And, as I said, if you were in the criminal justice system, no child would be detained unless they had committed a serious or violent crime.

If this parliament will not stand up for children, who will? Is it any wonder that every mental health expert in the country is saying that we are driving people into more and more desperate circumstances? These children are witnessing the mental torment of their parents. They are put in vulnerable circumstances. Not only are they in physically difficult circumstances on Manus Island, as has been shown to the country with television footage—it is hot; it is humid; it is a bad place to be keeping people in terms of the physical environment—but the mental cruelty, the torture, that is going on on an ongoing basis, every day, to those children is unacceptable. You all know about it. Many of you have your own children. You all think it is fine for somebody else's children to be punished, to be kept in indefinite detention, to suffer the mental scars for the rest of their lives—but it is okay, because your children will never be in that position.

Well, I am very glad to be standing here today on behalf of those children. I am very proud to be standing here with my Green colleagues—with Senator Sarah Hanson-Young who has just spoken so eloquently on behalf of those children and reported on the visit that she made to those children on Manus Island earlier this year. And it is not just the Greens. The UNHCR is saying it. But this parliament chooses to ignore the UNHCR.

The hypocrisy here is extreme when it comes to many members of the Labor government because, in 2006, when John Howard tried to excise the whole country, Labor was up in arms and the Greens spoke strongly against it then and it was not proceeded with. But now Labor in government has done what the former Prime Minister John Howard was not able to do. You have gone even further. Every day you come up with more and more cruel options. Every day those options cost the Australian people huge amounts of money, in a budgetary sense, with a massive blow-out for your cruel detention centres.

But it is not the financial cost which is the greatest cost to the nation. The greatest cost to the nation is the disappointment, the heartbreak, the mental damage and the scarring, as well as the physical damage, of a whole generation, the majority of whom are going to be found to be refugees who meet the criteria under the refugee convention. What are you going to say to them when, at some point, you decide that your 'no advantage' clause is completely unacceptable? What are you going to say about having locked up these children and deprived them of media access? You know it is wrong; otherwise, you would be allowing the media in there to take pictures and to talk to people. You know it is wrong. Not only is it 'Out of sight, out of mind'; it is about, 'Lock them up, throw away the key, pull down the curtains; let's not show people what we are doing.'

The media has been able to show some images, and this parliament has been shown some drawings. You know what is going on: you are choosing cruelty to children; you are choosing punishment for innocent children. I ask, when these amendments are put, that you think very carefully as you vote, and as your name is recorded against this vote, of what you are going to say to your own children when they ask you, 'Why did you do this?' And please don't lie to your own children and say, 'I did it to save their lives,' because your policy is not saving lives by stopping anyone getting on boats and coming here by sea—there has been a quadrupling of the numbers of people coming on boats. So if that is your concern then you should abolish this policy at once, because this policy has, in your eyes, driven a greater increase.

But the fact is, whether you like it or not, that if you send an army into Iraq on a lie, if you cause the problems that have occurred subsequent to the war in Iraq, you will have refugees leaving Iraq. If you go into Afghanistan, and you witness what is going on in Afghanistan, and you say that the Taliban in Afghanistan must be defeated, and that is why we have troops there, and people are running away from the Taliban—the people we agree are cruel; the people we agree are persecuting the Hazara—don't then say, 'Yes, run away, but don't come to us, because we will lock you up and keep you there indefinitely, because we don't want you in our country.'

It is the same in Sri Lanka. You all know that the Rajapakse regime in Sri Lanka is carrying out, as we speak, persecution and human rights abuses in Sri Lanka right now. You all know that, and yet you are pretending you do not. The reason we are getting more and more Sri Lankans is that they are being persecuted by the Rajapakse. You have just had the International Commission of Jurists bring out a report talking about the impeachment of the chief justice; you have had reports of what is going on in that country, with disappearances, where academics are disappearing in white vans—you have had all of those things. And yet you choose to pretend and listen to the Rajapakse saying, 'No, everything's fine in Sri Lanka; it's not a problem.' Well, it is a problem—and that is why people are leaving, and you know it. So you all know that the reason people are leaving their countries is that they are persecuted.

I went to the Pontville detention centre not long ago, when 129 children, unaccompanied minors aged between 14 and 18—young men—were brought to that detention centre. And they talked about the persecution that they had suffered and that they had run away from. You know that is happening; you know the Hazara are being persecuted; you know they are genuine refugees—but you choose base domestic politics of fear and mean-spiritedness above decency, humanity and compassion when it comes to the treatment of children. That is what you are doing. We are standing here in this parliament to make a plea for those children: bring them home from Manus Island. Bring them home now. Bring their families home. Bring them to Australia and have them assessed against their asylum-seeking claims. Don’t do what you are doing and excise the whole country and go into the same immoral space where the former Prime Minister, John Howard, tried to take Australia and where you are now taking this nation.

It is a stain on the national character. It is a shocking day for Australia—you have got together and suspended standing orders to drive this through so that ahead of an election you can brag out in the community that you have been crueller than John Howard, that you have been even more extreme in your punishment of children. Congratulations—I hope you all feel really good about that! When you vote for this, I would ask you to explain to your own children why they should not be on Manus Island and why other people's children should be locked up, detained indefinitely, treated cruelly and subjected to mental punishment and torture. For the rest of their lives they will have to deal with what this parliament thinks is an appropriate way to treat children. I urge you to support these amendments.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to transfer, individuals will undergo an assessment of their particular circumstances to confirm that transfer is reasonably practicable and to identify any health issues or particular vulnerabilities that might need to be taken into account. This will be done on a case by case basis to assess individual circumstances. But we do consider sufficient safeguards are in place to protect vulnerable persons and that exempting children and their families would simply encourage people-smugglers to put children on boats to Australia.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7383 be agreed to.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet BV293 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 47A, page 10 (after line 15), after section 198AI, insert:

198AJ Reports about unauthorised maritime arrivals

(1) The Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of a financial year, a report on the following:

  (a) arrangements made by regional processing countries during the financial year for unauthorised maritime arrivals who make claims for protection under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol, including arrangements for:

     (i) assessing those claims in those countries; and

     (ii) the accommodation, health care and education of those unauthorised maritime arrivals in those countries;

(b) the number of those claims assessed in those countries in the financial year;

  (c) the number of unauthorised maritime arrivals determined in those countries in the financial year to be covered by the definition of refugee in Article 1A of the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.

(2) However, a report under this section need deal with a particular regional processing country in accordance with subsection (1) only so far as information provided by the country makes it reasonably practicable for the report to do so.

(3) A report under this section must not include:

  (a) the name of a person who is or was an unauthorised maritime arrival; or

  (b) any information that may identify such a person; or

(c) the name of any other person connected in any way with any person covered by paragraph (a); or

  (d) any information that may identify that other person.

(2) Schedule 1, heading to Part 2, page 12 (line 1), after "Application", insert ", transitional".

(3) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 19), after item 61, insert:

61A Transitional provision—section 198AJ of the Migration Act

  Section 198AJ of the Migration Act applies to the period beginning on 13 August 2012 and ending on the first 30 June after commencement as if that period were a financial year.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report made a recommendation that the bill be amended to require the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to report annually to both houses of parliament with respect to matters relating to unauthorised maritime arrivals, including arrangements for assessing their claims, accommodation, health care and education. Additionally, the committee recommended the minister report on the number of asylum claims by unauthorised maritime arrivals that are assessed and determined to be refugees during each 12-month period. This amendment gives effect to those recommendations.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite the Greens' support for more information to be given to parliament in relation to how many cases the department is managing, there is a big get-out clause in this amendment which renders this entire amendment useless, and it is item (2). Despite the list of things that the minister is required to include in a report at the end of each financial year, under schedule (1), the amendment states:

(2) However, a report under this section need deal with a particular regional processing country in accordance with subsection (1) only so far as information provided by the country makes it reasonably practicable for the report to do so.

Time and time again, the government say they will do these things and then give themselves a get-out clause so that none of it has to happen. That is why, when we saw the allowance for Manus Island to be used for offshore processing, we did not have the information about what conditions people would be living in, how people would be treated or what services would be provided—because the act gives the minister total discretion as to what information he gives the parliament. For the minister to not give information, he just has to say he does not think it is reasonable. So this whole amendment is basically useless and it will not be getting the Greens' support.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet BV293 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.