Sam McMahon (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During Senate estimates, Senator Chandler asked how many people had been brought into Australia as a direct result of the medevac laws and who were considered to be people about whom we held security concerns. In response, Major General Furini stated:

There have been six people approved who have been transferred to Australia and two people who have been approved still awaiting transfer to Australia, who have adverse security or character holdings in departmental databases.

Further questioning by Senator Chandler revealed the gist of Major General Furini's comments: these particular people had previous criminal convictions and/or other character traits that were of such a significant degree of concern that the safety of Australians had been raised. In a follow-up question, Senator Chandler asked if any of the people transferred to Australia had refused medical treatment. Major General Furini responded:

Five people have refused treatment of some kind including the treatment for which they were referred, and a further 43 have refused an induction check, chest X-ray or pathology on arrival as part of the screening into the country.

All these people needed to come here so desperately for urgent medical treatment and then refused to have any once they got here. I'll refer to another exchange between Senator Chandler and Major General Furini that occurred during Senate estimates. When Senator Chandler queried whether or not these people could be returned to offshore processing once it had been determined there was no valid medical reason for them to be in Australia, Major General Furini pointed out that 'under the act there is no explicit return mechanism', clearly denoting the medevac laws to be a backdoor entry that circumvents Australia's sovereign security.

We are not the only government to be concerned by this revelation. Our close ally the United States of America has noted this loophole and expressed its concern. The USA is a nation that has intimate knowledge of what happens when unsuitable people are permitted to enter into a country. These medevac laws are precisely the sort of mechanism evil people will exploit. Comments by Major General Furini confirm that people have already successfully availed themselves of the shortcomings that Labor's medevac laws have enabled.

In both theory and practice the medevac laws are a failure. They're a failure in classic Labor fashion, denoted by a lack of forthrightness and integrity. That is, unless there was an intention to specifically weaken our strong border security. Was that the intention Labor had when they leveraged Dr Phelps' assistance to enact these laws? I hope not. I remember quite vividly scenes on the television of Labor members and Dr Phelps cheering, high-fiving, hugging and patting each other on the back on the floor of the other place when these laws passed. While Labor frolicked in their moment of jubilant triumph, the gravity of what they had achieved clearly eluded them. Indeed, I found it quite alarming that these people were celebrating a weakening of our nation's security—weakening our sovereign borders and security. But I wasn't the only person to be alarmed, because I can recall Labor's polling numbers in the days immediately following. With their numbers going down faster than a sinking ship, they swiftly abandoned Dr Phelps and hid in their offices until the massive public backlash passed them by. Perhaps not surprising, on 18 May the quiet Australians reminded Labor of their betrayal of our sovereign security. Also unsurprising is Labor's adherence to their own failed policy, an ill-considered policy that nobody outside their own thought bubble wanted.

Labor's medevac laws were introduced on the basis of a lie. There was no medical emergency on Manus or Nauru. This government has in fact invested quite heavily to ensure that excellent medical services and facilities are available at both of these locations, and those facilities and services remain there today. Processes for medical transfer already exist and have proven to be effective. Specifically, section 198B of the Migration Act allows for a transitory person from a country or place outside Australia to come to this country for a temporary purpose. One such example of this is medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment. Rather than acknowledging this, Labor prefers to peddle the misconception that these medical transfer provisions inserted by the miscellaneous measures act introduced doctors into the medical transfer process. They did not. What is inferred by Labor with this malarky is a clear desire to weaken our borders. I find it despicable that they have chosen to use the misery of others to advance their selfish, feel-good agenda. Let me restate for the record: more than 1,200 people perished at sea because of Labor policy—1,200 people, possibly more. The Department of Home Affairs has consistently relied on clinical advice from doctors to form decisions on whether to bring a person to Australia for medical reasons. This is a very well-considered process and it's proven to properly cater to the medical needs of people while maintaining the national security. The fact of the matter is the medevac laws were and remain superfluous to existing laws. Repealing Labor's medevac law does not remove the ability to medically transfer a transitory person to Australia.

Another concern I have is the fact that Labor's medevac law seeks to remove the government's ultimate discretion to decide who enters Australia's borders and undermines our strong border protection policies. The narrowing of powers that permit our minister to make determination in circumstances where traditional laws may not be suitable makes for a situation where illegal immigrants can lie about their circumstances to fit a particular criteria and circumvent our border security. Once again, this prompts the question: did Labor actually intend for this and seek to weaken our borders, or is it just another example of poorly conceived Labor policy? If the answer is the former, it is despicable. If the answer is the latter, it is to be expected of Labor.

This coalition government has always been clear on its position on border protection. It is the role of the Australian government to determine who is allowed to enter Australia and the terms and conditions imposed on that entry. It should not be a person, doctor or otherwise, who may or may not be acting with the best interests of our country in mind. Even more deplorable is a person acting in the interests of a personal agenda and without consideration to concerns beyond that. Only by allowing the appropriate government minister the capacity to make final determination on a person's suitability to enter Australia can we be assured of our national security.

Labor, on the other hand, are still unable to form any sort of coherent position on border protection. It amazes me that Labor's shadow minister has indicated they are against policies like temporary protection visas. That visa ended the deaths at sea and removed all children from detention. The shadow minister doesn't even appear to understand the Labor medevac law which she voted to support. Under Labor's medevac law, the minister can only prevent a transfer if the person is deemed a security threat as per the ASIO Act or has a substantial criminal record and has been sentenced to at least 12 months in jail. This is a significantly narrower rule set than the character test which all other people who come to Australia are assessed against. Once again, this usurps control of our borders from the minister responsible and permits agenda driven others to make some sort of a judgement call. That is not representative of the border security that Australians demand of this government.

It is important to have a single, consistent, transparent medical transfer process with all necessary protections for the Commonwealth and individuals set in place. This methodical approach ensures suitable medical facilities and services are available to those in need while ensuring our sovereign security is not compromised. The consistent nature of this approach is the fundamental basis on which it succeeds, rather than a plethora of advocate doctors acting with no regard for our nation's security.

Under Labor's medevac debacle, 179 people have been transferred to Australia under what can be best described as dubious and flimsy medical advice. Doctors, or single-species physicians, rely on a clinical exam as the cornerstone for making accurate and repeatable diagnoses. Part of this includes a thorough history, which can be taken from a great distance—and telehealth has advanced a great deal in recent times and will continue to advance. Along with the history is required a thorough physical exam. This involves actually touching the patient. How can doctors in Australia provide an accurate and thorough clinical exam when they have no capacity to touch or examine the patient?

We must never return to Labor's policies, which resulted in chaos at our border, deaths at sea and children in detention. Effectively, those Labor policies outsourced the role of border protection to the people smugglers, and it was a disaster. Starting from a position of zero children in detention, Labor's failed policies saw more than 8,000 illegal maritime arrival children placed into detention. To this day, Labor try to rewrite history and pretend that the coalition created that problem. Well, we all know this to be another Labor lie, an attempt to divert attention away from the calamity that they call policy.

The fact of the matter is that, after great expense and a massive amount of work, this government has ensured that all children have been removed from detention. There are no children remaining at centres at either Manus or Nauru. Labor's horrible policy caused more than 1,200 deaths at sea. We immediately saw that statistic changed to zero because this coalition government has a policy that removes the incentive that propels people smugglers. Additionally, of the 17 onshore detention centres and two regional processing centres open to handle Labor's flood of illegal immigrants, this coalition government has been able to close them all because of our policies that work, and we've been able to resettle those people. The only reason that detention centres exist on Manus and Nauru is Labor's botched open border policy. Under Operation Sovereign Borders, this coalition government has taken back control of our borders from the people smugglers. In fact, our policies put the people smugglers out of business. Let's not be mistaken about this: Labor's bungled policy was a fertile breeding ground of the people-smuggling industry, an abhorrent and cruel industry. It was the same Labor-led mismanagement of borders that resulted in a $16 billion border protection budget blowout— (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) Bill 2019. The first thing I say is that the title is so wrong. Nothing is going to be repaired if this bill gets through. What's going to happen is that more people are not going to be able to access the medical services that they need. It's so badly named, and it's something that the government do fairly often. We had the ensuring integrity bill last week. What a joke. They were not ensuring integrity. In fact, if they were, they would be showing some integrity on their side in regard to Mr Angus Taylor.

I want to start by congratulating my colleagues on this side who have already spoken. I think the speeches have been very thoughtful and very well thought out. I want to associate myself with them. What it shows is that on this side of the chamber we understand compassion, care, truthfulness and honesty. Those on the other side seem to think we can't protect our borders and be compassionate at the same time. In fact, the previous speaker, Senator McMahon, just referred to the fact that she sees this as weakening our sovereign borders. Because we want to act humanely? Because we want to give people the medical services that they require and that they need? What a joke! And it's really disappointing that we're spending the last sitting week of the year debating this misleadingly titled bill. We've got stagnant wages, which, of course, Minister Cormann has told us are part of the government's overall plan anyway—that came directly from his mouth—we have high rates of mortgage stress, we have abuses in the aged-care system and we're spending our time debating whether we should take away medical care away from sick people. I think that this government has possibly sunk to a new all-time low.

There are many reasons why people get into politics. My journey began because I wanted to see better pay and conditions for people working in early childhood education. I saw an area of need and I made the decision to work towards making improvements. Others have their own stories to tell—all different, but generally with a common theme. The common theme that runs throughout all of our first speeches is usually about hopes for a better future. I'd ask those on the other side of the chamber to honestly ask themselves: is this really why you entered politics? Was it really to deny health care to vulnerable, unwell people that need care? I don't believe it is, and I would call upon you all to examine your consciences. The Liberal and National party senators in this place are often saying that they're not bound to a particular position, that they're free to vote in accordance with their views. Well, today I call upon some of the government side of the chamber to put this often-spoken cliche into practice and to vote the right way, to vote with us.

Despite the title of this bill, medical transfers do not need to be repaired, because medevac is working as it should. It is the people who are unwell who need to be repaired, not the bill. Let's look at a couple of simple facts. After nine months of medevac's life-saving work—that is, making sure medical treatment is provided to those offshore—the government has not been able to demonstrate why this law must be repealed. We've heard the furphies—there are always the furphies; there are always the fear campaigns about how it's weakening border protection—but there has been no evidence of that in the past nine months. Before medevac, let's all remember, 12 people died in Australia's offshore detention centres. And one really important fact that we need to remember is that medevac works because it ensures doctors—not Minister Dutton—make the medical decisions about offshore patients in their care.

We've had a number of polls that have shown the majority of Australian people support medevac. In February 2019, at the time of its passage, a uComms poll found medevac was supported by 60 per cent of voters, including more than 25 per cent of coalition voters. In September 2019, after voters could assess the actual operation of medevac, support had risen, with 64 per cent of voters in favour, including 61 per cent of coalition voters. In November 2019, in my home state of Tasmania, a Tasmania-only uComms poll found a majority—62.8 per cent of Tasmanians—wanted medevac to stay, compared to just 27 per cent of people who wanted it abolished. In November 2019, so very recently, an Essential poll found that 62 per cent of voters were in favour of medevac, including—grab this, those on the other side!—59 per cent of coalition voters.

I'm not quite sure why those on the other side want to repeal this bill. I should imagine that it's because it's not theirs, because they're pretty poor winners. They're quite arrogant about winning the election. They haven't got a legislative timetable for next year at all. They don't seem to know what they're doing most of the time. They can't come in and give us answers to things. Earlier in the week we were discussing how the ACNC report has been waiting for a response for 18 years—no, months, although it could be 18 years by the time we finally get a response from them—and how they can't come in and give us proper answers. I think it was Senator Gallagher who said that they basically give us the finger. We know what she meant! That's what the arrogance on that side is like.

As I said, poll after poll has shown that a majority of Australian people support medevac. As of November, 200 people have been approved to be transferred, with 172 of the approvals made by Minister Dutton himself. And, as of November, 160 of these people have been transferred. What we really need to remember is that 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. If a person doesn't require medical treatment, the Independent Health Advice Panel, IHAP, denies the transfer. Up until 26 August 2019, IHAP had considered 28 applications; 10 were recommended for transfer and the minister's decision to refuse transfer was upheld in 18 cases. This furphy that they keep throwing up about the minister having no control and that we're going to be inundated by people of bad character, which I'll get to a bit later, is just that: it's a red herring and it's a furphy. It's trying to put fear into the Australian public. Those on that side should be so ashamed of themselves. All people transferred to Australia under medevac must be held in immigration detention unless the minister releases them into the community. These laws are working as they should, and so they shouldn't be repealed.

The bill before us today seeks to do the following things. Firstly, it seeks to repeal the medevac legislation—that is, the amendments made to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act, passed by the parliament in February 2019 and given royal assent on Friday 1 March 2019. Secondly, the bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to extend existing powers in relation to persons transferred to Australia under the medical transfers provisions. The government argues that the medevac amendments to the Migration Act require amending to clarify the powers of return following the completion of the treatment or purpose for which the person was transferred to Australia.

Refugee advocates and lawyers, along with Labor, have argued that the current powers of return do not need clarification and extend to persons transferred to Australia under the medevac legislation. A number of submitters to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into this bill argued that government does maintain the power to transfer detainees back to a regional processing country. With this legislation, Minister Dutton is not seeking to amend medevac; instead, he is seeking to revert to a flawed medical transfer system that was failing to provide adequate and timely medical care to refugees and asylum seekers in regional processing countries. If the government had legitimate proposals to improve the operation of medevac, then Minister Dutton should put forward amendments rather than simply seeking to repeal the legislation.

The provisions of the bill before us today are not necessary to maintain or improve the existing border protection system under which asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat and without valid entry documents are detained and processed offshore. Despite claims by those opposite, Minister Dutton currently has all the power he needs to refuse a transfer on security grounds, with no appeal. In fact, Minister Dutton has confirmed that the medevac laws are working, with his refusal to transfer a person of bad character. So he can do it, and he's done it.

It's clear that Minister Dutton and the government are not being entirely honest with the Australian people about the way the medevac laws work. The Minister for Home Affairs has made a multitude of outrageous, untruthful and desperate comments regarding medevac. In June, Minister Dutton said on Sky News:

… people of bad character can come, are able to come and in fact are required to come under Labor's laws that they passed. That's the reality.

He said that there are some people of bad character who have come to our country. But then we saw him stop someone of bad character coming to Australia under the laws, so that is clearly false.

In February, when speaking about medevac, the Prime Minister said:

… someone who is a paedophile, a rapist, who has committed murder, any of these other crimes, can just be moved on the say so of a couple of doctors on Skype.

Well, speak about hype, speak about misleading. Like Minister Dutton's claim, this one is similarly false, and I'm sure that the Prime Minister knows that it's false. Mr Dutton has the power to prevent such people entering on character grounds. In March the Home Affairs minister claimed medical transfers were going to displace Australians from hospitals. He 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.

This claim has been disputed by doctors and hospitals across Australia, and the minister has shown not one skerrick of evidence to prove his claim. The minister also argued that 'two doctors from Nimbin' could force the government to bring people from Manus or Nauru to Australia. None of these claims are true—none. Minister Dutton's claims that 1,000 people would flood Australia through medevac or that people could be transferred without their consent have also been proven to be false. When the medevac bill was passed, Labor argued that it was possible both to maintain rigorous border surveillance and security and fulfil Australia's obligation to provide full and appropriate medical care for people detained in Australian funded facilities, and we have been proven right.

Medevac is necessary and it is working, no matter what those on the other side want to say. Doctors are insisting that medevac is working and that the independent medical panel is working as it should. The IHAP include some of Australia's most highly qualified and experienced medical practitioners, including Commonwealth Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy; the Chief Medical Officer of Home Affairs, Dr Parbodh Gogna; AMA representative and AMA ACT President, Dr Antonio Di Dio; pediatric health expert Associate Professor Susan Moloney; and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrist representative, Associate Professor Neeraj Singh Gill.

At every step of the way, the government or government appointed doctors control who comes to Australia through medevac. In fact, before medevac became law, the courts were deciding medical transfer on health grounds only, not even taking into consideration security concerns. At a Senate inquiry into this bill—and I will probably run out of time to talk too much about it—the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Ed Santow, said:

The current law enables a medical transfer where two or more treating doctors believe it is necessary. The minister can refuse a transfer on medical, security or community safety grounds. [Independent Health Advice Panel (IHAP)] can review the minister's decision but only on the ground of medical necessity. IHAP cannot challenge the minister's decision if it relates to security or community safety. In other words, as the government retains primary control over medical transfer decisions, the commission considers that the bill is not necessary to achieve the stated aim of ensuring the integrity and efficacy of the regional processing framework and returning decision-making power to government.

The other convenient truth left out of this debate is that, prior to the medevac legislation coming into force, this and previous ministers have transferred well over 1,000 people to Australia for medical treatment. Labor hopes the Australian people can see through the mistruths, the spin and the fear campaign that Minister Dutton is spreading.

Labor supports the current medevac laws because they allow people who are sick to get the medical care they need and ensure the government, or government appointed doctors, control who comes to Australia. These laws should not be repealed by the government. People who are sick should receive appropriate medical attention. It's that simple. It's up to this place to make laws that are fair and effective, not cruel and arbitrary. The government cannot be trusted to deal honestly with this parliament or with the Australian people on this issue, as on others. The government are once again using fear to save their own egos. They will try every tactic to divide. Labor wants Australia to be a fair and humane country, and we believe people should be treated decently. That's why fighting to save medevac is so important.

Before I finish, I will point out that one of the things I've heard in a couple of speeches from the other side is that there is more than enough health care available. Fifteen medical whistleblowers who have worked as medical staff on Nauru or in Papua New Guinea wrote a letter that was published in the Hobart Mercury, my home town, and in The Canberra Times on 28 November 2019. It said:

As former medical and healthcare staff who worked in Australia's offshore detention centres, we support the call from Australia's leading medical authorities to #SaveMedevac.

Every person should have access to necessary and appropriate medical care and, as health professionals and clinicians, we have a duty to uphold this basic human right.

The Medevac Legislation has improved access to appropriate healthcare for refugees and asylum seekers being held offshore. It allows medical professionals to make decisions about health care for seriously ill individuals and ensure that they receive the medical treatment that they need in a clinically appropriate timeframe.

We saw ourselves, in our work offshore, that delays and failure to transfer ill asylum seekers resulted in preventable suffering.

That was from the 15 medical whistleblowers who worked as medical staff on Nauru or Papua New Guinea. They are people who were right there, in the thick of it, and they are saying that they think medevac is appropriate and that we should save medevac. They are not someone in here who probably hasn't got a medical degree. I did pick up on Senator McMahon's little joke about single-species people—Senator McMahon is a veterinarian.

All jokes aside, this is a really serious issue. This is about care and compassion. If your families were over there, I'm pretty sure you would be fighting tooth and nail to make sure they got appropriate medical, mental health—whatever the case may be—services when they needed it. There is nothing we should be doing today except rejecting this legislation. It's an absolute travesty. That people could be so inhumane absolutely rocks me. We can do better than that in Australia. (Time expired)

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Machiavellian named Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) Bill 2019. We should actually call it the 'Denying people medical treatment bill', the 'Die somewhere else bill' or the 'Australia has lost the last shreds of its humanity bill'. I have said previously when we have discussed this that it boggles my mind that there are people sitting in this parliament who want to repeal a law that allows sick and injured people to receive the medical attention that they need. I've asked how full of hatred must your heart be to say someone should be denied the medical treatment that they desperately need, simply because they are a refugee or an asylum seeker? Well, it appears we have the answer. Shame on the government for bringing on this bill and shame on those who will vote for it to remove medical care from people.

Australian governments, both Labor and Liberal, put people seeking asylum into the prison camps on Manus and Nauru against their will. What we should be doing is closing down those island prisons, where refugees have been trapped in a state of terror and are fearful and vulnerable. Close the camps, bring them here and let them stay.

At the very least, Australia has an obligation to provide them with adequate medical care. The medevac bill is already watertight. It includes a whole range of conditions before someone can be brought to Australia for medical assistance. The medical transfer provisions require that, before a person can be transferred, two treating doctors for the person must give an opinion that a patient requires medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment, that they are not receiving such treatment in the relevant regional processing country and that it is necessary for them to be transferred to Australia for such assessment or treatment. All of these conditions have to be met. The minister can refuse the transfer if they reasonably believe it is not necessary to remove the person from the regional processing country for appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment, if they suspect that the transfer would be prejudicial to security or if the person has a substantial criminal record.

At a public hearing of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on 26 August 2019, the department provided data on the operation of medical transfer provisions. That data said that, since March 2019, 167 valid notifications have been received, 112 people have been transferred to Australia, 18 applications have been refused, 19 applications have been approved with transfer pending, and a number of submissions are still being drafted. They also showed figures on cases that had been referred to the Independent Health Advice Panel following the minister's refusal to approve transfer on medical or psychiatric grounds. It was reported that the IHAP considered 28 applications, of which 10 were recommended for transfer, and the minister's decision to refuse transfer was upheld in 18 cases. In relation to those 18 cases, nine applicants subsequently reapplied and eight of those have been approved. The system is working. It is clear that this legislation is working on every level, and to provide health care for those people who need it.

But it is a thorn in the side of Minister Dutton, who is stopping at nothing to take full control of as many parts of government as possible, aided and abetted by a weak Prime Minister. The government claims that the premedevac medical transfer policy was adequate. What an absolute sick farce. Every step of the way the government has fought attempts to get asylum seekers the medical care they need. Dr Tony Bartone, the Australian Medical Association president, described the government's premedevac process as 'torturous' and 'involving long periods of delay', without any appropriate oversight. The Australian Human Rights Commission previously said that under the previous provisions transfer decisions 'often did not occur in a timely manner' or in line with medical advice and had to be escalated to the Federal Court, which determined that processes for assessing individuals for medical transfer from Nauru or PNG were neither adequate nor sufficiently quick. Imagine having to go through a federal court for the right to receive medical care. What a diabolical system.

We know that, for some in here, some lives matter a lot less than others or perhaps not at all. If we revert back to the old ways, people will suffer immensely. The National Justice Project talked of a case where a young man waited two years before these medevac laws came in. It was only after they were passed that he was sent to Australia for treatment, although he will never regain the full use of his hand, because of the delay. Do we really trust Minister Dutton having the power of life or death? This is a man who said pregnant rape victims on Nauru were trying it on by seeking abortions in Australia. This is a man who tried to smear the medical profession and those doctors who are working to provide health care to refugees and asylum seekers. He's a man who was happy to spend $180 million of taxpayers money to reopen the Christmas Island detention centre in a political stunt before the election. As I understand it, the only people in that centre are Priya, Nadesalingam and their children, Kopika and Tharunicaa, whom the Australian government is cruelly imprisoning there.

Numerous stakeholders have said what a terrible idea this bill is. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists representative, Dr Kim Jenkins, has said:

The RANZCP is also concerned that the new bill allows for the removal of a person before medical treatment may be completed or may be adequate. We feel that decisions such as this should always be medical decisions, not ministerial ones.

The Australian Association of Social Workers has said that repealing the medevac law is tantamount to state-sanctioned torture and is in direct breach of our human rights obligations. Who exactly wants the medevac bill to be repealed? No-one. No-one but the power-hungry Minister Dutton, whose appetite for cruelty knows no bounds.

At the end of the day, this debate on the medevac bill is symptomatic of the sickness this country has in the way it treats refugees and asylum seekers. It is a sickness that has destroyed countless lives of the world's most vulnerable people. Like all systems that have lost a moral compass, it intensifies in its cruelty. It is the kind of warped reality that has members of the Liberal-National government—the government that is locking up children and people fleeing the brutal regimes in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Iran—thinking they are the good ones.

I want to commend my Greens colleague Senator Nick McKim for his excellent work in being an advocate for humanity in a parliament largely so devoid of it. Alex Reilly, director of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit at the Adelaide Law School, writing in The Conversation, put it very clearly:

These people are under Australia's care. It is Australia that pays the governments of Nauru and PNG to house offshore detention centres to create the disincentive for others to travel by boat to Australia. It is Australia that pays the security companies to keep them detained. And so it is Australia that is responsible for the dramatic decline in their mental and physical health.

It is the narrowest of concessions to offer emergency medical treatment in Australia to people we have so mistreated.

Our country is crying out for some humanity in these dark times. Retaining laws which provide some semblance of medical assistance for people we wrongly lock up surely is the least we can do.

I want to spend the next few minutes by reading onto the public record the Australian Greens dissenting statement to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report on the migration amendment, and some of the other statements that different people have made. I also want to acknowledge and thank Labor and Centre Alliance for their dissenting statements to this report. The Greens dissenting statement covered several significant areas, including the right of people to seek asylum in Australia, Australia's duty of care to asylum seekers, the failed system of medical transfers pre-medevac and the need to depoliticise medical care. It concludes:

The medevac legislation has saved lives, and delivered people health care they had previously been deliberately deprived.

The government's refusal to transfer sick people from offshore detention to Australia under previous arrangements caused death, mental anguish and untold suffering among refugees and people seeking asylum.

The medevac repeal Bill shows that the government puts political imperatives ahead of people's medical needs.

They have made the crass calculation that some lives are worth sacrificing for broader political outcomes, despite their legal and moral obligations.

This calculation should be intolerable in a liberal democracy like Australia.

Decisions about medical care should be made by medical experts, not politicians or bureaucrats.

I think there are also some who made submissions to the inquiry whose voices need to be acknowledged here. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees states:

UNHCR considers that these measures enhance transparency and predictability in the provision of healthcare in critical situations. In particular, it is appropriate that Australian law contain safeguards for the protection of the refugees and asylum-seekers subject to the offshore transfer arrangements, reflecting the position that cooperative bilateral and/or multilateral arrangements should enhance the capacity of the States concerned to provide protection to refugees, and should not represent an attempt of any State to divest itself of responsibility or limit jurisdiction and responsibility under international law. Measures of the kind established by the medical provisions are all the more necessary in light of UNHCR's observations of the shortfalls in protection standards in respect of both Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The resulting conditions have led to the deterioration of the health of refugees and asylum-seekers throughout the life of the offshore transfer policy, and this deterioration can be expected to continue until long-term solutions are achieved. UNHCR recommends that the Bill not be passed.

These comments should not be taken lightly. It is worth noting that the UNHCR provided these comments as the agency entrusted by the United Nations General Assembly with responsibility for providing international protection to refugees and other and other persons within its mandate, and for assisting governments in seeking permanent solutions to the problem of refugees.

As set out in its statute, the UNHCR fulfils its international protection mandate by promoting the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, supervising their application and proposing amendments there too. The UNHCR's supervisory responsibility under its statute is reiterated in article 35 of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees, according to which state parties undertake to 'cooperate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees … in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of the convention'. The same commitment is included in article 2 of the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. Australia is a party to the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, also known as the refugee convention. We are signatories of that convention, which this government often forgets. They go on to say:

The physical transfer of asylum seekers from Australia to Papua New Guinea and Nauru does not extinguish Australia's legal responsibility for their protection. Australia is jointly responsible (with Nauru and Papua New Guinea, respectively) for ensuring that the treatment of all asylum-seekers and refugees transferred to those countries is compatible with each state's respective obligations under the Refugee Convention and other applicable human rights instruments. While international law does not prohibit bilateral transfer arrangements involving asylum-seekers where relevant standards under international law are met, the primary responsibility for providing protection rests with the State from which asylum is sought.

They then conclude:

The Bill would explicitly authorise the forcible return (to Nauru or Papua New Guinea, and to countries of origin) of refugees and asylum-seekers who have been transferred to Australia under the medical provisions, irrespective of whether the purpose of their transfer to Australia has been achieved.

Australia clearly has international legal obligations in respect of these refugees and asylum seekers. UNHCR continues to urge that asylum seekers and refugees presently in Australia should not be returned to Nauru or Papua New Guinea.

The legislative framework for Australia's offshore transfer policy contains few safeguards for the protection of the people to whom it applies. The Bill would abolish two of the most significant of these safeguards. The health of the refugees and asylum-seekers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea will continue to deteriorate in the absence of a long-term solution to their situation of forced displacement. Until durable solutions are found outside those countries, both regular monitoring of health services and timely access to necessary medical care are safeguards that enhance confidence in efforts to address the health needs of those who remain. Accordingly, UNHCR recommends that the Bill not be passed.

The Australian Medical Association is the peak professional organisation representing medical practitioners in Australia. This body surely would have the most impartial view of what is required for medical care. In their submission, they state:

The AMA advises the Committee that we affirm our position that those who are in the care of the Australian government and who are seeking, or who have been granted, asylum within Australia have the right to receive appropriate medical care without discrimination, regardless of citizenship, visa status, or ability to pay. Like all people seeking health care, asylum seekers and refugees in Australia, or under the protection of the Australian Government, should be treated with compassion, respect, and dignity.

The AMA views refugees, asylum seekers and individuals in detention facilities or detailed in offshore in Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) to be under the protection of the Australian Government.

…   …   …

1. In addition to suffering the same health problems as the general population, asylum seekers and refugees are at particular risk from a range of conditions including psychological disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and the physical effects of persecution and torture. They may also suffer the effects of poor dental hygiene, poor nutrition and diet, and infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, which may be more common in their countries of origin.

2. To determine their specific health needs, all asylum seekers and refugees need to undergo comprehensive and timely health assessments in a culturally appropriate manner by suitably trained medical practitioners as part of a primary health care team. This assessment should be used to establish ongoing care with appropriate and descriptive records of asylum seekers' health being recorded on a regular basis to enable multidisciplinary teams and healthcare providers to give effective ongoing care.

3. All asylum seekers and refugees should have access to the same level of health care as all Australian citizens.

4. All asylum seekers and refugees, independent of their citizenship or visa status, should have universal access to basic health care.

5. Immigration policies that restrict the basic human rights of disadvantaged groups of people, such as asylum seekers and refugees, can have adverse impacts on their health and wellbeing.

They conclude:

The AMA supports a body of clinical experts, independent of government, with the power to investigate and advise on the health and welfare of asylum seekers and refugees.

We maintain that health and medical services in immigration detention centres should only be provided by organisations, in facilities accredited to Australian standards, that have the full capacity to provide an appropriate range of health and medical care to all detainees as needed, and according to best practice standards in health care delivery (as would apply in the general community).

Adherence to these standards should be guaranteed through a process of ongoing monitoring of detainees' health by an independent statutory body of clinical experts with powers to acquire information and investigate conditions in centres as it determines.

It is essential that the assessment and provision of medical care to asylum seekers in detention must be undertaken by medical practitioners.

In the absence of any other alternative independent medical panel that is demonstrably superior, the AMA affirms its support for the IHAP, in assessing the needs of asylum seekers and refugees for transfers for medical and psychiatric assessment and treatment.

So many of these submissions are against the repeal of medevac. So many groups from so many walks of life from across the country—from here in Canberra to the Illawarra, northern Victoria and East Gippsland; from Bega, Yass, Brisbane, Darwin, Melbourne, Sydney and the Blue Mountains.

I conclude by repeating again: our country is crying out for some humanity in these dark times. Retaining laws which provide some semblance of medical assistance for people we wrongly lock up is surely the least we can do.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before question time begins: I think the country is crying out for something, and it's common sense. Senator Faruqi neglected to mention the Greens policy of open borders, of global governance. They simply do not want to take responsibility for being, with the Labor Party, the architects of the most dysfunctional period of border protection in the history of this country. If there is one credit to the coalition government, it is that they have taken control of our borders. They have reclaimed the destiny of our nation by determining who can come to this country and the manner in which they will come—until it was so brutally, callously and illogically undermined on the last day of parliament last year. I was pleased to have played my part in delaying the passage of that bill somewhat.

At the time I remember that we warned the likes of former senator Derryn Hinch, the Greens and the Labor Party that people of poor character, people accused of rape, people accused of sexual assault, people who had self-harmed and people who were a danger to their own communities would be coming here under the terms of this bill. They wilfully ignored it. They ignored it and turned a blind eye to it because they're always looking for a loophole about how to undermine Australia's border protection. I cannot wait for the next 19 minutes or so of this contribution after question time, and I hope you'll all be here to listen to it.

Debate interrupted.