Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which has been prepared and brought to this place by my colleague Senator Dean Smith. At the outset, I would like to say that Senator Smith has put an incredible amount of hard work into the preparation of this bill which we're debating here this morning. It's a bill which addresses the pressing and concerning issue of organ harvesting. There is evidence that occurrences of organ harvesting have been increasing throughout the world. I know we are living in the 21st century, but it is somewhat staggering that this heinous crime is only becoming more prevalent. This is a deeply, deeply disturbing fact, and Australia should be doing all that we can to combat this incredibly dark criminal activity. I think that Senator Smith's bill, in the very good Liberal tradition, is a very practical and simple change to law and to policy that can enable just a small but important amount of improvement in how we deal with this issue here in Australia.

Before addressing the content of the bill, I do want to go to the issue of organ harvesting and explain to the chamber what this is. Like I say, it is incredible that this is still occurring in the 21st century, and I think it is pertinent to remind colleagues of just how horrible this practice is. The practices of organ harvesting and trafficking are some of the most appalling and disturbing human rights violations that exist. It involves the unethical removal, transfer or commercialisation of human organs for transplant, all done in the shadows and well outside of legal frameworks. Frankly, the thought of it is enough to send shivers down anybody's spine. Organs are collected through intimidation and through coercive methods, with unwilling donors pressured into giving up organs or, in other cases, having those organs forcibly removed. Quite frankly, it's like something out of a dystopian novel, but, sadly, this is real life. This is happening around the world.

It is frankly inconceivable that one human being is capable of committing such a disturbing act against another person, let alone that a group of people would be involved in undertaking this sort of heinous behaviour. It boils down to a tragic case where, effectively, one human life is prized more than another, and I think that that is something that all of us in this chamber, regardless of our political persuasion or our political colours, can agree is absolutely horrible and that we should be endeavouring to stamp out at all costs.

Reliable figures are hard to track down on the illegal practice of organ harvesting. I think Senator Smith's bill goes some of the way to uncovering exactly what those numbers could potentially be, and I will get to the content of the bill in a moment. But, in 2008, the World Health Organization estimated that five per cent of worldwide organ transplants are undertaken illegally. That's pretty significant. I think we've probably all known someone who has willingly undertaken or benefited from an organ transplant, but to think that five per cent of those are done so under coercion or without the consent of the parties involved is absolutely horrible. The act of organ harvesting is an egregious attack on the foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the commitment contained within saying:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Again, we would hope that this is not something that we would have to talk about in the 21st century, but, as I said, in this century, in 2008, the World Health Organization specified that illegal organ harvesting is an issue.

To the contents of Senator Smith's Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, this bill, as I said at the outset, puts in place just a small change, but it's a very important and meaningful change that can help us in Australia understand just how widespread the incidence of organ transplant overseas is and then potentially ascertain from those numbers, depending on where transplants have taken place, the potential that organs have been harvested illegally. The bill aims to increase Australia's ability to identify and combat illegal organ harvesting and to uphold and enhance fundamental human rights both here and around the world.

Currently, there are no reporting requirements for persons arriving in Australia relating to organ transplants that they might've undertaken overseas. I'm sure any Australian that has travelled overseas knows that, on the way back into Australia by plane or by boat, you are provided with an arrivals card on which you have to declare certain things about what you've done while you've been overseas—whether that's going on a farm or going to certain countries with certain diseases that need to be declared—or, indeed, what you are bringing back into the country in terms of significant amounts of cash, tobacco and these sorts of things. This bill will add a requirement to Australia's migration framework whereby a person coming back into Australia must disclose on that arrivals card, which you fill in on the plane or on the boat, if that individual has received an organ transplant outside of Australia within the last five years. As I said, this information will be disclosed by individuals entering Australia, via the incoming passenger card, which is the system the Australian government already uses to record an individual's entry into Australia, and those other criteria—the boxes that you have to tick or cross on a card.

If a person has received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years, that person will be required to disclose information to verify the legality of that procedure, including the name of the medical facility where that transplant occurred and the town or city and the country of the medical facility. Under this bill, the data collected through the incoming passenger card, relevant to organ transplants, will then be made available to the responsible minister, who will be required to table an annual report to the parliament detailing the instances where an individual entering Australia answered that they have received an organ transplant outside of Australia within the last five years, as well as the location of where that procedure took place.

Importantly, the bill will amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide that a person does not pass the character test if the responsible minister reasonably suspects that an individual has been or is involved in an offence involving trafficking human organs, so that's in addition to the change to the arrivals card system. The bill will put a specific requirement into the character test, which we've all talked about here in this place many times, to ensure that somebody fails that character test if the minister reasonably suspects that that person has been involved in the trafficking of human organs.

Senator Smith's bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee at the end of last year. I'm the deputy chair of that committee, and my colleague Senator Ciccone, on the other side of the chamber, is the chair of that committee. The bill was referred to the committee on 9 November and we undertook a public hearing on 22 March this year. There were a number of submissions to this inquiry that were overwhelmingly in support of the bill's passage, and I think that is a testament to the hard work of Senator Smith in drafting this bill. We heard from witnesses including Be Slavery Free; the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, where we know there are significant concerns about organ harvesting in relation to the Uighur population and the Falun Gong; Anti-Slavery Australia; as well as the Department of Home Affairs and Australian Border Force. The committee delivered its report on this bill on 14 May this year, and coalition senators provided a dissenting report to that committee report, which, perhaps not surprisingly, recommended that this bill pass the Senate.

It's important to note that the bill that we're debating here this morning builds upon frameworks to combat organ trafficking that have been established by previous governments of both political persuasions. In 2005 the Australian government criminalised organ trafficking under the Criminal Code Act 1995—that was under the Howard coalition government—and in 2013 the Commonwealth Criminal Code was strengthened by the introduction of four standalone organ-trafficking offences. Under Australia's organ-trafficking offences, the movement of people to, from or within Australia for the unlawful removal of their organs is criminalised. It is important to note that an organ does not have to be removed for an organ-trafficking offence to have been committed. The Commonwealth Criminal Code also stipulates that organ-transplant tourism constitutes an organ-trafficking offence if a person organised or facilitated the transport, or the proposed transport, of a potential donor to, from or within Australia. This bill adds to that framework that is already in place, and amendments within the bill complement the efforts that have been taken at the international level to combat the increasing prevalence of organ trafficking.

We know that vulnerable people in developing nations are most at risk of the practice of illegal organ harvesting. Although we recognise that there are limitations surrounding the extent to which we here in Australia can prevent human rights violations abroad, we have a responsibility to do everything that we can with the powers that are available to us to uphold and protect universal human rights. It is incumbent on Australia to take practical action and implement sensible initiatives which support global efforts to combat organ trafficking, and I think this bill that Senator Smith has brought before the Senate includes a very easy, practical action that we here in Australia can take. It is not a huge, costly, significant change. It is merely asking Australians, when they return to this country, and incoming passengers, when they come into Australia, to declare on their arrivals card whether they have had an organ transplant overseas. This is so we can start to shine a light on just how prevalent the practice of receiving an overseas organ transplant is and start digging into that data to ascertain whether or not those practices are being undertaken without the consent of individuals involved.

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague Senator Smith for everything that he has done to prepare the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and other Measures) Bill 2023 and bring it before the Senate, because it does important work to address the disturbing practice of organ harvesting. These are some of the most disturbing human rights violations that exist, and evidence suggests that occurrences of this have been increasing around the world, which is a terrifying thought. This bill makes a very small, practical change that I think can make a really big difference to help Australia understand just how widespread this horrible practice is. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also make a contribution on Senator Dean Smith's Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I know he is very passionate about this particular issue, and on human rights issues he has for many years stood up very proudly in defending the rights of individuals, and I know this is an issue that is very close to his heart. I just want to acknowledge that, as a fellow senator in this place.

On behalf of the Australian government, I just want to make a short statement about the proposed bill before us today. The government has no tolerance for human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices, including the abhorrent crime of organ trafficking. This bill is very well intended; however, there were a range of issues and challenges raised as we went through the Senate inquiry Senator Chandler just referenced that would render this bill ineffectual. I want to run through why the government believes that it's not in a position to support this bill.

In relation to the proposal to amend the incoming passenger card for data collection, owing to the covert nature of organ trafficking, recipients and organisers are highly likely to obfuscate and to fail to declare accurate information via self-declaration. During the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's inquiry, the submission from Anti-Slavery Australia observed:

… it is unlikely that persons entering Australia will honestly answer the disclosure question given the potential for them to be investigated for a crime. This will have an impact on the accuracy of the data captured.

Other stakeholders also noted that personal medical information may be best coordinated and collected by medical professionals in a clinical setting, thus ensuring accuracy of the data and the health privacy considerations. On the proposed new cancellation power, the Migration Act already provides the minister and departmental delegates with a range of cancellation powers in circumstances where there is a concern about the visa holder's character. The Department of Home Affairs also stated during the inquiry that a person who has either facilitated organ trafficking or participated in organ tourism as a recipient of a trafficked organ will be captured by the existing broad cancellation powers in the Migration Act.

I want to re-emphasise some of the recommendations made by government senators as part of the inquiry earlier this year. The first recommendation from government senators was:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commit to delivering one or more public awareness campaigns:

The second recommendation that government senators proposed as part of the committee process was:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government redoubles its efforts to implement the recommendations agreed to in its 2021 response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's report Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism.

I think it's worth referencing that because I know this is an issue that has been debated in this place and had extensive inquiry in a range of committees before in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and on the joint committee. I implore colleagues in this place to also look at the recommendations that came out of the joint standing committee's inquiry back in 2021.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which is the product of a great deal of effort by my dear friend Senator Dean Smith, and I congratulate him on his endeavours in this regard.

At the outset, I would like to address some of the comments which were just made by Senator Ciccone in response to this bill. I was pleased to hear in his opening remarks that, of course, the government has no tolerance for organ harvesting or trafficking of this nature, and that it is acknowledged by the government that the bill put forward by Senator Smith is well intended. I thank Senator Ciccone and the government for that recognition.

Where I do differ, though, is with respect to the concerns that Senator Ciccone raises—in good faith, no doubt—in relation to the bill which has been put forward. I think those concerns can be answered. The first concern is that people will simply not declare information on their incoming passenger cards. It could well be that people don't declare appropriately on their incoming passenger cards. But, to the extent that people, when they travel to Australia, do discharge their obligation under law—with penalties if they don't comply—the government will have the benefit of the data which is thereby collected.

The second point Senator Ciccone raised, with respect to the privacy of medical information, is again a valid one, but there are measures in the bill to protect the privacy of information and make sure it's anonymised. The third point he raised was in relation to the powers that the minister has, as the legislation stands, to deny visas on character grounds. What I say to Senator Ciccone is that the bill would add another point of pressure in relation to those who are involved in this vile practice. It puts an onus on an individual to declare whether or not they've actually been provided with an organ—whether or not they've engaged in or benefited from a medical procedure—and to disclose that on their incoming passenger card. If they don't do that an added point of pressure can be used to analyse whether or not their visa or entry to Australia should be prevented on character grounds. I think that's a good thing. So I think there are clear rebuttal points to the matters which have been raised by Senator Ciccone.

As with all things, this is a balance. The question we should ask ourselves as senators is: does this take us forward in terms of dealing with this vile practice of organ harvesting and trafficking or does it take us backwards? I'm absolutely convinced that this bill takes us forwards. There's no reason why we couldn't include in the bill a statutory review after a few years to assess whether or not there should be any modifications or changes to the bill. I'm absolutely sure—on the basis of the quick nodding of the head that I'm seeing from my dear friend Senator Smith—that Senator Smith would be open to such an amendment to make sure that the procedures were refined based on experience. I think all of those matters could be addressed.

I also note Senator Ciccone's reference to further recommendations made by government members on the committee looking at the bill. I agree with the recommendation around greater public education on this matter and the dangers. I agree with the recommendation with respect to increasing voluntary donations of organs, and I agree in terms of a lot of the other recommendations which were raised by government senators on that joint standing committee. But I think we can do better, Senator Ciccone, and I think we need to do better. I think this bill is part of the answer.

I firmly believe that Australia has a moral obligation—not a political obligation but a moral obligation—to raise matters of human rights abuses all over the world. I think that every time we come to this place and consider matters such as this, we need to consider the impact of the matters which we discuss in this place upon people all over the world. While some of the topics which are discussed may cause discomfort to some, I think the moral obligation to raise these issues trumps those concerns. It is in that spirit that I'm going to read the press release from the 12 UN special rapporteurs in relation to organ-harvesting allegations in China. This was their press release, released on 14 June 2021:

UN human rights experts said today they were extremely alarmed by reports of alleged 'organ harvesting' targeting minorities, including Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians, in detention in China.

The experts said they have received credible information that detainees from ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations, such as ultrasound and x-rays, without their informed consent; while other prisoners are not required to undergo such examinations. The results of the examinations are reportedly registered in a database of living organ sources that facilitates organ allocation.

"Forced organ harvesting in China appears to be targeting specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities held in detention, often without being explained the reasons for arrest or given arrest warrants, at different locations," they said. "We are deeply concerned by reports of discriminatory treatment of the prisoners or detainees based on their ethnicity and religion or belief.

"According to the allegations received, the most common organs received from the prisoners are reportedly hearts, kidneys, livers, corneas and, less commonly, parts of livers. This form of trafficking with a medical nature allegedly involves health sector professionals, including surgeons, anaesthetists and other medical specialists."

UN human rights experts have previously raised the issue with the Chinese government in 2006 and 2007. Unfortunately, the Government responses lacked data such as waiting times for organ allocation, or information on the sources of organs. In this context, the lack of available data and information-sharing systems are obstacles to the successful identification and protection of victims of trafficking and effective investigation and prosecution of traffickers.

Another UN Human Rights mechanism has also highlighted concerns about the practice of removing organs from prisoners of a certain religious minority.

"Despite the gradual development of a voluntary organ donation system, information continues to emerge regarding serious human rights violations in the procurement of organs for transplants in China," the UN experts said.

Concern remains at the lack of independent oversight as to whether the consent to donation and organ allocation is effectively given by prisoners or detainees. It is also reported that families of deceased detainees and prisoners are prevented from claiming their bodies, they said.

The experts call on China to promptly respond to the allegations of 'organ harvesting' and to allow independent monitoring by international human rights mechanisms.

The Special Procedures mandate holders have been in contact with China to strengthen dialogue. They would like to continue this constructive engagement with the Government of China.

And that is the end of the release put out by UN human rights experts with regard to the allegations in relation to organ harvesting in China.

I do note that in evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in September 2022 the Australian government referenced this report. The government has referenced this report to demonstrate its awareness and concern for global organ harvesting and trafficking activities, noting that reports of organ harvesting were deeply disturbing. That has been recognised by the Australian government, and it is fit and proper that it should do so. It should recognise how disturbing these reports and allegations are. They are deeply disturbing. It's for that reason, as much as any other reason, that I rise to speak to this bill today in support of my good friend and colleague Senator Dean Smith. And again, I commend Senator Smith for his work on this important matter.

Australia needs to do its bit. We need to continue to apply pressure in relation to this matter, to do our best to see such practices stamped out wherever they occur in the world. Some of these conversations are uncomfortable, but they must be had. We have a moral obligation to raise these issues. We can't stay silent on these issues. We have a moral obligation to raise them, and I do so in good faith here today.

In relation to the amendments provided for in this bill, it adds these requirements to Australia's migration framework. Persons entering Australia must disclose if they've received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years. It provides that the individual will be required to disclose the name of the medical facility where that transplant occurred, and the town and/or city and country of the facility. The information is to be disclosed by persons entering Australia via the incoming passenger card. The resulting data will then be made available to the responsible minister, who will be required to table an annual report in the parliament detailing the number of times persons entering Australia have answered that they received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years, and the town and/or city and country where the organ transplant took place. This is important. The parliament needs to be kept informed with respect to developments in relation to this matter. We need to have the data to make our own assessment as to whether or not the steps we're taking as a country are having a positive impact in addressing this issue, so annual reporting is incredibly important.

It also calls upon the parliament to agree to an amendment to the Migration Act 1958 to provide that a person does not pass the character test if the responsible minister reasonably suspects that the person has been or is involved in an offence involving trafficking in human organs. There must be consequences. There must be consequences for people involved in this vile practice. There must be consequences.

Australia has adopted a number of steps to address this issue, and, as I said at the outset, I see this as an additional step forward in addressing this issue. In 2005, the Australian government criminalised organ trafficking under the Criminal Code. In 2013, the Commonwealth government strengthened those provisions, and now this is the next step. This has got to be the next step in relation to the process.

Our overseas partners and allies are also taking action in relation to this matter, so we shouldn't be considering this in isolation; we should be considering this bill in the context of the steps being taken by our international friends and allies. And we shouldn't be out of step with the steps they're taking to positively address this issue. In this regard, I note that the United Kingdom amended the Human Tissue Act in the UK to deal with this issue, and also there have been steps in Canada to amend the Criminal Code in Canada in relation to this matter. So we need to be in step with our international partners.

Finally, from the bottom of my heart I wish to thank the advocates on this issue. I have met many of them in my office, in meetings. They are inspiring in terms of the work and commitment they have brought to bear in relation to this important issue, seeking to uphold the human rights of people all over the world, wherever they live.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This type of bill is the very best of this place in action. The Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill is for a noble cause and is being brought on by a person of passion with all the right reasons. It hasn't been brought on by a government department or a scandal; it has been brought on by the passion of one person, Senator Dean Smith, who is sitting in front of me. This is an issue that is dear to his heart, and in this Senate there will not be a single person—I say this with confidence—that supports the illegal trade of organs around the world.

What this bill comes down to is that you can't improve what you can't measure. The greatest criticism against this bill is that they don't think there would be 100 per cent compliance in filling out the card. In one media article they said they didn't think the majority of people would fill it out. I think some people will fill it out honestly. Some people will easily say what has happened and where it has happened. That would build a model for the future; it would start to build an information bank of what we can look at, going forward. It would start to build a lookalike profile on the people that may be going overseas for legal and, unfortunately, sometimes unknowingly, illegal organ trades.

What we have here is a situation where I can leave the country and I can have an organ donation somewhere, when there's a match somewhere else. I can go in with the best of intentions; I can think it's being done the right way—or I don't know what's going on—but I'm buying my way into that transplant. I might not know that I've done something wrong. Filling out this form can help, if I think I'm doing the right thing.

Also, if I'm doing the wrong thing and I don't fill this out, that lookalike map can help tell authorities what's going on. For the first time, it also makes a crime involved. If I go overseas, get an organ donation and do it the wrong way and then come back to Australia, I'm committing no crime in Australia. I may be committing a crime if I go to a South-East Asian country or to another country where this happens and get it done; I may be committing a crime in that country. But once I'm in Australia I'm safe. No-one can touch me. There are no ramifications.

We've all seen, in other committees—and Senator Steele-John is here; we went through the dental committee not long ago—the disparity in the health of those who have and those who have not. And we're seeing this internationally. Where do these organs come from? They come from the dispossessed, from the nonpowerful, from the sometimes detained. They come from the very weakest socioeconomic and least educated people in our communities. In the lead-up to this, I read about—of all things!—a senator from an African country who flew a person to the United Kingdom to harvest their organs in the United Kingdom for a transplant. That is an abuse of power, and it happens.

So say I'm that person, and I come back to Australia, having had my organ transplant that I've paid my way into. Someone has suffered to give me that—maybe without their consent; maybe because they're in prison; maybe because they are so economically hard-up that they have had to do this or because of other coercion pressures; who knows what's been done. I come back to Australia, and I'm fine; I am untouchable. This is a very small thing, but at least it's something we can have a go at. It's not a big thing, but remember: when they went after Al Capone, they went after him for tax evasion. Starting the process of calling these people out and getting them found out in doing a wrong thing is important.

And what is the cost to the government to start this journey? Almost nothing. We are printing these arrival cards all the time. The information is processed all the time. So there is very little cost to provide a massive chance of improvement for the lives of many around the world who are so impoverished that they have no power.

This won't change the world overnight, but it is a step, and we need to start taking the steps to stop this trade—to stop those who are incarcerated being profiled and tested and then having their organs harvested to create an Alibaba of organs—a database of organs that you can buy on the net, from which you can see if you match up—so that the rich and powerful can take the lives of others. We heard the previous speaker, Senator Scarr, read from a UN press release that No. 1 on the list of organs harvested is the heart. Even if people were forced to give up a kidney or another part—even maybe part of their liver—they could still live, though that is a horrible thing to have happen. But no-one survives having their heart taken out.

So to say, 'Oh, we're worried that it won't capture all of the data, so we can't move forward,' is to make a weak argument. Capturing some of the data, changing the act so that we have a character test and can cancel visas, building up a knowledge base and starting to track where this trade happens, how it happens and who goes to this trade, are important steps.

Let's say this chamber is unified in wanting to stop this trade but there are some other calls for information campaigns, advertising campaigns, to replace this bill. No-one in the world goes to get an illegal organ transplant because they aren't desperate. The people who do so have money, are desperate and want to jump the queue. Some of them might see this as the way. They're not going to be dissuaded from doing this by an advertising campaign. If anything, it would raise awareness that this trade exists, and that is a worse outcome than what we're talking about here. The bill we are talking about, Senator Smith's bill, is taking very pragmatic steps, like those, as we heard, in the rest of the world to build a profile of what happens here. The claims that it does nothing are just wrong, because some people will fill this out and we will know the sites they are going to.

When you read the testimony of the people this has happened to, of the horrors of that; when you read about the pressure that people who have sold their organs felt, going into it; when you hear of trafficking where people are used as a travel container to move their organs to another country to get harvested; when you hear that people in prison are killed or maimed for others—it is the worst type of oppression that occurs. So to take a step down the path to make the trade harder, to take a step down the path to eliminate it, is never a bad thing.

When we hear that five per cent of organ transplants in the world are known to be illegal, that's 'known'; there may be far more. We also hear about the practices where some countries are using medical professionals—trained medical professionals, who are meant to have a standard of ethics—to do this. Some do not use them. That same ABC article that I spoke about as to the senator from Africa moving someone to London to have their organs harvested—I think it was a kidney in that case—talks about how, in another country, a mechanic was applying the anaesthetics for organ harvesting and the person removing the organs was not professionally trained. So what is the chance of success, even if you go and have these organs, that you won't have rejection or that the drugs will be there to support it? Are these people being killed for nothing?

Getting back to the key parts of this bill, a disclosure that you have or have not had an organ transplant in the past five years in an overseas country—that's all it is, on a piece of paper. Why? So we can track the bad guys, so we can start to build a pattern of what happens, so we can start to eliminate the trade. The cost to the Australian taxpayer is minimal—new cards and a bit of data processing. The potential benefit to those that have the least power in this world is magnificent. I sit here and I understand that this is a matter of semantics—'Will it work? Won't it work?' As Senator Scarr raised and Senator Smith nodded to, it can be reviewed. If you want it to be reviewed in two years, bring that on as an amendment. Have a look at what we can do. We want this thing to work. If you have any other ideas, bring it into this bill to add to its efficiency, to add to its efficacy. We can't sit by and do nothing.

And, if we are going for the perfect solution all of the time, we are wasting our time in this chamber on everything. Everything has its rough edges. Senator Smith, my good friend, might not like me to point out any rough edges on this one—it may be a polished diamond—but this is something. It comes from a good place, from a pure place in his heart, to help those who are the weakest in the world—not just in Australia; the weakest in the world. Australia is a rich nation, and I feel sure at least one person in our country will have benefited from an illegal organ at some time in their life. If we can stop this happening anywhere, if we can de-incentivise, if we can demonetise, if we can find the areas where this is happening and make it just that bit harder, just that bit less profitable, just that bit more catchable, if we save a life, it matters all the difference in the world to that one person. If we are saying no to that today because we are worried about a little bit of printing ink, then who are we?

We, in this world, have to look at what's important to us, and the sanctity of human life is No. 1—the sanctity of dignity of the people all around the world. We sit there on many issues and we look at Australia's effects on the world in so many ways, on our industry, on our unemployment, on our pollution—that comes up. But this is fundamental life and death, to take another person's organs, to take their heart, to take their sight with a cornea or lens removal—and we say it's not worth some printing ink.

So I urge everyone here to go home—I don't think we'll get to a vote today—and to think about their positions. If they have these concerns, think about what they could do to make the bill a little bit more to their liking and to bring in those changes so that we can discuss them here, so that we can take that next step. Somewhere in the world, there is a person today who is either being pressured, forced or paid to trade in an organ. That is the reality of what we're doing here today. That is happening today in the world. Somewhere today, someone is being transported to have a part of their body removed for the benefit of someone more powerful, someone richer, someone better connected. If we don't take a step stopping that, we need to look at ourselves. So I commend this bill. I thank the senator for bringing it forward, and I urge everyone to support it.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to begin my comments by acknowledging the work of my colleague Senator Dean Smith in this space and to commend him and the many others in this building who have campaigned against organ trafficking. In particular, it is the leadership of Senator Smith in this space that deserves to be commended, and he deserves to be commended for bringing the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 to the floor of the Senate today. I also acknowledge those in the gallery, who are witnessing and observing the debate in this chamber concerning this particular bill.

The coalition, being the party of the individual, particularly are opposed to organ trafficking, as we believe it violates so strongly the rights and dignity of the individual. It is a crime against humanity when states, individuals or corporations engage in the commercial trafficking of organs of their fellow humans. What I'd like to do, to make sure that we actually understand what we are talking about here today, is to make reference to Compassion, not commerce: an inquiry into human organ trafficking and organ transplant tourism, which is a report from the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. This report was quite brutal but definitive in its definition of what is meant by organ trafficking. Sometimes words are used without us fully understanding the context or the full meaning, and I think 'organ trafficking' is a set of words that can sometimes be passed by policymakers without a full understanding of what it means. This report said:

'Organ trafficking' encompasses two related types of activity: trafficking in human organs; and the trafficking of persons for the purpose of organ removal. 'Trafficking in human organs' refers to the unethical or illegal removal, transference or commercialisation of human organs, outside of the governance system of the relevant jurisdiction. Where trafficking in human organs is a crime—

it should be—

the object of that crime is the organ. The Australian Government considers 'trafficking in human organs' to mean:

…the illicit trafficking in human organs, tissues or cells obtained from living or deceased donors and transacted outside the legal national system for organ transplantation.

It is important to note that this does not stop organ recipients or donors who voluntarily travel internationally outside of commercial arrangements. For example, it is not uncommon for family members to travel internationally when there is a matching of tissues. It is not uncommon in Australia for people to volunteer their organs for removal. Indeed, in many jurisdictions in Australia it is not uncommon, when someone passes away, for the family of that person or that person prior to their passing to have made arrangements for the removal and use of their organs to save another human's life. That's not the trafficking of organs; that is what good people do to help humanity, and that is to be commended. To those who are listening and are not registered organ donors: I'd encourage you to do so. It's something that I am, and it is something that I'm sure many people in this chamber, regardless of our politics and our many differences, share—that is, a willingness to help our fellow humans.

But organ trafficking is not about that; organ trafficking is a crime against the sanctity of the individual. The bill that we are currently discussing in the chamber, brought forward by my colleague Senator Smith, derives its features from recommendations made in that report I mentioned previously. This bill adds a requirement to Australia's migration framework that persons entering Australia must disclose if they have received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years, and, if that is the case, the individual will be required to disclose the name of the medical facility where the transplant occurred, as well as the town or city and country of that facility. This obviously would not stop voluntary arrangements that may have been entered into by family members or where people, through their willingness to help their fellow humans, may have given up an organ and then a person who is in ill health has taken that particular organ. This is about clamping down on those who have been beneficiaries of organ trafficking.

So this information is to be disclosed by persons entering Australia via the incoming passenger card, then this data will be made available to the responsible minister, who will be required to table an annual report in parliament detailing the number of times persons entering Australia answered that they had received an organ transplant outside Australia, as well as the town or city and country where the organ transplant took place.

Before I move on to other elements of the bill, I would make reference to a media release from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This is from June 2021—14 June 2021, to be precise. The first paragraph of this press release says:

UN human rights experts said today they were extremely alarmed by reports of alleged 'organ harvesting' targeting minorities, including Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians, in detention in China.

That first paragraph should send a chill up the spine of everybody in this chamber and indeed should send a chill up the spine of every Australian. The United Nations, back in 2021, reported that it has, effectively, evidence of trafficking of human organs. This press release goes on to say:

… they have received credible information that detainees from ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations such as ultrasound and x-rays, without their informed consent; while other prisoners are not required to undergo such examinations. The results of the examinations are reportedly registered in a database of living organ sources that facilitates organ allocation.

That is outrageous. That should make everybody in this chamber very angry. It should make everybody listening, whether in this chamber, in the galleries of this chamber or through the closed circuit televisions that operate through this building, angry that there is a country in this world that effectively commercialises the forced trafficking of organs, and that is why this bill is so timely.

This bill will amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide that a person will not pass the character test if the responsible minister reasonably suspects that the person has been involved in an offence involving trafficking in human organs. This is a very simple and, indeed, eloquent response to the issue of human trafficking, and it is something that I would ask those in Canberra, those in the government, to support. Indeed, my colleague Senator Smith would be very happy if the government took the elements of this bill, made them government policy and brought them forward as government legislation. He would be very happy, because what we want to see here is an outcome that not only fixes and brings a remedy to the issue of the trafficking of human organs but also continues to shine a light on this appalling issue. Australia is a liberal democracy. We're a proud liberal democracy, and we need to make sure, as we have done over many years, we stand up to those countries and stand up for those issues where the dignity and the rights of the human are impacted upon.

Australia has done more than its fair share. I think we probably almost lead the world in some aspects of this, but what this bill does is make sure that we will do more. And we should do more. No human, whether they be Falun Gong, Uighur, Tibetan, Christian, Muslim or Chinese, who is in communist China and who may be in detention should be put into a subhuman system where they are treated as a commercial product to be harvested as someone would pull a carrot from the ground or pick an apple from a tree. We are talking about humans here.

For this bill I commend Senator Smith, and, in looking at the time—I know Senator Smith wishes to speak in this debate that he has initiated—I commend this bill to the Senate and ask everybody in this chamber to please support it.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The many freedoms and rights that we enjoy in Australia bring a responsibility to lead and promote fair, open and democratic societies not just in our country but, indeed, around the world, because we are measured not just by the human rights and dignity that we afford to our own citizens but also by the human rights and the dignity of people beyond Australia's shores.

The erosion of human rights and the personal dignity of people is a precursor to authoritarian rule. It is also, unfortunately, a tool of authoritarian regimes. This bill is particularly important because, at this point in time, Australia is absent of a remedy, is silent, in supporting global efforts to better disrupt and, ideally, eliminate from the globe that most heinous of crimes which is illegal organ harvesting and trafficking.

This bill seeks to advance Australia's mission to uphold and enhance human rights both here and around the world and is crafted in such a way that it will be a practical and least intrusive tool to support global efforts in combating organ trafficking. The features of the bill derive primarily from inquiry and recommendations made in a report that has been before the parliament for many, many years. That report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, called Compassion, not commerce: an inquiry into human organ trafficking and organ transplant tourism, was tabled in the parliament in 2018.

I thank Senator Ciccone and my coalition colleagues Senators McGrath, Scarr, Chandler and Cadell for their contributions, but I also understand the frustration that advocates have felt year upon year. Indeed, one of the first things I did when I came to this parliament was attend a meeting with other senators and members interested in this issue and interested in better supporting Australia's efforts to combat this most awful of crimes. Only now, 12 years later, is the parliament debating a bill. I understand the frustration of other parliamentarians, and I understand the frustration of advocates.

This is a good bill. It is a necessary bill. I'm pleased to say that, in the spirit of collaboration and collegiality, which is a hallmark of this particular Senate chamber, a number of refinements, as I would call them, have been suggested. I think the government's comment about the necessity of the character test is a valid one. It's actually incorporated in the committee's report. Senator Scarr's contribution, suggesting a statutory review mechanism, is a good one. When we finally come to vote on this bill, I suspect those refinements will be in the final bill, and it's my ambition that this bill be voted on in this Senate before Christmas.

Australians would be surprised to learn that this parliament has yet to legislate in a way that other like-minded nations are already legislating. Advocates and others in the community will know that the Canadian parliament, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom and parliamentarians around the world are already taking steps. I think it is important to note that for a long time people were disbelieving that this was actually happening in our world. I'm pleased to say, even though it's unfortunate, that I think there is less disbelief now and more realisation that this is happening on a scale that people would be horrified to know and to comprehend. This is a necessary bill. It is actually very timely, and the government's criticisms, which I would characterise as light and faint hearted, have all been dealt with in the committee report.

The time to act is now. I think it is worth reminding people that the United Nations themselves have publicly stated that this is real and that persecution happens to many, not just a few. It's important to also add that, at a private meeting at the beginning of this parliament, when I asked officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade what their attitude was to the United Nations special rapporteur's report on this crime, they said that there was credible evidence. So why, two years after that exchange between me and officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, are we still absent of any real effort in our country to disrupt, to report and to collect information so that Australia's response can be stronger and better?

This is a necessary bill. It's time has absolutely come. I'm confident that many senators in this place—perhaps not all—will add their support to this bill. I will bring forward an amendment, proposed by Senator Scarr, to have a statutory review mechanism. I suspect other senators might ponder the necessity of the character test cancellation arrangements because they already exist in our migration laws.

To the many who have joined us in the Senate chamber today, to the many thousands across Australia who believe this is an important human rights issue and to the many, many people throughout the world who are suffering or who are at risk of suffering: you can have great confidence that this parliament will soon take an initiative that everyone can be proud of. As I stated, it is not good enough to just talk about human rights; it is important to act in order to uphold and sustain human rights. In the complexity of our global environment at the moment and all the danger that it presents, this is the right time and this is the right bill.

The government's criticisms, I think, are important to note. One particular criticism it makes is about the honesty of the Australian citizen returning to Australia. That point is neatly captured and rebutted in the Senate committee report authored by coalition senators. I also believe that, as our country moves towards the digitisation of the incoming passenger arrival card, the collection of data like this, which will be held confidentially, becomes easier, not harder. I'm someone who believes in the inherent honesty of Australian citizens, who willingly participate to protect our country, protect other people, by filling that passenger card out honestly.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and you will be in continuation when debate resumes.