|
senate vote 2013-05-16#4
Edited by
Natasha Burrows
on
2013-09-13 21:42:32
|
Title
Bills — Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012; in Committee- Bills - Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee
Description
<p class="speaker">Matt Thistlethwaite</p><p>I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved in this bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>We will deal with the first of the amendments by the Australian Greens, which is schedule 1 after items 18 and 60. It is an amendment request on sheet 73501 and 73502.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>The first amendment that the Australian Greens are moving this morning in relation to this bill is to allow for the Australian Human Rights Commission to visit, inspect and report on the conditions and what is going on in offshore detention centres that are run by Australia and paid by for Australian taxpayers. We know, at the moment, they are on Manus Island and Nauru. This is a very important amendment. We know that the Human Rights Commission has these rights in Australian mainland detention centres. They are able to go to detention centres, inspect what is going on, talk to people about their cases and talk to people about the conditions that they are experiencing in those places.</p><p>The importance of this amendment is that it allows for the same rights and obligations that the Human Rights Commissioner has already for Australian based detention centres and, indeed, on Christmas Island to be similar to those for detention centres that we have further offshore on Manus Island and Nauru. It would allow the Human Rights Commissioner to go in, inspect, look at the conditions of what these camps are like and deal with any complaints or issues that come out of that. It is really important because, as we know, these centres are costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars. The legal rights of the refugees who are locked up there indefinitely have been taken away. There is currently no transparency at all on Manus Island and Nauru.</p><p>I previously wrote to the minister about this. I raised this with the department in Senate estimates. It is clear that, unless we change the Migration Act, which is what this amendment does, there is no ability for the Australian Human Rights Commission—Australia's peak human rights body—to inspect what is going on in these places. When you look at the reports that have come out and when you hear the stories of people who have said how they were treated in these god-awful places, then you know something is going on and we need a bit more transparency.</p><p>For the Australian Human Rights Commission to be able to go in and inspect is a really important thing for us and this chamber to do. We think that it is okay for it to happen in Australian based centres and it is all okay for it to happen on Christmas Island; let us make sure it is there for the refugees who are sent offshore. Let us not forget that these people are there indefinitely, as the government has this open-ended 'no advantage' rule. The children, their families, and the young men and women who are detained in these places could be there for five, 10 or 15—who knows how many—years. To allow for some proper transparency would go a long way to making sure that Australian taxpayers and members of our community who are concerned about issues of human rights and how we treat our fellow human beings can have some assurance that there is somebody watching what is going on.</p><p>It is an important amendment and I would ask for the government and the opposition to support it. If they are not going to support it, I would ask for the minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in this chamber today to explain why the government does not want to see this type of basic transparency available to the Australian Human Rights Commission in these god-awful places.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Hanson-Young, before you formally move your amendments, because there are two of them you have to seek leave to move them together.</p><p>by leave—I move the two amendments that relate to the Human Rights Commissioner having access to detention centres together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 28), after item 18, insert:</p><p class="italic">18A After subsection 198AB(6)</p><p class="italic">  Add:</p><p class="italic">  (6A) If the Minister designates a country or has previously designated a country under subsection (1), the Minister must:</p><p class="italic">  (a) ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide the Australian Human Rights Commissioner with access to any place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act is detained, housed or otherwise held;</p><p class="italic">  (b) ensure that the country provides assurances that the Commissioner's access to such places will be equivalent to the access that the Commissioner would have if the person was detained, housed or otherwise held in a place located in Australia.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), after item 60, insert:</p><p class="italic">60A Application provision—subsection 198AB(6A)</p><p class="italic">  Subsection 198AB(6A) of the Migration Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a designation that is made before or after commencement.</p> <p class="speaker">Matt Thistlethwaite</p><p>The government rejects both amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young. The government believes that requiring another country to provide assurances that it will provide access to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner is something that this government cannot guarantee; therefore, it is not appropriate to put it in this legislation.</p><p>The department has received advice from the Solicitor-General on the extent to which the Australian Human Rights Commission may inquire into complaints about alleged human rights breaches in regional processing centres. The advice was sort after the president of the Human Rights Commission wrote to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, inquiring into a complaint that the AHRC had received from persons transferred to Nauru under the regional processing provisions of the Migration Act. The department accepts that the president of the commission can inquire into such complaints. As to the full implications of the advice, the department is further considering this.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I must say that I am extremely disappointed that the government wishes to continue this secrecy in relation to how vulnerable refugees are being treated and the conditions they are being kept in on Manus Island and Nauru. The Australian people have a right to know what is going on there, who is really in charge and, above all else, what our $10 billion being spent in the government's offshore processing regime is actually going to. It is hard to understand why the government would not want to ensure in Australian law through the Migration Act that the Human Rights Commission have access to these camps unless they have something to hide. That is the reality. What else are the Australian people meant to think?</p><p>This is disappointing to many members of the community after seeing how badly people can be treated and the conditions they can be kept in in these places. It is not just under this Pacific solution mark 2 regime; we know that the conditions were horrendous when the camps were being run by the former John Howard government. One of the reasons why the Australian detention system was opened to the Australian Human Rights Commission and, indeed, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was the scandal of Vivian Solon and Cornelia Rau. They are the very real examples of what happens to people when governments do not allow these places to have proper scrutiny and transparency. That is the reality. We have seen it. It has been proven. It has ruined people's lives.</p><p>Now, despite all of the evidence in front of us, this government are prepared to make the same mistakes all over again. What are the Australian people meant to think? There is no other explanation than that the government are wanting to hide what is really going on. They do not want proper scrutiny. It is bad enough that they put gag clauses in their contracts with service providers, but not letting Australia's peak human rights body inspect what is a fundamental part of this government's immigration system is dishonest, irresponsible and, frankly, shameful. There is no other explanation than that the government are wishing to hide what is really going on.</p> <p class="speaker">Matt Thistlethwaite</p><p>The government is implementing appropriate transparency and monitoring arrangements in line with the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers. As the minister has said on previous occasions, the process of designating regional processing countries, which can be disallowed by the parliament, provided the opportunity for parliament to scrutinise the arrangements that we were putting in place. It included the requirement to place before both houses of parliament a range of documents relating to regional processing arrangements, such as why it is in the national interest, advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and arrangements in relation to the treatment of persons.</p><p>There are now a range of other mechanisms in place to support the objectives of transparency. For example, access to regional processing centres has been granted to the UNHCR and other human rights organisations and observers and, indeed, Australian politicians, and there is regular public reporting in relation to regional processing arrangements, including through mechanisms such as Senate estimates hearings. Additionally, Australia is working closely with regional processing countries to establish advisory arrangements as specified in the memoranda of understanding. An interim joint advisory committee has been established for Nauru, and we continue to work closely with PNG to develop similar arrangements. The government sees the oversight mechanisms as important in ensuring transparency of operations and policy.</p><p>I note that part of the committee's recommendations included reporting on health, education and accommodation arrangements in centres. In addition to a range of oversight arrangements in place, there are also a number of established quality assurance and reporting mechanisms for health, education and accommodation. These include treating transferees with dignity, respect and integrity, building an environment that supports security and safety, improving health and wellbeing outcomes for transferees, interacting with transferees in a culturally sensitive way, reflecting human rights principles through the provision of services and facilities, and ensuring the best interests of the child are taken into account.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Wow! I realise the minister representing the immigration minister today is not the minister who was in the Senate on the night that we debated the legislation that would allow for refugees to be dumped on Manus Island or Nauru, but there is nothing binding in law to ensure that that entire list of things that the minister has just read out have to happen. In fact, there is nothing in law to ensure that they have to happen. The government and the opposition made it law that the minister does not have to prove any of this in the first instance. This chamber was not given the ability nor the right to scrutinise the conditions on Manus Island or Nauru deliberately by the government, because they knew it would not pass the test that even the Houston panel suggested was needed. The Houston report outlines a list of things that need to happen—how people have to be treated, the conditions that they will be kept in, the appropriateness of services, the appropriateness of accommodation. The Houston report said that no-one could be sent to these offshore places without these things in place. The point is precisely that none of those things is happening and there is no-one to ensure that they start happening, because there is no independent scrutiny or checks. It is precisely why we need the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to have access.</p><p>I come back again to the fact that the government are more concerned about hiding what is going on in these places than making sure that they are following their own policies or the recommendations of the Houston report. The fact is that those things are in the report and they have not been done. You are more interested in trying to cover it up. That is the truth of it. They are not in law and they are not binding. This government would prefer that it stayed out of the public eye—that Australian taxpayers did not know that they are spending $10 billion on decrepit, inhumane, wet, insufficient camps of cruelty. That is the reality of this. Chair, I ask that the amendments be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Boyce</p><p>The question is that the Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7350 be agreed to.</p> - <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>. This amendment would require that the Australian Human Rights Commissioner be able to visit, inspect and report on the conditions in offshore processing country. This access would have to be equivalent to access the Human Rights Commissioner would have in Australia.</p>
- <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p>
- <p><b> Background of the Bill</b></p>
- <p>This Bill was introduced in response to the report by the <a href="http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/">Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers</a>. This Bill addresses Recommendation 14 from this report, which advised that the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> be amended so that persons that arrive by arrive by boat either in Australia or in offshore locations (such as Christmas Island) have the same lawful status. This means that asylum seekers arriving in Australia or in an offshore location are treated the same way under law.</p>
- <p>This Bill means that asylum seekers arriving by boat in either Australia or an offshore location are unable to apply for protection visas. Instead, these people will be sent to regional processing countries (currently Papua New Guinea and Nauru) for the processing of their refugee claims. The rationale behind this legislation is the need to discourage asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat because of the dangers involved. A new term for such persons, 'unauthorised maritime arrival', has been developed to cover asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by sea and are unable to apply for a protection visa.</p>
- More information can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4920%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0">here </a>. The text of the proposed amendment and debate surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fa344915b-9c0f-488b-bba5-64b64aa396c0%2F0021;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fa344915b-9c0f-488b-bba5-64b64aa396c0%2F0000%22"> here</a>. </p>
-
|